UK government might scrap Sizewell nuclear plan
A new nuclear power plant in Suffolk is under review and could be delayed or even axed, as the government tries to cut spending, the BBC has been told. Sizewell C was expected to provide up to 7% of the UK’s total
electricity needs, but critics have argued it will be expensive and take years to build. A new high speed rail line in the north of England could also be axed.
“We are reviewing every major project – including Sizewell C,” a government official told the BBC. The government is due to unveil its tax and spending plans under new Prime Minister Rishi Sunak at the Autumn
Statement on 17 November. Negotiations on raising funds for Sizewell C are understood to be ongoing. It is not expected to begin generating electricity until the 2030s. A Treasury spokesperson said delivering
infrastructure projects was “a priority”.
There was confusion on Thursday as executives at the French energy contractor EDF – already building a new plant at Hinkley in Somerset – and the Business and Energy department seemed blindsided by a potential change in tack on existing government policy, which promises to press ahead with both large and smaller scale nuclear projects. “As far we know, it’s still on”, said one nuclear industry executive close to the matter. New large-scale nuclear plants have been a key part of a government strategy to help reduce the UK’s reliance on fossil fuels. Boris Johnson whilst PM declared it was his intention to build eight new reactors in the next eight years.
A shift away from that position would represent a major change in UK energy policy that some will
lament and some will celebrate. But it would do little to convince investors in the UK – domestic and foreign – that they are dealing with a government with stable policy priorities.
BBC 4th Nov 2022
Attacks on Ukrainian nuclear-power plants challenge treaties, and raise other safety concerns
Researchers and policymakers must ask new questions. Are other locations at risk, given the projected global growth in nuclear energy?
As the crisis at the Zaporizhzhia plant worsens, international agreements need to be extended to ensure nuclear safety during war.
Nature Anthony Burke, 3 Nov 22,
This year marked the first time in which civilian nuclear-power facilities have come under attack during war. As Russian armed forces pushed into Ukraine in February, troops took control of the Chernobyl nuclear exclusion zone, where hundreds of people still manage the aftermath of the catastrophic 1986 meltdown. Thousands of vehicles stirred up radioactive dust as they moved towards Kyiv. Russian soldiers worked and slept in the deadly ‘red zone’ near the abandoned city of Pripyat.
In March, Russian armoured vehicles and tanks took control of the Zaporizhzhia power station — Europe’s largest nuclear power plant. Conditions rapidly deteriorated. Today, all six reactors are shut down. In August, Russia used artillery located at the plant to shell the city of Nikopol, provoking counterattacks from Ukrainian forces. As witnessed by an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team sent to report on the situation in September, shelling has disconnected main power lines, knocked out radiation-detection sensors and damaged water pipes, walkways, the fire station and the building housing fresh nuclear fuel and solid radioactive waste1. More power losses in October left backup diesel generators as the only electricity supply to keep fuel rods cool. External power was restored, only to be disrupted again by a landmine explosion. One wrong move, and another Chernobyl could be possible.
The international community must urgently address the inadequacy of nuclear-safety architecture, policy and preparedness.
The powers of the IAEA are limited. It has responded in a rapid and principled way to the crisis in Ukraine, after being unable to prevent the Fukushima disaster following the Tohoku earthquake in Japan in 2011. But the international Convention on Nuclear Safety — one of several treaties that the IAEA serves to reinforce — was never designed to grapple with the nightmare of nuclear-power stations coming under military attack. As a ‘soft-law’ instrument, it allows states to create their own regulatory mechanisms with weak international oversight.
Researchers and policymakers must ask new questions. Are other locations at risk, given the projected global growth in nuclear energy? How do Russia’s actions in Ukraine challenge the world’s commitment to the ‘peaceful uses’ of nuclear energy and to international mechanisms for countering nuclear-weapons proliferation? Can current treaties be adapted, or is a more robust legal architecture and rapid-response capability required? And how can political obstacles be overcome?
Unsafe conditions
Conditions at Zaporizhzhia are “not sustainable and could lead to increased human error with implications on nuclear safety”, the IAEA warned in September1. Ukrainian plant staff are working under duress after Rosatom, the Russian energy company, took control and a Russian holding company was established. Energoatom, Ukraine’s state nuclear-energy company, has reported that the plant’s deputy director and head of human resources have been detained and that others are being pressured to sign contracts with Rosatom. The plant’s director, Igor Murashov, was earlier arrested by Russian forces, interrogated and expelled from Russian-held territory.
