Putin considers nuclear tests after Trump threat.
8 Nov 25 https://www.politico.eu/article/russian-president-vladimir-putin-nuclear-tests-donald-trump-weapons/
The Russian president has asked for a feasibility study on resuming nuclear testing following a surprise announcement by his American counterpart.
3Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday ordered top officials to come up with proposals for the potential resumption of nuclear testing for the first time since the end of the Cold War more than three decades ago.
Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump instructed the Pentagon to “immediately” start testing nuclear weapons “on an equal basis” with nuclear testing programs in other nations.
Putin, speaking at Russia’s Security Council, told the country’s foreign and defense ministers, its special services and the relevant civilian agencies to study the matter and “submit coordinated proposals on the possible commencement of work to prepare for nuclear weapons testing.”
Defense Minister Andrei Belousov told Putin at the meeting that it would be “appropriate to immediately begin preparations for full-scale nuclear tests.”
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov later clarified that “the president did not give the order to begin preparations for the test” but merely ordered a feasibility study.
Russia announced last week that it had successfully tested a nuclear-powered torpedo, dubbed Poseidon, that was capable of damaging entire coastal regions as well as a new cruise missile named the Burevestnik, prompting Trump to respond. The U.S. today launched an intercontinental ballistic missile, Minuteman III, in a routine test.
The Cold War was characterized by an intense nuclear arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union as the superpowers competed for superiority by stockpiling and developing nuclear weapons. It ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the signing of nuclear treaties such as START, which aimed to reduce and control nuclear arsenals. The Soviet Union conducted its last test in 1990 and the U.S. in 1992.
A report this year by the SIPRI think tank warned that the global stockpile of nuclear weapons is increasing, with all nine nuclear-armed states — the U.S., U.K., Russia, France, China, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea — upgrading existing weapons and adding new versions to their stockpiles.
Radioactive waste from Canada would be buried in Utah under EnergySolutions proposal.
The company wants to import more than 1 million cubic yards of low-level radioactive waste from Canada to its facility in Utah’s West Desert.
Salt Lake Tribune, By Leia Larsen and Jordan Miller, Nov. 8, 2025
A Utah company wants to import massive amountsof Canadian radioactive waste to a facility less than 100 miles from the state’s largest population center.
EnergySolutions seeks to transport up to 1.3 million cubic yards of low-level radioactive and mixed waste — enough to fill roughly 400 Olympic-sized swimming pools — from Ontario, Canada, to its Clive facility in Tooele County,it confirmed in a statement Thursday. The international nuclear services company is headquartered in Salt Lake City.
Its proposal, if approved, would mark the first time Utah allows foreign radioactive waste to be stored within state boundaries.
The company currently accepts low-level radioactive and other hazardous waste from across the nation at the Clive site for burial, which opened in 1988.
The request is under consideration by the Northwest Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management, which manages the disposal of such waste in Utah and seven other states. At least six states must approve the proposal, and Utah can veto it.
EnergySolutions says it will ask Utah regulators for permission to expand its storage capacity to accept the waste from Canada and shipments from across the U.S. The company expects to pay $30 million under a new tax imposed by the state Legislature in order to generate money for Gov. Spencer Cox’s Operation Gigawatt — his initiative to double energy production in Utah over the next decade…………………………………………………………………..
What kind of radioactive waste could come to Utah?
……………………..Typical low-level radioactive materials include contaminatedprotective clothing, filters, cleaning rags, medical swabs and syringes, according to the NRC. However, a lobbyist for EnergySolutions told lawmakers this year, while discussing the proposed expansion, the waste could include components of decommissioned nuclear power plants.
The Canadian shipments would also include mixed waste, which is any type of radioactive material that is combined with hazardous waste.
The Clive facility currently holds Class A radioactive “soil, concrete rubble, demolition debris, large components and personal protective equipment,” a company spokesperson said. That waste comes from the federal government and domestic power plants.
EnergySolutions will only accept foreignwaste generated within the province of Ontario, it noted in a letter filed Sept. 9 seeking approval from the interstate compact. The materials cannot be shipped from other locations. No depleted uranium will travel from Canada to the landfill site, the company confirmed.
This case would mark the first time a state in the compact accepts foreign radioactive waste, confirmed Kristen Schwab, executive director of the Northwest Interstate Compact. And only two states in the compact accept low-level radioactive waste for disposal at all — Utah and Washington.
…………………………………… HEAL Utah, an environmental watchdog, said it has concerns about potential spills along the route.
“Historically, Utah residents have been concerned about waste coming through their communities to be dumped in our state,” said Carmen Valdez, a senior policy associate for the nonprofit.
EnergySolutions previously sought to ship parts of a dismantled nuclear plant from Italy to its Utah location in 2008. The state vetoed the plan with the backing of then-Gov. Jon Huntsman, who bristled at the idea of storing radioactive materials from other countries.
“As I have always emphatically declared,” Huntsman said at the time, “Utah should not be the world’s dumping ground.”
Cox did not directly respond Friday to a question about whether he supports EnergySolutions’ proposal.
In order to import the Canadian waste, EnergySolutions must get a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the company confirmed.
The company also needs approval from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality to move forward with its facility expansion. The company estimates will keep the Clive site operational for another 45 years.
The Utah Legislature earlier this year passed Senate Bill 216, which streamlined the process for such expansions and added a new tax on facilities that plan to scale up. Revenue generated from that tax would go to the Utah Energy Research Fund.
EnergySolutions said it would apply for the expansion by Dec. 31, and DEQ confirmed it has not yet received an application.
The company wants compact officials to approve the Ontario deal ahead of that state process, EnergySolutions said in an Oct. 31 follow-up letter. Waiting until DEQ approves its expansion would cause delays, it said.
One member of the compact committee suggested imposing a 10-year deadline for EnergySolutions to import the 1.3 million cubic yards of waste from Ontario to the Clive site. The company opposed the timeline, saying it would jeopardize its ability to “reasonably recover its investment,” including the $30 million expansion tax………
Shipments from Ontario will account for a fraction of the waste ultimately stored in the planned expansion, the company and DEQ said.
……………………………….Environmental advocates at HEAL remain wary about importing waste from other countries.
“We do have to find solutions to storing that waste safely,” Valdez said, “but we want to really ensure that we have enough means to manage the waste that already exists in the United States before we start accepting international waste at the benefit and profit of a private company.”
Low-level radioactive waste generated in Utah — from facilities like medical labs or universities, for example — is not disposed of in the state. As a member of the compact, Utah sends its waste to a facility in Richland, Washington.
