Torness Nuclear Power Station welcomes East Lothian schoolchildren.
East Lothian Courier, By Cameron Ritchie, 15th December
MORE than 100 pupils from three primary schools have swapped the classroom for touring Scotland’s nuclear power station.
Torness Power Station, near Dunbar, welcomed youngsters from Haddington’s Letham Mains Primary School, as well as Coldstream Primary School and Berwick Middle School, as part of its annual ‘Christmas Cracker’ event.
The scheme offers a unique insight into life at the station and the wide variety of roles that keep it running.
Faith Scott, visitor centre co-ordinator at the power station, said: “The Christmas Cracker event is one of the highlights of our calendar.
“It is a fantastic opportunity for pupils to see how the station operates and discover the range of careers available on site.”
While nearly all primary pupils study science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) subjects, only a small fraction continue into STEM careers.
Events like the ‘Christmas Cracker’ are designed to encourage pupils to continue studying STEM subjects.
Reeves’s planning overhaul stalls as UK’s senior adviser leaves after four months.
Catherine Howard’s exit comes amid disagreements at top of government about how far to push deregulation agenda
Helena Horton and Kiran Stacey, Guardian, 14 Dec, 25
Rachel Reeves’s attempts to overhaul Britain’s planning laws have been dealt a blow after a senior lawyer whom she appointed as an adviser decided to leave the government after just four months.
Catherine Howard will leave the Treasury when her contract ends on 1 January, despite having been asked informally to stay on indefinitely.
Howard is understood to have warned the government against pushing ahead immediately with some of its more radical proposals to sweep aside planning regulations in an effort to encourage more infrastructure projects.
Her decision to leave the post comes amid disagreements at the top of government about how far to push its deregulation agenda, with some senior officials warning that Keir Starmer’s latest attempt to kickstart major building schemes could damage EU relations.
Disquiet is also growing among some Labour MPs, with 30 writing to the prime minister this week urging not to push ahead with some of his more radical planning reforms.
Howard said in a statement: “Over the past four months I have thoroughly enjoyed my time as the chancellor’s infrastructure and planning adviser, and in my time have had the ability to advise HM Treasury and help steer the important steps the government is taking to improve the planning system to support economic growth.
“I look forward to continuing my engagement with HM Treasury and government as I return to the private sector.”
Starmer and Reeves have put planning at the heart of their push for economic growth, which has so far struggled to gain traction, with figures released on Friday showing the economy shrank 0.1% in the three months to October……………………………………….
While in government she is understood to have disagreed with Starmer’s decision to announce he would fully adopt the recommendations of a review into building nuclear power stations more quickly, written by the economist John Fingleton.
Starmer said in a post-budget speech last week: “In addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations, I am asking the business secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy.”
Fingleton made a number of suggestions, including changing rules around protected species and increasing radiation limits for those living near or working in a nuclear power plant.
He suggested that infrastructure projects should pay a large, pre-agreed, upfront sum to government quango Natural England in lieu of protecting or replacing habitats lost to development.
His review also recommended making it more costly for individuals and charities to take judicial reviews against infrastructure projects……..
Howard believed Starmer should not have accepted his recommendations to rip up EU derived habitats laws before taking legal advice on whether they complied with legally binding nature targets and trading arrangements with the EU.
She was bringing forward concerns shared with government departments including the Cabinet Office and the environment department, which said the review could jeopardise trade with the EU and lead to widespread habitat destruction.
Those concerns are also shared by some Labour backbenchers.
Chris Hinchliff, Labour MP for North East Hertfordshire, has been leading a campaign against the review.
He said: “It’s time our Labour government stopped pitching nature as the enemy of a better life for ordinary people in this country and realised that, for the vast majority, it is a measure of it.”…………………….. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/dec/14/reevess-planning-overhaul-stalls-as-senior-adviser-quits-after-four-months
Wildlife groups hit back at nuclear review claims over Hinkley Point C
By Burnham-On-Sea.com, December 14, 2025, https://www.burnham-on-sea.com/news/wildlife-groups-hit-back-at-nuclear-review-claims-over-hinkley-point-c/
Environmental organisations have criticised the government’s Nuclear Review, known as the Fingleton Report, for suggesting that environmental protections are blocking development at Hinkley Point C.
The Severn Estuary Interests Group, a collaboration of organisations working to protect the estuary, says EDF’s reported £700m spend on fish protection measures is not due to regulations but to poor planning and design decisions. The group points out that the government chose to build the power station on one of the UK’s most protected ecological sites.