The integrity of reactor cores and storage pools is the main concern. If fuel rods are exposed, a core meltdown and uncontrolled release of radiation is likely, as happened at Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 19792. “And so, one mine or one missile or whatever”, warned Ukraine’s energy minister Herman Halushchenko, “could stop the working of the generators and then you have one hour and probably 30 minutes, not more than 2 hours, before the reaction starts.”
Russian control of the plant also delayed the IAEA from conducting its required annual inspection, which is crucial for ensuring safety and verifying the secure disposal of nuclear fuel and preventing its diversion for military uses1.
Nuclear-power plants elsewhere in Ukraine are also under threat. Shelling has been reported at the Khmelnytskyy plant in Netishyn, and cruise missiles have overflown the South Ukraine plant in Yuzhnoukrainsk. And Ukraine’s energy infrastructure across the country is coming under attack, including substations linked to nuclear plants.………………………………….
Japanese government seeks to allow nuclear reactors to operate for 80 years
Japanese authorities on Wednesday proposed that the safety of nuclear
plants aged 30 years or older be checked at least once a decade to obtain
approval for continued operation.
The proposal from the Nuclear Regulation
Authority came as the government seeks to scrap a rule that limits the
operating life of reactors to a maximum of 60 years. The regulator said the
proposed mandatory safety checks should also be applied to nuclear reactors
in use for more than 60 years.
It means that if the safety is confirmed,
Japan may be able to authorize nuclear plants to run for 80 years, as in
the United States. “The (proposed) regulations will be much stricter than
the current system,” Shinsuke Yamanaka, chairman of the nuclear watchdog,
said at a press conference. “It is our responsibility to regulate
properly.”
Japan Today 3rd Nov 2022
Six Reasons Why Americans Should Care That US Troops Are In Ukraine
Andrew Korybko, Nov 2 2022, https://korybko.substack.com/p/six-reasons-why-americans-should
This is a big deal for more than just the obvious reason that it could push that declining unipolar hegemon closer to a hot war with Russia by miscalculation.
An unnamed senior military official revealed during a press briefing on Monday that US boots are on the ground in Ukraine as part of the Pentagon’s efforts to inspect and track weapons shipments to that crumbling former Soviet Republic according to a transcript published by the Department of Defense. This is a big deal for more than just the obvious reason that it could push that declining unipolar hegemon closer to a hot war with Russia by miscalculation.
Here are the six other reasons why Americans should care that US troops are in Ukraine:
The Deployment Proves That The Ukrainian Conflict Is Indeed A Proxy War On Russia
The US-led West’s Mainstream Media (MSM) nor the SBU’s anti-Semitic and fascist global troll network (“NAFO”) can no longer deny that the Ukrainian Conflict is indeed a NATO proxy war on Russia, which was obvious to all objective observers but has hitherto not been acknowledged by those two forces.
* America Is Indisputably Leading The Abovementioned Effort
Building upon the above, there’s no question that America is leading this multinational proxy war effort against that newly restored world power as evidenced by this latest deployment, which further confirms what Russia’s been saying this entire time about Washington’s direct involvement in the conflict.
* Public Pressure Might Have Played A Role In The Pentagon’s Accountability Mission
CBS News’ bombshell report in early August revealing that only around 30% of all foreign military aid to Ukraine actually reaches its destination provoked unprecedented public anger and might thus have played a role in the Pentagon’s commencing its accountability mission that its officials just disclosed.
* The US Doesn’t Fully Trust Its Ukrainian Proxies
Another element of the “official narrative” that was shattered by the Pentagon’s confirmation of its limited deployment to Ukraine is that the US supposedly places full trust in its Ukrainian proxies, which clearly isn’t true otherwise it wouldn’t be putting its troops in harm’s way to track weapons shipments.
* Ukrainian-Based Neo-Nazi Terrorist Groups Are A Credible Threat To Europe
Elaborating on the insight that was just shared in the preceding point, it can therefore be confidently surmised that American spy agencies also assess that Ukrainian-based Neo-Nazi terrorist groups are a credible threat to Europe since they’re the only actors who could realistically siphon off those arms.
* The Next Congress Might Use This Deployment As The Pretext For Scaling Down Military Aid
The US will inevitably have to scale down its arms shipments to Ukraine since its military-industrial complex lacks the capability to indefinitely sustain the pace, scope, and scale of this assistance, yet the next Congress might use this deployment as the pretext for doing so instead of admitting that fact.