The compact committee plans to discuss EnergySolutions’ proposal again at a meeting on Nov. 25. https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2025/11/07/utahs-energysolutions-proposes/
Brussels attempts to sink Europe in debt to help Zelensky
it represents for European countries a new abandonment of their national interests for the sake of Ukraine.
Raphael Machado, November 7, 2025, https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/11/07/brussels-attempts-to-sink-europe-in-debt-to-help-zelensky/
It is striking how European governments seem incapable of extricating themselves from Ukraine.
The European Union has a dilemma. It insists, against all rationality, on continuing to support and finance the Zelensky regime. But it no longer knows how to continue doing so.
Since 2022, European authorities in Brussels have spoken of confiscating Russian assets to fund Ukraine under the banner of “Ukrainian reconstruction.”
The proposal itself is extremely dubious. The measure would set a serious legal precedent. We know that Russian assets were frozen shortly after the start of the special military operation thanks to the economic sanctions regime. Nevertheless, formally, even under the deficient logic of current International Law, these assets are simply paralyzed, awaiting the end of the Ukrainian conflict.
A permanent confiscation, especially of sovereign funds linked to the Russian Central Bank, would be of a different, fundamentally aggressive nature that would shake international legal security. Many countries, especially Third World countries engaged in sovereign development strategies, may see this as a sign that their potential reserves in euros and dollars are not safe – which could lead, in the short term, to capital flight and, in the long term, to an accelerated search for alternative currencies and payment systems.
In the long run, this accelerates the formation of a multipolar financial system, less dependent on the euro and the dollar.
But the alternative that Ursula von der Leyen’s “gang” is trying to impose on European countries is not much better. On the contrary, it represents for European countries a new abandonment of their national interests for the sake of Ukraine.
The European Commission is trying to force European countries to borrow money in exchange for European Central Bank bonds, aiming to cover the 140 billion euros promised to Kiev in its “reconstruction plan.” Naturally, this loan would represent a new blow to the national budgets of European economies, already affected by the long-standing economic stagnation plaguing the countries in question. To finance the plan, several countries in the region would probably have to raise taxes.
Beyond the fact that some countries in the region, especially the Mediterranean ones, are already deeply indebted, there is obviously the political problem linked to the electoral consequences of a potential tax increase to fund Ukraine. There is a clear correlation between the difficulties experienced by European countries due to support for Ukraine and the strengthening of nationalist or populist political trends.
Countries like Germany, Sweden, France, the Netherlands, and several others have seen announcements of cuts to social benefits over recent years. And although it is never publicly admitted that these cuts could be due to the budgetary weight of Ukraine, it is inevitable to conclude in this direction, as the funding for Ukraine increasingly weighs simultaneously with benefit cuts (and tax increases). An honest austerity policy, implemented for purely economic reasons, would also demand a reduction in support for Ukraine – and that is not what is happening.
Naturally, it is also necessary to take into account that, today, there is no concrete oversight by the European Commission of the use of funds transferred to Ukraine. The money sent by the West has fallen into a black hole of corruption, thanks to the Zelensky regime’s lack of accountability to European taxpayers.
But, to some extent, the very proposition of this collective loan constitutes a chess move by the European Commission. Faced with pressure to increase spending for Ukraine, von der Leyen believes it is possible to convince European countries to approve the confiscation of Russian assets.
This duality imposed by Brussels, however, does not exhaust the decision-making possibilities of European countries. Since these hypotheses require the consensual adhesion of European countries, a Hungarian-Czech-Slovak bloc (which Viktor Orban is trying to build) could simply try to sabotage both propositions, leaving the issue of Ukrainian funding in limbo.
Finally, it is striking how European governments seem incapable of extricating themselves from Ukraine, despite the fact that support for the Zelensky regime continues to pile up costs and disadvantages for each of the European governments involved in this farce.
Trump and the Deep State: The Tomahawk deadlock and the illusion of presidential autonomy
This oscillation reflects, more than personal indecision, the tension between two competing power projects within the United States. On one hand, Trump seeks to maintain a more restrained foreign policy, focused on avoiding the strain of a direct confrontation with Russia. On the other hand, the military-industrial complex and its allies in Congress, the media, and the intelligence services continue to push for the escalation of the war in Ukraine.
The supply of weapons to Kiev is, above all, a multibillion-dollar business that guarantees extraordinary profits for corporations such as Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.
Lucas Leiroz, November 5, 2025, https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/11/05/trump-and-deep-state-tomahawk-deadlock-and-illusion-of-presidential-autonomy/
The Tomahawk issue is vital in determining Donald Trump’s political future.
The current controversy over the possible delivery of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine reignites a crucial debate in American politics: to what extent does the president of the United States truly control his country’s strategic decisions? The episode suggests that Donald Trump, despite his rhetoric of independence and his supposed desire for a “pragmatic rapprochement” with Moscow, remains bound by the constraints of the so-called Deep State — the bureaucratic-corporate-military structure that has dictated the course of Washington’s foreign policy for decades.
According to Western media sources, the Pentagon had given the White House the green light to release the Tomahawks, arguing that the transfer would not harm U.S. stockpiles. The final decision, however, would rest with Trump. Initially, the president indicated that he did not intend to send the missiles, stating that “we cannot give away what we need to protect our own country.” A few days later, however, he reversed his stance — and then reversed it again, after a phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
This oscillation reflects, more than personal indecision, the tension between two competing power projects within the United States. On one hand, Trump seeks to maintain a more restrained foreign policy, focused on rebuilding the domestic economy and avoiding the strain of a direct confrontation with Russia. On the other hand, the military-industrial complex and its allies in Congress, the media, and the intelligence services continue to push for the escalation of the war in Ukraine.
The Deep State does not act solely out of abstract strategic interests. The supply of weapons to Kiev is, above all, a multibillion-dollar business that guarantees extraordinary profits for corporations such as Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. The Tomahawks, in particular, symbolize this economic power. Mass-produced and widely used in previous wars, they represent both a military tool and a currency of political influence. Allowing Ukraine to use them against strategic targets deep inside Russia would, however, be a dangerous act of escalation — something that Trump, in a rare moment of prudence, seems to understand.
Putin’s phone call to Trump, as reported by the press, was likely a direct reminder that the use of missiles with a thousand-mile range against cities such as Moscow or St. Petersburg would have incalculable consequences. Contrary to the Western narrative, which tries to portray Russia as isolated and vulnerable, Moscow maintains full retaliatory capability, including nuclear. By avoiding authorization for the Tomahawks’ transfer, Trump did not yield to “Russian blackmail” — as the Atlanticist media would claim — but rather to the elementary logic of global security.