The Severn Estuary is both a Special Area of Conservation and a Special Protection Area, supporting migratory fish, internationally important bird species and diverse invertebrate communities.
Campaigners say the impact of the plant will be immense, with cooling systems drawing in the equivalent of an Olympic-sized swimming pool every 12 seconds and discharging heated water back into the estuary. They argue that data used in the Fingleton Report is inaccurate, relying on figures from the now-decommissioned Hinkley Point B rather than the new design.
EDF’s costs have already risen from £18bn in 2017 to a projected £46bn, with completion now expected in 2031. The company has blamed inflation, Brexit, Covid and engineering challenges for the delays.
Simon Hunter, CEO of Bristol Avon Rivers Trust, said: “When developers fail to consult meaningfully, ignore local expertise, and attempt to sidestep environmental safeguards, costs rise and nature pays the price. Many countries would never have permitted a development of this scale in such a sensitive location in the first place.”
“The situation at HPC is not an indictment of environmental protection, but of poor planning, weak accountability, and a persistent willingness to blame nature for the consequences of human decisions.”
Georgia Dent, CEO of Somerset Wildlife Trust, said: “The government seems to have adopted a simple, reductive narrative that nature regulations are blocking development, and this is simply wrong. To reduce destruction of protected and vulnerable marine habitat to the concept of a ‘fish disco’ is deliberately misleading and part of a propaganda drive from government.”
“Nature in the UK is currently in steep decline and the government has legally binding targets for nature’s recovery, and is failing massively in this at the moment. To reduce the hard-won protections that are allowing small, vulnerable populations of species to cling on for dear life is absolutely the wrong direction to take.”
“A failing natural world is a problem not just for environmental organisations but for our health, our wellbeing, our food, our businesses and our economy. There is no choice to be made; in order for us to have developments and economic growth we must protect and restore our natural world.”
“As we have said all along in relation to HPC, how developers interpret and deliver these environmental regulations is something that can improve, especially if they have genuine, meaningful and – most importantly – early collaboration with local experts.”
Ukraine wants West to pay for election.
Rt.com, 12 Dec, 2025
Kiev is ready to call a vote once its demands are met, Vladimir Zelensky’s top adviser has said.
Kiev is ready to hold an election, but only if a series of conditions are met, including Western funding of the vote, Mikhail Podoliak, a senior adviser to Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, has said.
Zelensky’s presidential term expired in May 2024, but he has refused to organize elections, citing martial law. Earlier this week, US President Donald Trump said Kiev should no longer use the ongoing conflict as an excuse for the delay.
Moscow has maintained that Zelensky has “lost his legitimate status,” which would undermine the legality of any peace deal signed with him.
Zelensky has claimed he was not trying to “cling to power,” declaring this week readiness for the elections, but insisting that Kiev needs help from the US and European countries “to ensure security” during a vote.
Podoliak expanded on the position on Friday, writing on X that Zelensky had called on parliament to prepare changes to the constitution and laws. Podoliak, however, added that three conditions must be met for a vote to go ahead……………………………………………….. https://www.rt.com/russia/629383-ukraine-elections-western-funding/
Does Britain really need nuclear power?
Well, the answer was supplied in 2023 by the Rishi Sunak administration which admitted that the main reason for its continued eye-watering financial support for civil reactors was that they provided needed technical support and expertise for the government’s nuclear weapons programme.
Well, the answer was supplied in 2023 by the Rishi Sunak administration which admitted that the main reason for its continued eye-watering financial support for civil reactors was that they provided needed technical support and expertise for the government’s nuclear weapons programme.
It doesn’t, but the link to nuclear weapons is the key driver, writes Ian Fairlie
In recent months, the government has continued to promote nuclear reactors. For example, the Energy Secretary is now asking GB Energy to assess sites to be used to host new nuclear reactors. And the Prime Minister continues to push for so-called Small Modular Reactors and has backed the US President’s wishful thinking of ‘a golden age of nuclear’.
But these announcements and proposals are mostly pie-in-the-sky statements and should be treated with a pinch (or more) of salt, as the reality is otherwise.
Let’s look at what is happening in the rest of the world. Last year, a record 582 GW of renewable energy generation capacity was added to the world’s supplies: almost no new nuclear was added.