The remainder of the analysis will summarize the six reasons that were just shared.
Americans should care that their country is leading NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine, especially since their own government doesn’t trust their local partners to the point where US troops had to be deployed to monitor arms shipments there. Public pressure might already have played a role in commencing this accountability mission so it therefore follows that subsequent such pressure could facilitate the next Congress’ potential plans to scale back aid to that country and hopefully foster peace.
‘Will they, won’t they – great uncertainty over government go ahead for Sizewell C.
It has been a day of mixed messages with reports in the national press and on the BBC that government funding for Sizewell C may be axed being contradicted by a statement issued from the Prime Minister’s office.
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities would sincerely like the costly Suffolk white elephant culled and the money spent instead on insulating cold and damp British homes to reduce energy demand and lower fuel bills. In a letter to Jeremy Hunt MP last month, the organisation urged the Chancellor to ‘leave Sizewell C well-alone’ and to withdraw from the £700 million commitment made by outgoing Prime Minister Boris Johnson and from the concordat agreed between Prime Minister Truss and President Macron to each take a 20% stake in the project.
As the estimated cost to completion is at least £30 billion, this represents a tremendous commitment of taxpayers’ cash, and there is considerable doubt over whether operator EDF Energy, already in huge debt, will be in a financial position to complete the plant or if private-sector players will step in to take the remaining 60% share. Nuclear power projects are notorious for being delivered late and massively over budget so the risk is great that Sizewell C will represent both a lumbering folly and a financial bottomless pit for beleaguered consumers, who would have to pick up the tab through a ‘nuclear tax’ levied through electricity bills.
For the NFLA then, there was great disappointment when in his response to the letter, Climate Minister Graham Stuart, said that ‘commercial discussions have been constructive but are ongoing, and no decisions have been made’ and in a statement made today, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister said ‘Britain’s Sizewell C nuclear power plant project is not being scrapped and negotiations on its funding are progressing’.
So optimistic noises that the project is on track, but there has been speculation that there is an ongoing internal conflict between Whitehall mandarins in the Treasury and the Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy as to whether Sizewell C should be in the mix as a project that must be cut alongside HS2 and the Northern Powerhouse Rail as part of the government’s plan to reduce the deficit by £35 billion as Britain enters a new recession.
For the NFLA then, there was great disappointment when in his response to the letter, Climate Minister Graham Stuart, said that ‘commercial discussions have been constructive but are ongoing, and no decisions have been made’ and in a statement made today, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister said ‘Britain’s Sizewell C nuclear power plant project is not being scrapped and negotiations on its funding are progressing’.
U.S. company Westinghouse wants to build a fleet of nuclear reactors in Europe, starting with Poland.
The Council of Ministers has formally approved the decision that the first
nuclear power plant in Poland will use three Westinghouse AP1000 reactors –
with the US company calling it an “historic day” as it looks to build a
fleet of the reactors in central Europe.
World Nuclear News 3rd Nov 2022
COP27 in Egypt. Will rich nations fulfil their promises to help poor countries to fight global heating?
Tens of thousands of people will be jetting to an Egyptian holiday resort
beside the Red Sea this weekend in an effort to tackle climate change. It
sounds like a joke, but this latest UN climate summit – COP27 – is reckoned
to be the world’s best hope of progress on the climate issue.
Progress is certainly needed. The global effort to cut emissions is “woefully
inadequate” and means the world is on track for “catastrophe”, the UN
warned last week.
But the meeting in Sharm El-Sheikh is shaping up to be a
prickly and confrontational affair. The Egyptian hosts have set themselves
a tough challenge. Last year’s UN climate conference in Glasgow delivered a
host of pledges on emissions cuts, finance, net zero, forest protection and
more. Egypt says their conference will be about implementing these pledges.
What that really means is it will be all about cash, and specifically
getting wealthy nations to come good on their promises of finance to help
the developing world tackle climate change. So expect the main battle lines
to be between the north and south, between rich and poor nations.
BBC 4th Nov 2022
When it comes to a nuclear industry project – Europe puts no sanctions on Russia
Despite conflict, Russia sends France giant magnet for nuclear fusion project, Euractiv 4 Nov 22
Russia on Tuesday (1 November) dispatched one of six giant magnets needed for the ITER nuclear fusion programme in France, one of the last international scientific projects Moscow participates in despite the Ukraine conflict.