Even so, the fact that the Pentagon and European allies pressured the White House to approve the delivery shows how the structure of real power in the U.S. transcends the president himself. The Deep State shapes not only foreign-policy decisions but also the perceptions of what is “possible” or “acceptable” for an American leader. When Trump seeks dialogue with Moscow, he is immediately accused of “weakness” or “complicity.” When he imposes sanctions, even tactical ones, he is praised for his “toughness.” Thus, a political siege is created in which any attempt at rationality is seen as betrayal of American hegemony.
Analyzing this episode, it becomes clear that presidential autonomy in the United States is largely an illusion. Trump, who came to power promising to break with globalism and restore national sovereignty, now finds himself in a dilemma: either he resists establishment pressure and risks political isolation, or he yields and becomes just another administrator of Washington’s perpetual wars.
The hesitation over the Tomahawks is, therefore, a symptom of the deeper struggle that defines contemporary American politics. Russia, for its part, watches cautiously, aware that the true interlocutor in Washington is not the president but the system surrounding him — a system that profits from war and fears, above all, peace.
The rise of the US ‘digital-military-industrial complex’
Xinhuanet, Editor Huang Panyue2 025-10-20 http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/2025xb/W/N/16416523.html
On Oct 13, Anduril Industries, an American defense technology company, unveiled its “Eagle Eye” headset at the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) annual meeting as part of the Army’s Soldier Borne Mission Command program. The system — offered in four variants — integrates multiple augmented-reality devices designed to provide timely, accurate battlefield information, enhance soldiers’ situational cognition, and improve both offensive and defensive decision-making. This unveiling highlights the growing trend of digital technology firms entering the US defense market, with Anduril emerging as one of the most typical representatives of this shift.
Over the past decade, the familiar concept of the “military-industrial complex” — coined by President Dwight D Eisenhower in 1961 — has evolved into a new hybrid: the “digital-military-industrial complex”. This variant revolves around firms that specialize in data, artificial intelligence and digital platforms, as well as startups deliberately positioned as defense-oriented technology providers. These entities are collaborating closely with the US military and traditional defense contractors to accelerate the digitization and intelligent transformation of military capabilities. Some analysts warn that this digital variant could drive large-scale US intervention abroad — potentially becoming a “new war machine”.
Traditional defense giants such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics, now face intense competition from two kinds of digital players. The first category comprises big tech corporations — Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Oracle, HP, Dell, Motorola, IBM and others — many of which have secured sizable Pentagon contracts to supply advanced systems software and cloud, data and AI services. The second category consists of venture-backed startups, often funded by Silicon Valley investors that focus on AI, autonomy, sensing and networked command-and-control systems tailored to military and intelligence needs. These startups market “national security” as a core product attribute in pursuit of a share of US defense procurement.
Examples are plentiful. Anduril, founded in 2017 by investors including Palmer Luckey and Peter Thiel, now supplies autonomous systems that combine AI and robotics — from unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and counter-UAS solutions to semi-portable autonomous surveillance systems and networked command and control (C2) software. Palantir, founded in 2003, has long partnered with government agencies and has significantly expanded military collaboration in recent years. Its market capitalization soared in 2024, exceeding the combined valuations of several legacy defense giants. Other comparable companies include Rebellion Defense (AI military applications), Shield AI (autonomous flight and navigation), Skydio (drones for military and law enforcement), HawkEye 360 (satellite-enabled radio-frequency monitoring), Epirus (directed-energy and electromagnetic defense), and various private ventures targeting dual-use space capabilities.
At first glance, Silicon Valley’s deepening ties to the Pentagon may appear anomalous. For years, Silicon Valley projected liberal, antiwar values, resisting the militarization of its technologies. Yet the region’s militarized trajectory represents a return to its historical roots rather than a novel development. Since the 1950s, US federal agencies — particularly the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — decisively shaped the development of transformative technologies like the Internet and GPS.
Traditional defense firms also played formative roles in Silicon Valley’s rise. Although these ties waned after the Cold War, in recent years, major tech figures have publicly embraced national-security collaboration. In 2019, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos publicly urged big tech to show greater patriotism and actively participate in defense cooperation with the Department of Defense. In June 2025, the Army formalized the fusion of tech expertise and military innovation by appointing four tech leaders as reserve lieutenant colonels to its newly established “Detachment 201”, also known as the “Executive Innovation Corps” — a symbolic merger of commercial tech leadership and military roles.
Three drivers underpin the rise of the digital-military-industrial complex. First, the advent of AI has made integration of commercial data and algorithms essential to military modernization. The Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), established by the Pentagon in Silicon Valley in 2015, channels venture-style procurements to accelerate conversion of commercial technologies for defense.
By September 2022, DIU had awarded roughly $1.2 billion in contracts to over 320 startups, and it was elevated in 2021 to report directly to the Secretary of Defense. Second, escalating global tensions such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict and turmoil in the Middle East have heightened US urgency to field technologies proven effective on modern battlefields. Third, China’s rapid advances in AI have fueled US concerns, prompting American policymakers to increasingly frame the competition as, in essence, an AI arms race.
Operationally, the digital-military-industrial complex differs from the traditional procurement model. Legacy contractors depend on large, long-term, bureaucratic contracts focused on platform performance. Tech firms, by contrast, move with commercial speed and market leverage, adapting civilian technologies for defense use — a model that strengthens their bargaining power and reduces regulatory constraints. To engage these new actors, the Department of Defense has adopted more agile acquisition mechanisms — notably “Other Transaction Agreements” (OTAs) — and established accelerators and programs to welcome nontraditional vendors.
n short, the US defense ecosystem is undergoing structural change: from a Washington-centered “contractor + Pentagon” system to a Silicon Valley-centric network combining venture capital, tech firms, legacy defense primes and the military. This emerging “Silicon Valley-Pentagon axis” is reshaping the tools, logic and ethical contours of warfare. The trend may intensify great-power rivalry and arms races, lower the threshold for war, obscure responsibility, and accelerate the militarization of technology — posing new threats to global peace and security.
Whether Silicon Valley will ultimately evolve into a cradle for militarism, and whether the digital-military-industrial complex will operate as a fully activated “war machine”, are questions that deserve the vigilance, concern, and reflection of people worldwide.
Shi Bowei is a lecturer from the Department of Political Science at the Party School of Zhejiang Provincial CPC Committee.