The ship carrying the Russian-made magnet – or “poloidal field coil” – departed Saint Petersburg on Tuesday under grey skies.
On board, the massive nine-metre-wide coil, which weighs 200 tonnes had been tightly wrapped to withstand a two-week trip to Marseille, southern France.
The ring-shaped magnet built under Russian atomic agency Rosatom’s supervision will make up the top part of the world’s largest “tokamak”.
The tokamak is a magnetic fusion device built in France following the same principle that powers our sun and stars.
The Russian piece was meant to leave in May but sanctions forbidding Russian ships docking in Europe delayed the departure.
Still, the “current situation did not change the fact that we will fullfil our obligations”, Rosatom representative for international projects Viacheslav Perchukov said.
Geopolitical tensions “practically did not affect the realisation of this project”, Perchukov said.
“Without (the Russian coil), the tokamak will not work,” senior ITER centre scientist Leonid Khimchenko told AFP……………………more https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/despite-conflict-russia-sends-france-giant-magnet-for-nuclear-fusion-project/
The new Jewish state in the Levant: A fanatics-led nuclear power
Israel is about to get the most extreme government in the country’s history. But there are limits to what it can do.
- Marwan Bishara, Senior political analyst at Al Jazeera. 4 Nov 22
Israel’s colonial democracy has given birth to a potentially more extreme type of ‘Jewish state’ akin to a more sophisticated and modern version of the ‘Islamic state’. But unlike ISIL which was conceived in and defeated by war, Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East today.
The fanatics, fascists, and far-right fantasists, who won this week’s elections in Israel, are about to form the most openly extreme government in the country’s history. It is sure to include the Jewish state’s new rising star Itamar Ben-Gvir — a violence-spewing, Palestinian-hating radical on whose support the government will stand.
A majority of religious nationalists and ultraorthodox parties in government, the first in Israel’s history, would want to transform the Jewish state towards a theocracy that lives by the Halacha (Jewish law) and finish colonising the entirety of Palestine, come what may.
But could they? What can they do in reality that their predecessors have not done already, in terms of exacting death and destruction, and further expanding the illegal Jewish settlement in Palestine?
Benjamin Netanyahu, who will likely form and lead the new coalition government, knows from his experience as Israel’s longest-serving prime minister that there is a limit on how far Israel can go before it starts to meet fierce Palestinian and Arab resistance. Any further, and Israel could also lose support in Europe and the United States; support that is indispensable to its security and regional standing.
He has previously preferred incremental steps to radical measures that could alienate Israel’s main backers and its new regional partners. Netanyahu may therefore try to curb his partners’ eagerness to annex the occupied West Bank and ethnically cleanse it of its Palestinian inhabitants.
But then again, it is doubtful whether he will be able to tame these religious fanatics, knowing all too well they have a hold over the survival of his premiership; his only guarantee to stay out of prison, after having been indicted for serious corruption charges.
I think the genie is finally out of the bottle.
The elections have opened a Pandora’s box that may well take Israelis to the dark side. They have exposed the fragility of Israel’s peculiar liberality as a colonial state, and unmasked the p
ervasive fanaticism among the majority of the electorate after decades of unfettered military occupation.
The unruly pronouncements of Netanyahu’s scandalous new partners reflect the prevailing beliefs among the majority of Israel’s right-wing parties, including his own Likud, that have ruled the country for the past few decades. But now that they are boasting of Jewish supremacy out in the open, it is harder for Netanyahu’s hasbara to conceal their — or his — racism from the rest of the world.
After all, it was Bibi, as Netanyahu is known, who back in August midwifed the union of two or three small fanatic parties, to ensure they maximise the number of their seats and join his future coalition government. They did exceedingly well: The Religious Zionist Party won 14 seats. Its legislators include Ben-Gvir.
Netanyahu’s two other coalition partners, the ultraorthodox Jewish parties, Shas and UJT, which are as socially regressive and politically fanatic, won 18 seats. Together with the 32 far-right Likud members, they command a comfortable like-minded majority of 64 seats in the 120-member Knesset……………………. more https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/11/4/the-new-jewish-state-in-the-levant-a-fanatics-led-nuclear-power
North Korea fired intercontinental ballistic missile – Seoul
https://www.rt.com/news/565844-north-korea-icbm-launch/ 4 Nov 22, The launch failed during the second-stage separation, a South Korean military official told Yonhap
North Korea has launched an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) as part of a large-scale show of force against the ongoing war games between the US and South Korea, according to Seoul’s armed forces.
The South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff said the military detected “what is presumed to be a long-range ballistic missile launch from the Sunan area in Pyongyang” early on Thursday morning, noting that two additional short-range missiles followed about one hour later.
After analyzing details of the launch, the military added that the weapon traveled a distance of around 760km (472 miles) and reached a top speed of Mach 15. However, a defense source later told Yonhap that “the missile seems to have failed in normal flight” after its second-stage separation.
In a statement later on Thursday, the Joint Chiefs said “Our military has beefed up surveillance and vigilance” and would maintain a “readiness posture in close cooperation with the US.”
Thursday’s launch marks the first time Pyongyang has fired an ICBM since May, though it comes amid a record number of missile tests overall this year. The DPRK has also unleashed hundreds of rockets, missiles, and artillery shells into the sea in recent days as a demonstration to Washington and Seoul, which are in the middle of some of their largest air drills ever.
With tensions soaring on the peninsula, the North has repeatedly condemned the exercises as a rehearsal for a full-scale invasion, even suggesting earlier this week that Washington could be preparing a nuclear attack. The US and South Korea, meanwhile, have denounced each missile launch by Pyongyang as a dangerous provocation and have vowed to continue strengthening military ties.
Studies on nuclear radiation’s impact on people necessary: BRIN
https://en.antaranews.com/news/258613/studies-on-nuclear-radiations-impact-on-people-necessary-brin 4 Nov 22, Jakarta (ANTARA) – Environmental and health studies on the impact of radiation exposure on people living in areas of high natural radiation, such as Mamuju, West Sulawesi, are necessary, the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) has said.
A researcher from BRIN’s Research Center for Metrology Safety Technology and Nuclear Quality, Eka Djatnika Nugraha, said that in some places in Indonesia, such as Mamuju, people have been exposed to natural radiation that is several times higher than the global average at around 2.4 millisieverts per year.
“This situation may pose a health risk to the public due to chronic external and internal exposure,” Nugraha said in a statement received on Friday.
Mamuju is an area of high natural background radiation due to the high concentration of uranium and thorium in the rocks and soil, he observed.
Thus, studies on the health of people living in such areas could serve as a potential source of information about the effects of chronic low-dose exposure, he added.
In order to obtain scientific evidence on the effects of chronic low-dose radiation exposure on health, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive environmental assessment of the exposure situation in areas of high natural radiation, he elaborated.
Meanwhile, head of BRIN’s Nuclear Energy Research Organization, Rohadi Awaludin, said that it is important to know and understand the safety and protection measures against nuclear radiation technology, especially for everyone involved or in contact with it.
“Nuclear radiation technology, including ionization, has been used and applied to various aspects, including industry and health, food, and others. This technology is the answer to the problems we have, but there are also risks that (one) must be (aware of) from this technology,” he added.
Doomsday Clock Reveals How Nuclear War Would Decimate Civilization
NewsWeek BY ARISTOS GEORGIOU ON 11/4/22 The organization behind the Doomsday Clock has published a guide that details the potentially catastrophic consequences of a global nuclear war—which could kill hundreds of millions in hours—in what is a “wake-up call” for people around the world, the author told Newsweek.
………….. The Doomsday Clock is a symbolic device designed to warn the public about how close humanity is to destroying itself with “dangerous technologies of our own making,” such as nuclear weapons as well as those that are contributing to climate change.
The clock, which was created in 1947 and is maintained by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists magazine, has been reset 24 times, most recently in 2020 when the minute hand moved from two minutes to midnight to 100 seconds to midnight.
In January 2022, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin, which decides the clock’s time, announced that the minute hand was staying at 100 seconds to midnight. The board said that Ukraine was a potential flashpoint in an “increasingly tense International security landscape.” After Russia invaded the country in late February, the board condemned its actions.
On October 20, the Bulletin published an article titled “Nowhere to Hide: How a Nuclear War Would Kill You and Almost Everyone Else,” which was authored by François Diaz-Maurin, the magazine’s associate editor for nuclear affairs.
“Clearly, with the war in Ukraine, we were—and still are—concerned that the world could be sleepwalking into nuclear war,” Diaz-Maurin told Newsweek. “As a magazine covering those risks since pretty much when nuclear weapons were created, we had a responsibility to do something. This article is a wake-up call from the Bulletin.”……………………….