Can France’s nuclear legacy weather climate change?
The delicate-looking water primrose, an invasive aquatic plant with golden, daisy-like flowers,brought unit 4 at the 3.6 GW Cruas nuclear power plant in southern France to a grinding halt.
In recent years, extreme heat, droughts and warmer
rivers have repeatedly disrupted operations, forcing EDF to reduce output
or shut down reactors at sites along the Garonne and the Rhone. During the
record 2022 heatwave, the government even issued exceptional exemptions so several plants could temporarily exceed environmental discharge limits to avoid potential blackouts.
What’s driving the concern?
River temperatures regularly reaching regulatory thresholds; More frequent
droughts limiting cooling water; Increased ecological pressure on already
stressed river basins; Data showing production cuts clustering in summer
when demand is highest.
France’s Court of Auditors and climate agencies
warn that such shutdowns could become three to four times more common by 2050. EDF says annual impacts remain small overall, but seasonal risks are rising. With an ageing fleet and new reactors planned, the question is how resilient France’s nuclear system can remain in a rapidly warming climate
Montel News 30th Oct 2025, https://montelnews.com/news/2e2e5374-e4ef-433a-ac00-1f2d049478c0/can-france-s-nuclear-legacy-weather-climate-change-2
IAEA chief says Iran still capable of building nuclear weapons
Nov 7, 2025,
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202511073079
ran still possesses enough highly enriched uranium and the technical capability to build nuclear weapons, despite the Israeli and US strikes that damaged its enrichment sites, Rafael Mariano Grossi, the head of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency, said on Thursday.
Although the June attacks on Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordo “severely damaged” Iran’s nuclear program, the country retains the knowledge and material “to manufacture a few nuclear weapons,” Grossi told FRANCE 24.
“To reconstruct that industrial technological base, Iran would need time,” Grossi said, adding that the strikes marked a sharp shift “from diplomacy to the use of force” and urging a return to negotiations. “Diplomacy is the only path toward a durable solution,” he said.
Politicized report and call for renewed talks
Grossi dismissed remarks that an IAEA safeguards report provided justification for the strikes, saying it had been politicized and contained nothing new. He also rejected suggestions that artificial intelligence influenced the agency’s conclusions, emphasizing that “our findings are made by human inspectors, not machines.”
The IAEA’s Board of Governors found Iran in non-compliance with its nuclear obligations on June 12 after the agency said Tehran had failed to explain the presence of undeclared nuclear material at multiple sites. Inspectors last verified more than 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium in Iran shortly before the June conflict began.
In late September, 70 members of Iranian parliament in a letter to the heads of the branches of government and the Supreme National Security Council requested that, by changing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s previous fatwa and in order to create deterrence, the Islamic Republic undertake the manufacture and possession of a nuclear bomb.
In recent months, and especially after the 12-day war with Israel, several officials of the Islamic Republic have criticized Grossi’s reports. Some called him a “Mossad agent,” and even Kayhan — a newspaper overseen by Khamenei’s representative — demanded his execution on charges of spying for Israel.
What will the UK do in a new nuclear arms race?
Tom Vaughan, a lecturer in international security at the University of
Leeds, notes that the UK is pressing ahead with its procurement of F-35
stealth fighter aircraft. These can carry nuclear bombs but, as Vaughan
notes, would require US authorisation before they could be used. Equally,
Britain’s nominally independent nuclear weapons system, Trident, is
reliant on US support and maintenance.
As Vaughan points out, it makes the
UK into “a target in any nuclear war that might be started by two
unpredictable and violent superpowers”.
The Conversation 7th Nov 2025, https://theconversation.com/what-will-the-uk-do-in-a-new-nuclear-arms-race-269224
EDF Braces for More Delays at UK Hinkley Point Nuclear Project.
The Hinkley Point nuclear project in the UK, ridden by repeated delays and cost overruns, is bracing for yet more setbacks. The latest schedule for
completion around the end of the decade is likely to be pushed back by at
least another year as operator Electricite de France SA continues to
grapple with the installation of electrical systems, a person familiar with
the matter said, asking not to be named discussing private information. The
delay may stretch for 12 months or more if corrective action plans continue
to prove challenging, another person said.
Bloomberg 7th Nov 2025, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-11-07/edf-braces-for-more-delays-at-uk-hinkley-point-nuclear-project
Talk of new atomic tests by Trump and Putin should make UK rethink its role as a nuclear silo for the US.
The Conversation, November 7, 2025, Tom Vaughan. Senior Research Associate, CERI, Sciences Po ; University of Leeds
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has said that Russia may could carry out nuclear weapons tests for the first time since the cold war.
In what appears to be a response to a statement by Donald Trump on October 30, that he had ordered the US to restart nuclear tests “on an equal basis” with Russia and China, Putin said he’d been advised by his defence staff that it was “advisable to prepare for full-scale nuclear tests”.
At present there is no evidence that either Russia or China is conducting nuclear tests, which were discontinued by most nuclear states after the test ban treaties of the early 1990s.
Nonetheless, the two leaders’ nuclear bluster is a sobering reminder of the dangers posed by nuclear brinkmanship between the US and Russia.
It is worth remembering that at the height of the cold war, the superpowers prepared to settle their confrontation in the territories of central Europe with little regard for the millions they would kill. US strategists hoped that a “tactical” nuclear conflict might contain the war to Europe, sparing the continental United States.
Independent deterrent?
This is the context for the UK public accounts committee releasing a report last week which detailed further “delays, cost inflation, and deep-rooted management failures” in the RAF’s procurement of F-35 stealth fighter aircraft.
The F-35 is increasingly coming to be viewed in some US defence circles as an expensive failure. This year, however, the UK’s Labour government committed to buying 15 additional F-35B aircraft (having already ordered 48), but also adding 12 of the F-35A variant………………………………………………………………………………….
Incompatible with democracy
This is a clear demonstration that nuclear weapons and deterrence policies have always been incompatible with democracy. They require huge secrecy, and the speed involved means that launch decisions are out of the public’s hands. Instead, any decisions to use these incredibly destructive weapons – with all that this implies for the planet – are concentrated in the hands of individual leaders.
The logic of nuclear deterrence breaks down, however, once we remember that the UK’s control over its own nuclear weapons – not to mention the US weapons hosted on its soil – is very limited. The US could at any moment withdraw its assistance for the Trident programme, making questions of British willingness to fight a nuclear war irrelevant.
The F-35A purchase redoubles the UK’s commitment to serving as Donald Trump’s nuclear aircraft carrier. It makes the country a target in any nuclear war that might be started by two unpredictable and violent superpowers. Other US allies get the same treatment: Australian analysts lament that the Aukus submarine deal with the UK and US yokes the country’s future “to whoever is in the White House”…………………………………………………………………………… https://theconversation.com/talk-of-new-atomic-tests-by-trump-and-putin-should-make-uk-rethink-its-role-as-a-nuclear-silo-for-the-us-269040
The UK’s £1 billion Thank You to Uncle Sam
The UK is set to buy a fleet of US fighter jets that can drop nuclear bombs. The purchase is purely political, say watchdogs
RICHARD NORTON-TAYLOR, 6 November 2025, https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-uks-1-billion-thank-you-to-uncle-sam/
Keir Starmer’s plan to buy American fighter jets armed with nuclear bombs whose use will be entirely under the US president’s control makes no military sense, nuclear weapons monitors warn.
In a report released today, the Nuclear Information Service and Nukewatch UK make clear that the deal, announced by the prime minister on the eve of a Nato summit in June, is a blatant attempt to appease President Trump.
The new fleet of F-35 As is estimated to cost about £1 billion. That does not include the cost of the nuclear bombs which the aircraft would carry.
But the cost is only one of many uncertainties surrounding the project.
The decision to buy twelve F-35 A aircraft for the Royal Air Force capable of dropping US B61 gravity, “free fall” nuclear bombs – so-called “tactical” nuclear weapons – risks triggering a dangerous nuclear escalation, increasing the threat to British citizens, says the report.
And because their role would be dependent on the US, it would do nothing to address European concerns about America’s commitment to the Nato alliance, it adds.
The report says the decision “was made for purely political purposes rather than to provide a military capability that will play any meaningful role in defending Nato”. The move also undermines the nuclear non proliferation treaty (NPT).
UK picks up the tab
The nuclear bombs provided to RAF aircraft would replicate capabilities already provided by other European Nato members, says the report.
Moreover, the monitors find there is no guarantee that the weapons carried by F-35s with a limited range would succeed in any conflict.
The decision to buy the fleet of nuclear bombers from the US “reflects a long-standing trend by the UK government to prioritise trans-Atlantic politics over genuine military needs”, the report emphasises.
It quotes Bernard Gray, a former top Ministry of Defence official responsible for weapons procurement who said: “If money was no object, we could view the £2 bn price tag for doing this as a Thank You to Uncle Sam.”
Gray, who was referring to the potential price of both the planes and the bombs, added: “The UK is in effect picking up part of the cost of the mission that would otherwise fall on the US. In a world that wants to please President Trump, it’s easy to see how it plays well to buy aircraft primarily built in Texas.”
The authors of this year’s Strategic Defence Review, led by former Labour defence secretary Lord George Robertson, have downplayed the idea of Britain joining a Nato “tactical nuclear” weapons mission.
Robertson has suggested that a perceived capability gap between strategic nuclear deterrence and tactical nuclear weapons could be bridged by investing, instead, in heavy long-range conventional weapons.
His caution was echoed by Fiona Hill, British-born former national security adviser to Trump, during a Defence Committee evidence session in June.
Pointing to how Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey host US nuclear weapons, she added: “There are other allies who already have dual capable aircraft as part of their arsenal”.
In a reference to Britain’s Trident nuclear missile system, she made the point that Britain already played a “unique role” in Nato.
Concerns over Trident reliance
But today’s report also points to potential vulnerability of Trident, Britain’s strategic nuclear weapons system which relies heavily on US support, and serious mechanical problems affecting the new Dreadnought fleet of submarines designed to carry the missiles.
The report points to widespread scepticism about the role of theatre nuclear weapons, and the misleading assumption that using them would not escalate a conflict leading to the use of longer range and larger nuclear weapons systems.
It quotes Sir Lawrence Freedman, one of Britain’s foremost military strategists, as saying: “There are lots of ways of hurting countries without actually having to use nuclear weapons yourself”.
“The idea that the further proliferation of theatre nuclear weapons is necessary or will make the world safer in any way is clearly absurd,” says the report.
“When looked at objectively, they are merely a ‘solution’ looking for a problem.”
The report also makes the point that while the theatre nuclear weapons proposed for the RAF would be entirely dependent on the US, Trident is far from being the independent deterrent as successive British governments have persistently claimed.
Britain relies entirely on the US for Trident missiles as well as the design of modern nuclear warheads.
There are also growing concerns about the reliability of Trident submarines leading with longer and longer patrols at sea, while the timetable for replacing the existing Vanguard class with Dreadnought class is slipping.
Turning back the clock
Okopi Ajonye, research manager at Nuclear Information Service told Declassified: “The UK government went to a lot of trouble to denuclearise the RAF at the end of the Cold War. This move was welcomed by the service, as it allowed the air force to focus on more important and relevant roles.
“Starmer and Healey now want to turn the clock back and commit the RAF to an entirely unnecessary nuclear mission that will have major implications for the service and considerable hidden costs.”
Ajonye added that the proposal “has all the hallmarks of having been pulled together in a hurry without any thought about its practicalities or consequences” and guided by the politics of the Nato alliance rather than military need.
“The government’s plan is basically just political smoke and mirrors to deceive the public and politicians from other Nato countries into thinking that the UK is taking a significant step to strengthen its nuclear forces when in reality it is doing next to nothing,” he said
“The UK’s entry into Nato’s nuclear mission is driven less by strategic or military necessity and more by a desire to reassure two audiences: domestic political concerns over the crumbling Trident programme, and international concerns about the credibility of US security guarantees to Europe”.
Costs add up
There are also concerns over the management of the existing F-35 fleet with a recent report by the Commons Public Accounts Committee expressing serious concerns about the MoD’s handling of the warplanes, including what it calls an unacceptable shortage of engineers.
It added: “There are also questions over the additional costs of operating nuclear-capable F-35As, and how long the necessary arrangements will take to prepare.
“The deal would add new requirements to training, personnel and possibly infrastructure yet discussions in this area are at an early stage, and no indication of forecast costs has been provided by MoD.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, chair of the committee, commented: “Making short-term cost decisions is famously inadvisable if you’re a homeowner with a leaky roof, let alone if one is running a complex fighter jet programme – and yet such decisions have been rife in the management of the F-35.”
He added: “There are basic lessons here that MoD has been worryingly slow to learn. Its appraisal of the F-35’s whole-life cost is unrealistic, which it currently gives as at almost £57bn through to 2069.”