By detailing the potentially devastating consequences for humanity, the article was published to try to minimize the threat of such a war breaking out.
“If you are better informed about…the consequences of using nuclear weapons in a war, you are more likely not to go down that path,” Diaz-Maurin said. “There is no small or acceptable use of a nuclear weapon. Any use would put the world into uncharted territory.”
In the article, Diaz-Maurin wrote that hundreds or thousands of detonations would occur within minutes of each other in a nuclear war.
Given the destructive power of nuclear weapons, even a “limited” regional exchange between India and Pakistan—involving 100 15-kiloton warheads launched at urban areas—would result in 27 million direct deaths.
A global, all-out nuclear war between the United States and Russia, based on a scenario involving 4,400 100-kiloton weapons, would very quickly result in a minimum of 360 million deaths around the world from the direct effects alone.
Even though these figures are staggering, the article notes that these deaths would be only the beginning of a massive catastrophe that would affect not only the warring parties and their allies but the entire world………………….. https://www.newsweek.com/doomsday-clock-organization-creates-guide-showing-impact-nuclear-war-1756945
USA’s deliberate ambiguity on use of nuclear weapons really means “don’t mess with us or we’ll nuke you”
Basically, the United States is holding the world hostage to its nuclear arsenal, saying that we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons any time we determine under any circumstances so that we have a broader definition of deterrence, meaning that we are deterring. But what are we deterring? You see, with a sole purpose declaration, we’re deterring a nuclear attack against us.
But the current nuclear strategy is to deter something that is ambiguous in nature, meaning we haven’t precisely spelled it out. We’re leaving the world guessing. And what we’re saying is, don’t mess with us, or else we’ll nuke you.
We can never use these weapons, but why are we building them as if they are a viable tool? This is why disarmament is so much better, so much more logical, and ultimately has a more humanitarian basis and national security basis than the continued pursuit of a so-called nuclear deterrent. Disarmament is the only thing that will save mankind. Continuing to pursue a nuclear deterrent could very well be the end of mankind
US Holds World Hostage to Its Nukes, Ex-American Intel Officer Says
Sputnik International, 29.10.2022
Earlier this week, Pentagon released nuclear posture, which suggests that the US doesn’t rule out use of the nuclear arsenal against non-nuclear threats – which contradicts previous pledges by the Biden administration.
Scott Ritter, a military analyst and former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, explained Sputnik why Washington adopted new nuclear policies and what do they mean for regular Americans.
Sputnik: Why are Russia and Сhina to be blamed for the Biden’s administration failure to reduce nuclear weapons?
Scott Ritter: We have to look for somebody to blame. We can’t blame ourselves. That’s normally what happens. But we are solely to blame. President Biden ran on a platform that said that he would be seeking what’s called the single-use policy for nuclear deterrence. And what that means is its a single-purpose policy. And the single purpose would be that the sole purpose of the US nuclear weapons arsenal is deterrence. And that’s it; that we would never use nuclear weapons under any circumstance other than to respond to somebody using nuclear weapons against us; that we are here to deter a nuclear attack on the United States.
He’s broken that promise. The strategy that he has propagated recently is a strategy that continues the past practice of having deliberate ambiguity about the conditions and circumstances under which America could use nuclear weapons, up to and including a pre-emptive nuclear attack by the United States in response to a non-nuclear incident.
Basically, the United States is holding the world hostage to its nuclear arsenal, saying that we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons any time we determine under any circumstances so that we have a broader definition of deterrence, meaning that we are deterring. But what are we deterring? You see, with a sole purpose declaration, we’re deterring a nuclear attack against us. But the current nuclear strategy is to deter something that is ambiguous in nature, meaning we haven’t precisely spelled it out. We’re leaving the world guessing. And what we’re saying is, don’t mess with us, or else we’ll nuke you.
This has nothing to do with China and Russia. China and Russia have nuclear weapons arsenals. Which would be covered under the sole purpose doctrine. But this is about blackmailing the world. But we can’t tell the world that we’re blackmailing it. We have to blame it on China and Russia. But there’s no linkage whatsoever between the nuclear posture, as published by the Biden administration, and the nuclear arsenals of China and Russia. If that was it, then we’d have a bold purpose doctrine.
Sputnik: What’s the reason for the West to escalate the nuclear rhetoric?