The message from MPs is that the total cost to British taxpayers of taxpayers of the nuclear-armed American F-35s will be significantly more than that.
Nuclear Information Service and Nukewatch UK will hold a webinar about the report and F-35 nuclear-armed aircraft on 11 November.
Trump’s 20 point plan to end the war in Gaza is the usual Israeli ultimatum: surrender or be murdered.
Eva Karene Bartlett, Nov 07, 2025, https://evakarenebartlett.substack.com/p/trumps-20-point-plan-to-end-the-war?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3046064&post_id=178183468&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Given that the US is bankrolling Israel’s genocide and has made no effort whatsoever to stop Israel from bombing, starving, and sniping Palestinian civilians for the past two years, skeptics of Trump’s “20 point proposal to end the war in Gaza” published on September 29 can be forgiven for doubting that it will end the genocide, much less that it will be a just proposal for Palestinians.
Recall that earlier this year, while Israel continued its ongoing genocide of Gaza, Donald Trump callously boasted about the US desire to own Gaza.
He described Gaza as a “big real estate site” and a new “Riviera,” and said, “We’re committed to owning it, taking it, and making sure that Hamas doesn’t move back.”
Recall also that in September, Israel attempted to assassinate Hamas’ negotiating team in Qatar.
The 20 points can be read in full at this link, but it’s worth mentioning some of the most important key takeaways from the plan:
- Fighting would stop immediately and the Israeli captives would be released within 72 hours once both parties agree.
- Israel will free 250 prisoners serving life sentences along with 1,700 Palestinians from Gaza detained after 7 October [Note: Israels imprisons nearly 11,000 Palestinians (as of early August 2025), including more than 450 children and 49 women. Since October 7, 2023, Israel has abducted over 2,300 Palestinians from Gaza, including numerous doctors. From October 2023 to early August 2025, 76 prisoners have died in prison, most having been tortured. Three doctors from Gaza were tortured to death, including by raping].
Israel will withdraw and refrain from annexing the territory.- “Security” will be provided by regional and international forces, who will also help train Palestinian police, while aid will be delivered to Gaza at agreed levels. The US will oversee dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis if the Palestinian Authority (PA) implements “reforms” according to US-Israeli demands.
- Gaza will be administered by a temporary technocratic government, with oversight and supervision by a new international transitional body headed and chaired by Trump and Former Prime Minister Tony Blair, among others.
- No forced displacement from Gaza, and reconstruction of the Strip as a “de-radicalized terror-free zone” will begin.
All ‘military operations’ will be halted during this period for a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces. Hamas members who commit to ‘peace’ will be granted amnesty, while those who do not will be offered safe passage to third countries.- Hamas and other factions agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form.
- Aid will be delivered to Gaza at agreed levels, through the United Nations and other international institutions. [Note: In May 2025, Israel imposed the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) as a sole replacement for the UN;s aid distribution, claiming Hamas hinders the humanitarian mission of the foundation. This claim was not true and not proven.]
Unfair, unjust, unrealistic proposal
While lauded in legacy media and by Western leaders, Trump’s proposal is an insincere plan not for peace but which really amounts to a surrender ultimatum to Hamas.
Shortly after its announcement, Netanyahu said that the Israeli army will not withdraw from the Gaza Strip. “No way, that’s not happening.”
He also said, “If Hamas refuses [the proposal], Trump will give Israel full backing to complete the military operation and eliminate them.”
The US has already given Israel full backing to commit its genocide in Gaza, so in that regard Netanyahu is correct. But for any who thought he would abide by Trump’s proposal to pull out of Gaza, there was never a chance of that.
On October 3, 2025, Hamas agreed to the release of all Israeli hostages, but did not accept the proposal unconditionally, with other elements to be negotiated.
Trump responded by saying,
“After negotiations, Israel has agreed to the initial withdrawal line, which we have shown to, and shared with, Hamas. When Hamas confirms, the Ceasefire will be immediately effective, the Hostages and Prisoner Exchange will begin, and we will create the conditions for the next phase of withdrawal…”
He urged Israel to “immediately stop bombing Gaza” to allow for the safe release of hostages.
The important nuances written out of legacy media reporting on the proposal include:
- Hamas does not accept that the affairs of Gaza, as a part of Palestine, be managed by any non-Palestinian party.
- The entry of foreign forces or a foreign administration into the Gaza Strip is an issue that is not acceptable to Palestinians.
- Israel has no intention to fully withdraw from Gaza.
- Demanding the dissolution of Hamas is to deny the Palestinian people their right to political self-determination.
Further, Trump’s proposal to appoint Former Prime Minister Tony Blair to chair a board overseeing Gaza’s transition is not acceptable to Palestinians, nor to people who opposed the invasion and slaughter of Iraqis.
Enabling continued genocide and Israeli expansion
The Trump proposal doesn’t consider what Palestinians want. It speaks of peace, but in reality proposes a full surrender to an occupying power and giving control to foreign decision makers and forces. Trump and Netanyahu want Hamas to capitulate, drop their weapons, and hand over control to the US and Israel, in the name of “peace”.
In addition to the above points, it must be stressed that Israel never honours ceasefires or its word, instead violating the ceasefires immediately, resulting in the slaughter or more Palestinians (and Lebanese).
Case in point, just hours after President Trump ordered Israel to stop bombing Gaza, Israeli bombing killed a 3-month-old baby and 14 other members from her family in Gaza City, leaving 20 more people buried beneath the rubble.
Israeli bombing that day killed 70 Palestinians, the majority of them children.
The Government Media Office in Gaza reported 131 Israeli air and artillery strikes across on October 4th and 5th, killing 94 civilians. The Israeli bombing continues.
Former US Ambassador Chas Freeman in recent interview noted,
“This is a peace plan that was never discussed with the Palestinians who have to have something to say about peace. Either they benefit from peace or they don’t. There’s no benefit to them in this plan…It is the same old demands from Israel: exile yourself, leave or be killed. This is an exercise in colonial rule.”
Indeed, the proposal comes at a time when global condemnation is high of the Israeli genocide and starvation campaign in Gaza. Pitching such a proposal gives the veneer of Trump trying to stop the killing, but in reality, he gives Netanyahu carte blanche to continue killing.
Over the past month since parts of the proposal were enacted, Israel has continued violating the ceasefire with more bombing. On October 29, it was reported that Israel says it has “resumed enforcing ceasefire”. In the 24 hours prior, at the last 104 people were killed in strikes across Gaza, including at least 46 children.
Los Alamos National Laboratory Prioritizes Plutonium “Pit” Bomb Core Production Over Safety
Santa Fe, NM – The independent Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board recently released its Review of the Los Alamos Plutonium Facility Documented Safety Analysis. It concluded that:
“While LANL facility personnel continue to make important upgrades to the Plutonium Facility’s safety systems, many of those projects have encountered delays due to inconsistent funding and other reasons. DOE and LANL should consider prioritizing safety-related infrastructure projects to ensure that the Plutonium Facility safety strategy adequately protects the public, as the facility takes on new and expansive national security missions.” (Page 24)
In early October 2024, the Department of Energy’s semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) announced with great fanfare that the Los Alamos Lab had produced its first “diamond stamped” plutonium pit for the nuclear weapons stockpile. Tens of billions of taxpayers’ dollars have been sunk into LANL’s long delayed and over budget pit production program. Given no further announcements, it is not currently known whether or not the Lab is meeting its congressionally required production goals. Endemic nuclear safety problems have long been an intractable issue, at one point even forcing a three-year halt to plutonium operations at LANL’s Plutonium Facility-4 (“PF-4”).
In its recent Review, the Safety Board reported:
“The [2009] Plutonium Facility safety basis described very large potential [radioactive] dose consequences to the public following seismic events…. DOE committed to upgrade and seismically qualify the ventilation system, with a particular focus on a specific ventilation subsystem…”
“As the only facility in the DOE complex that can process large quantities of plutonium in many forms, [PF-4] represents a unique capability for the nation’s nuclear deterrent. The Board has long advocated for the use of safety-related active confinement systems in nuclear facilities for the purposes of confining radioactive materials…Passive confinement systems are not necessarily capable of containing hazardous materials with confidence because they allow a quantity of unfiltered air contaminated with radioactive material to be released from an operating nuclear facility following certain accident scenarios. Safety related active confinement ventilation systems will continue to function during an accident, thereby ensuring that radioactive material is captured by filters before it can be released into the environment… (Page 2, bolded emphases added)
The Safety Board referred to DOE Order 420.1C, Facility Safety, which has a clear requirement that:
“Hazard category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities… must have the means to confine the uncontained radioactive materials to minimize their potential release in facility effluents during normal operations and during and following accidents, up to and including design basis accidents… An active confinement ventilation system [is] the preferred design approach for nuclear facilities with potential for radiological release. Alternate confinement approaches may be acceptable if a technical evaluation demonstrates that the alternate confinement approach results in very high assurance of the confinement of radioactive materials.” (Page 2, bolded emphases added; PF-4 is a Hazard Category 2 nuclear facility)
Plutonium pit production at LANL is slated for a 15% increase to $1.7 billion in FY 2026. But in a clear example of how the NNSA prioritizes nuclear weapons production over safety, the DNFSB reported:
The active confinement safety system “remained the planned safety strategy for the Plutonium Facility for many years… However, in a March 2022 letter to the Board, the NNSA Administrator stated that the planned strategy would shift away from safety class active confinement… A safety class would require substantial facility upgrades far in excess to those that are currently planned… facility personnel also noted that some projects [for alternate confinement approaches] have been paused or delayed due to funding issues…” (Pages 3 and 21, bolded emphases added)
Instead of a technical evaluation demonstrating that “the alternate confinement approach results in very high assurance of the confinement of radioactive materials,” the Board concluded:
“Predicting the amount of release under passive confinement conditions can be quite complex. Fire or explosions could add energy to the facility’s atmosphere and introduce a motive force that could carry hazardous materials through an exhaust path… Therefore, determination of the amount of radioactive material that could escape the facility becomes very complex and uncertain.” (Page 8, bolded emphases added)
In sum, DOE reneged on its commitment to retrofit a safety class confinement system at PF-4, even as it ramps up plutonium pit production. At the same time, LANL has not demonstrated that its “alternate confinement approach results in very high assurance of the confinement of radioactive materials” in the event of an accident or earthquake.
This also contradicts the NNSA’s position that potential radioactive doses are vanishingly small. For example, the agency claims that the “Most Exposed Individual” of the public would have only a one in a million chance of developing a “Latent Cancer Fatality” from an accidental fire in gloveboxes at PF-4, which commonly process molten, pyrophoric plutonium. (Draft LANL Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement, January 2025, Page D-23)
Moreover, pit production that involves plutonium-239 is not the only nuclear safety issue. PF-4 also processes plutonium-238, a dangerous gamma emitter, as a heat source for radioisotope thermoelectric generators (AKA nuclear batteries). The Safety Board’s Review noted:
While newly installed gloveboxes meet seismic requirements, and facility modifications associated with the pit production mission prioritize upgrades for some gloveboxes, others have known seismic vulnerabilities and will not be able to perform their credited post-seismic function. Many of these deficient gloveboxes are associated with processing heat source plutonium, a high-hazard material which accounts for much of the facility’s overall safety risk… Upgrading glovebox support stands is important to return the facility to a safety posture more reliant on credited engineered features…” (Pages 22-23, bolded emphases added)
Nuclear safety issues will always be inherent to plutonium pit production, yet new pit production itself is simply not necessary. No currently planned production is to maintain the safety and reliability of the existing nuclear weapons stockpile. Instead, it is all for new-design nuclear weapons, which could prompt the U.S. to resume full-scale testing, as Trump has recently ordered. Pit production is the NNSA’s most expensive program ever, but it has no credible cost estimates. Independent experts have concluded that pits last at least a century (their average age now is ~43) and there are at least 15,000 existing pits already stored at the Pantex Plant near Amarillo, TX.
Moreover, the future of the independent Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is in doubt, without whom the DOE’s chronic nuclear safety record would not be publicly known. The DNFSB’s five-member Board recently lost its quorum because of term limits. The Board desperately needs nominations from the Trump Administration, which so far has not happened either by design or neglect.
Jay Coghlan, Director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, commented, “We are facing a perfect storm of expanding plutonium pit production and diminishing oversight by the Safety Board. LANL’s expanding nuclear weapons programs are sucking money from the Lab’s other programs that are truly needed, such as nonproliferation, cleanup and renewable energy research (which is being completely eliminated). NNSA’s prioritization of plutonium pit production for the new nuclear arms race and the erosion of nuclear safety could have disastrous results for northern New Mexico.”