Scott Ritter: That’s a separate question, separate from the issue of the nuclear posture in the National Security Strategy. We have a current situation right now where Ukraine is losing this conflict. The West is recognizing that ultimately Ukraine will lose this conflict and that there’s nothing they can do to forestall this defeat. And so what they’ve done is they have created in terms of an information warfare, propaganda driven exercise, the threat of a Russian nuclear strike against Ukraine. It makes no sense. I think Vladimir Putin addressed this in his presentation to the Valdai conference, that it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about a Russian nuclear weapon used in Ukraine. There’s no reason for this. It’s not part of their doctrine. It isn’t going to happen.
But this isn’t about reality. This is about shaping perception. And so that’s where this nuclear crisis is coming from today – talks of a dirty bomb, talks of a Russian pre-emptive nuclear strike, President Zelensky begging NATO to carry out their own pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Russia, NATO holding an annual exercise that trains the use of the very weapons President Zelensky asked NATO to use against Russia. NATO should have cancelled that exercise or at least postponed it to a later date, but they didn’t. Russia has now responded with its own strategic nuclear exercise. Again, an annual exercise, this one testing not tactical nuclear weapons, but strategic nuclear weapons.
And people are trying to make a linkage between all of this. There isn’t. But this is where the heightened rhetoric and the heightened threat and the heightened crisis comes from. This is independent from the publication of the National Security Strategy. The National Security Strategy isn’t designed to do anything different than what past national security strategies have done, which is to put the world on notice that the United States has a nuclear weapons arsenal, that it will use any time it determines, whether or not the threat is nuclear in nature. We’re holding the world hostage, but we’ve been holding the world hostage for decades.
Sputnik: In the 2022 NPR, the Pentagon refuses to back away from the possibility of using nuclear weapons in response to “significant non-nuclear strategic attacks” – what were the reasons to obliterate main agreements in the sphere of strategic security?
Scott Ritter: This is not a new position by the Pentagon. This is actually a posture that emerged during the presidency of George W. Bush. That was the first time that this notion that we would use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear threat emerged.
The Obama administration talked about walking away from that, but it’s very difficult for presidents to disentangle their desires from the pressures of the establishment. And when we’re dealing with nuclear weapons and the issue of nuclear deterrence, the establishment is extraordinarily powerful because they can always say that you’re weakening. You can tell a president that you’re weakening America, you’re putting American lives at risk…………………………………………………………………………
We can never use these weapons, but why are we building them as if they are a viable tool? This is why disarmament is so much better, so much more logical, and ultimately has a more humanitarian basis and national security basis than the continued pursuit of a so-called nuclear deterrent. Disarmament is the only thing that will save mankind. Continuing to pursue a nuclear deterrent could very well be the end of mankind. https://sputniknews.com/20221029/us-holds-world-hostage-to-its-nukes-ex-american-intel-officer-says-1102824182.html
War and Regrets in Ukraine
The truth is Moscow’s redline concerning Ukrainian entry into NATO was always real. Eastern Ukraine and Crimea were always predominantly Russian in language, culture, history, and political orientation. Europe’s descent into economic oblivion this winter is also real, as is support for Russia’s cause in China and India and Moscow’s rising military strength.
Washington may regret its role in the war in Ukraine.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/war-and-regrets-in-ukraine/ Douglas Macgregor, Oct 19, 2022
Of the Vietnam War, Henry Kissinger, former national security advisor and secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford, said, “We should never have been there.” Before long, Americans, even the politicians inside the Beltway, will reach the same conclusion about Washington’s Ukrainian proxy war against Russia.
No one in the White House, the Senate, or the House consciously set out to turn the proxy Ukrainian war with Moscow into a contest of “competitive societal collapse” between Russia and NATO. But here we are. No one imagined that the Biden administration and the bipartisan war party would drive Americans and Europeans into a political, military, and economic valley of death, from which there is no easy escape. Yet that is precisely what is happening.
For the moment, Washington remains blind to these developments. Whether in print, radio, television, or online, the narrative is clear: despite horrific losses—at least 400,000 Ukrainian battlefield casualties including 100,000 soldiers killed in action—Ukrainian forces are winning. Moreover, the narrative says, America’s financial and economic dominance will ultimately overwhelm the deceptively weak Russian economy.
The Ukrainian-victory narrative admittedly benefits hugely from Western media that actively “tune out” opposing views and depict Russia and its armed forces in the worst possible light. The fact that nearly half a century of the Cold War conditioned Americans to think the worst of Russians certainly helps.