The DNFSB’s Review of the Los Alamos Plutonium Facility Documented Safety Analysis is available at https://www.dnfsb.gov/sites/default/files/2025-10/Review of the Los Alamos Plutonium Facility Documented Safety Analysis %5B2026-100-001%5D.pdf https://nukewatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/LANL-Prioritizes-Plutonium-Pit-Bomb-Core-Production-Over-Safety.pdf
Nuclear Tests and Their Legacy of Harms in Asia-Pacific
Far from being mere experiments, the detonations of nuclear weapons during such tests are best understood as a global catastrophe
Nuclear “tests” are best conceptualized as environmental disasters with consequences that are still felt today, particularly in Oceania and Central Asia.
By Maxime Polleri, November 05, 2025, https://thediplomat.com/2025/11/nuclear-tests-and-their-legacy-of-harms-in-asia-pacific/
Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump made headlines when he told the Pentagon to resume testing of U.S. nuclear weapons, citing his concerns that countries like China or Russia had supposedly conducted secret underground nuclear weapons tests and that the United States was falling behind. While the president’s post created much controversy around the nature of such tests, the U.S. energy secretary later explained that Trump’s planned tests would not include any actual nuclear explosions, but would encompass “system tests” to verify the state of American nuclear arsenals.
While the fact that the United States does not plan to detonate nuclear weapons is reassuring, the country, as well as China and Russia, have a long history of experimenting with real nuclear weapons to measure the performance of their devastating arsenals. Throughout the 20th century, nuclear testing has taken different forms, such as aboveground nuclear weapon tests, underwater tests, and underground tests. The 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty prohibited atmospheric, outer space and underwater tests, while some nation states later declared moratoria on underground tests.
Nowadays, nuclear “tests” are done via computers or laboratory scale experiments and do not include actual explosions. However, understanding former nuclear experiments as “tests” is highly misleading, since each atomic and thermonuclear explosion throughout the 20th century released a tremendous quantity of long-lasting radioactive pollutants. Nuclear “tests” are best conceptualized as environmental disasters with long-lasting consequences that are still felt nowadays, particularly in Oceania, as well as Central Asia.
n the early 1950s, the United States began to test numerous nuclear weapons at the Nevada Test Site, releasing large quantities of radioactive fallout that afflicted its own population. People exposed to such fallout became known as “downwinders” and faced a plethora of health problems. Aware of the danger of bombing themselves, many nation states began to “export” nuclear testing to colonial areas, where vulnerable local populations faced the burden of contamination. Testing nuclear weapons in such locations was often a strategic choice, since many of the indigenous local population were already invisible from the public scrutiny or did not have the means to speak back to the dominant power that controlled their territories.
For instance, in March 1954, the U.S. tested a thermonuclear weapon, Castle Bravo, in the Bikini Atoll of the Marshall Islands, an archipelago in Micronesia that was turned into U.S. military bases after World War II. The nuclear fallout heavily impacted residents of the atolls, who were later forced to evacuate their beloved home. In fact, the scope of the fallout was so powerful that a Japanese fishing boat, the Daigo Fukuryū Maru, was contaminated by the test, resulting in cases of acute radiation syndrome for the fishing crew and the death of its radioman.
Much like the United States, France also conducted atmospheric and underwater tests in French Polynesia, resulting in the contamination of many atolls, like Moruroa. Nuclear tests in the Asia-Pacific region created a tremendous legacy of harms, which included the destruction of coral reefs and the death of marine ecosystems, but also forced displacements, contamination of the food chain, destruction of the social fabric, and health issues.
A similar pattern of exporting nuclear tests to vulnerable populations was also apparent in Central and East Asia. For instance, the Soviets repeatedly tested their nuclear weapons in the Semipalatinsk Test Site, a region that was historically dominated by ethnic Kazakhs. Nowadays, as anthropologist Magdalena Stawkowski highlights, Kazakhstan has inherited the remnants of one of the world’s most contaminated landscapes, dealing with contested health issues, precarious economy and marginalization.
Moreover, the People’s Republic of China has historically tested its nuclear weapons in the region of Lop Nur, leading Uyghurs, a Muslim minority ethnic group of northwestern China, to voice concerns about the long-term impact of residual radiation. In many of these instances, issues of national security – such as the health and well-being of local populations – were sacrificed for issues of international security.
Ironically, in each of these cases, humans tested nuclear weapons to prepare for a war that never came – globally contaminating ourselves in the process.
Far from being mere experiments, the detonations of nuclear weapons during such tests are best understood as a global catastrophe. And while a moratorium on nuclear testing ought to be applauded, many people are still grappling with the legacy of past nuclear tests.
The recent movie “A House of Dynamite” has brought up fresh fears of a nuclear war, as well as numerous discussions surrounding nuclear deterrence theories and mutually assured destruction. Instead of focusing our time, energy, and resources on hypothetical strikes that happen in science fiction or game theory, we should delve deeper into the poisoned heritages of the real explosions that occurred in the 20th century and prompt efforts to revitalize communities that are still suffering from its harm.
IAEA chief condemns Trump’s nuclear test plan.
5 Nov, 2025, https://www.rt.com/news/627359-iaea-grossi-us-nuclear/
The US president’s decision undermines international security, Rafael Grossi has said.
US President Donald Trump’s decision to resume nuclear weapon testing is indicative of a deepening global crisis and weakens the international system of security and peace, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, has said.
Speaking to France’s LCI TV channel on Tuesday, Grossi described Trump’s announcement as a “manifestation of profound unease, tension, and increasing fragmentation,” adding that it undermines both global peace and the non-proliferation regime.
Last week, Trump ordered the US Department of War to begin preparations for nuclear testing, claiming that the US is “the only country that doesn’t test” and accusing Russia and China of conducting “secret” nuclear explosions. Both Moscow and Beijing have refuted the allegations.
Grossi questioned the veracity of Trump’s claims, emphasizing that any nuclear detonations by other nations would be detected by the international monitoring system established under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. The IAEA chief noted that the organization responsible for overseeing compliance “can immediately record such phenomena.”
Grossi called for the restoration of the United Nations’ role in maintaining global peace and safeguarding the nuclear non-proliferation system amid rising tensions.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has so far refrained from commenting on Trump’s statements, explaining that Moscow is still waiting for “clarifications from the American side.” He stressed that neither Russia nor China had resumed nuclear testing and both remain committed to their obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.
Trump’s announcement came after Russia conducted a series of tests, including the launch of its new Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile and the Poseidon underwater drone. However, neither of these trials involved actual nuclear detonations.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that Moscow would consider resuming the testing of nuclear weapons only if other nuclear powers officially abandon the moratorium.
1 This Month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (139)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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
nuclear-news 