Yet there is also a measure of “true faith” at work, a condition of national narcissism, inside the Beltway that believes Washington can control what happens thousands of miles away in Eastern Ukraine. The message resonates in Congress because it rests on a critical strategic assumption that American citizens have yet to challenge: that American national power is limitless and unconstrained—as though a series of strategic failures, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, never happened.
Given that American politicians are always more preoccupied by domestic affairs than foreign policy, members of Congress are quick to adopt the “true faith.” This faith explains why for the last eight years members thought a future war with Russia was a low-risk affair. Ukrainians would provide the cannon fodder and Washington would provide the expensive weaponry and munitions.
Predictably, Washington’s governing strategic principles are unchanged from previous U.S. interventions around the world. Muddle through: masses of soldiers—in this case Ukrainians advised by U.S. and allied officers—and huge infusions of cash, equipment, and technology can and will permanently alter strategic reality in America’s favor.
The stupefying air of self-righteousness the Biden administration assumes when it attacks erstwhile strategic partners such as Saudi Arabia or delivers moralizing lectures to Beijing’s leadership, or when its media surrogates express contempt for the Russian state, is downright dangerous. Political figures in Washington are ready to indulge any transgression if it is committed in the name of destroying Russia. They do not view U.S. foreign policy in the context of a larger strategy, nor do they comprehend Russia’s capacity to hurt the United States, a bizarre judgment of Russia’s actual military and economic potential.
The result is a toxic climate of ideological hatred making it hard to imagine a contemporary U.S. secretary of State ever signing an international agreement renouncing war as an instrument of U.S. national policy, as Secretary of State Frank Kellogg did in 1928. But as one of Shakespeare’s characters in the Merchant of Venice warned, “The truth will out.”
The ongoing buildup of 700,000 Russian forces with modern equipment in Western Russia, Eastern Ukraine and Belorussia is a direct consequence of Moscow’s decision to adopt an elastic, strategic defense of the territories it seized in the opening months of the war. It was a wise, though politically unpopular choice in Russia. Yet, the strategy has succeeded. Ukrainian losses have been catastrophic and by November, Russian Forces will be in a position to strike a knockout blow.
Today, there are rumors in the media that Kiev may be under pressure to launch more counterattacks against Russian defenses in Kherson (Southern Ukraine) before the midterm elections in November. At this point, expending what little remains of Ukraine’s life blood to expel Russian forces from Ukraine is hardly synonymous with the preservation of the Ukrainian state. It’s also doubtful that further sacrifices by Ukrainians will assist the Biden administration in the midterm elections.
The truth is Moscow’s redline concerning Ukrainian entry into NATO was always real. Eastern Ukraine and Crimea were always predominantly Russian in language, culture, history, and political orientation. Europe’s descent into economic oblivion this winter is also real, as is support for Russia’s cause in China and India and Moscow’s rising military strength.
In retrospect, it is easy to see how Congress was beguiled by the denizens of think tanks, lobbyists, and retired generals, who are, with few exceptions, people with a cocktail level of familiarity with high-end conventional warfare. Members of the House and Senate were urged to support dubious strategies for the use of American military assistance, including reckless scenarios for limited nuclear war with Russia or China.
For some reason, U.S. politicians have lost sight of the reality that any use of nuclear weapons would overwhelm the ends of all national policy.
Carbon-14: Another underestimated danger from nuclear power reactors
https://beyondnuclear.org/carbon-14-another-underestimated-danger-from-nuclear-power-reactors/ 1 Nov 22,
There are a number of radionuclides released from nuclear energy facilities. This paper highlights carbon-14 for a number of reasons:
- Carbon-14 is radioactive and is released into air as methane and carbon dioxide.
- Before 2010, carbon-14 releases from nuclear reactors were virtually ignored in the United States. Today only estimates are required and only under certain restrictive circumstances.
- There is no good accounting of releases to date, so its impact on our health, our children’s health, and that of our environment remains unknown, yet environmental measurement is possible, but can be challenging under certain conditions.
- Carbon-14 has a half-life of over 5700 years and the element carbon is a basic building block for life on earth. Therefore, “it constitutes a potential health hazard, whose additional production by anthropogenic sources of today will result in an increased radiation exposure to many future generations.”
- Like tritium, it can collect in the tissues of the fetus at twice the concentration of the tissues in the mother, pointing to its disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable human lifecycle: the developing child.
1 This Month
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (12)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