Indeed, each year, new renewables add about 200 times more global electricity than new nuclear does.
Of course, there are powerful economic arguments for this. The main one is that the marginal (i.e. fuel) costs of renewable energy are close to zero, whereas nuclear fuel is extremely expensive. Nuclear costs – for both construction and generation – are very high and rising, and long delays are the norm. For example, the proposed Sizewell C nuclear station is now predicted to cost £47 billion, with the government and independent experts acknowledging even this estimate may rise significantly. The upshot is that new nuclear power means massive costs, a poisoned legacy to future generations, and whopping radioactive pollution.
Given these manifest disadvantages, independent commentators have questioned the government’s seeming obsession with nuclear power. It is not that nuclear provides a good solution to global warming: it doesn’t. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that renewables are now 10 times more efficient than new nuclear at CO2 mitigation.
It’s not that AI centres will need nuclear: the International Energy Agency expects data centres will cause a mere 10% of global electricity demand growth to 2030. And it forecasts that the renewables will supply 10 to 20 times the electricity required for data-centre growth, with Bloomberg NEF predicting a 100-fold renewables expansion.
As for so-called Small Modular Reactors, the inconvenient truth is that these designs are all just paper designs and are a long way off. They would also be more expensive to run than large reactors per kWh – the key parameter. And as the former Chair of the US government’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) says, SMRs will produce more chemical and radioactive waste per KW produced than large reactors.
Given a UK Treasury strapped for cash, the unsolved problem of radioactive nuclear waste, the spectre of nuclear proliferation, and it’s being a target in future wars, many wonder why the government is so fixated with nuclear power.
Well, the answer was supplied in 2023 by the Rishi Sunak administration which admitted that the main reason for its continued eye-watering financial support for civil reactors was that they provided needed technical support and expertise for the government’s nuclear weapons programme.
Here is CND’s look at those links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons:
Nuclear weapons and nuclear power share several common features and there is a danger that having more nuclear power stations in the world could mean more nuclear weapons.
The long list of links includes their histories, similar technologies, skills, health and safety aspects, regulatory issues and radiological research and development. For example, the process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations is also used to make nuclear weapons. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and is still used by some countries to make nuclear weapons.
The long list of links includes their histories, similar technologies, skills, health and safety aspects, regulatory issues and radiological research and development. For example, the process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations is also used to make nuclear weapons. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and is still used by some countries to make nuclear weapons.
There is a danger that more nuclear power stations in the world could mean more nuclear weapons. Because countries like the UK are promoting the expansion of nuclear power, other countries are beginning to plan for their own nuclear power programmes too. But there is always the danger that countries acquiring nuclear power technology may subvert its use to develop a nuclear weapons programme. After all, the UK’s first nuclear power stations were built primarily to provide fissile material for nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Nuclear materials may also get into the wrong hands and be used to make a crude nuclear device or a so-called ‘dirty bomb’.
The facts
Some radioactive materials (such as plutonium-239 and uranium-235) spontaneously fission in the right configuration. That is, their nuclei split apart giving off very large amounts of energy. Inside a warhead, trillions of such fissions occur inside a small space within a fraction of a second, resulting in a massive explosion. Inside a nuclear reactor, the fissions are slower and more spread out, and the resulting heat is used to boil water, to make steam, to turn turbines which generate electricity.
However, the prime use of plutonium-239 and uranium-235, and the reason they were produced in the first place, is to make nuclear weapons.
Nuclear reactors are initially fuelled by uranium (usually in the form of metal-clad rods). Uranium is a naturally-occurring element like silver or iron and is mined from the earth. Plutonium is an artificial element created by the process of neutron activation in a reactor.
Nuclear secrecy
The connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons have always been very close and are largely kept secret. Most governments take great pains to keep their connections well hidden.
The civil nuclear power industry grew out of the atomic bomb programme in the 1940s and the 1950s. In Britain, the civil nuclear power programme was deliberately used as a cover for military activities.
Military nuclear activities have always been kept secret, so the nuclear power industry’s habit of hiding things from the public was established right at its beginning, due to its close connections with military weapons. For example, the atomic weapons facilities at Aldermaston and Burghfield in Berkshire, where British nuclear weapons are built and serviced, are still deleted from Ordnance Survey maps, leaving blank spaces.
It was under the misleading slogan of ‘Atoms for Peace’, that the Queen ceremonially opened what was officially described as Britain’s first nuclear power station, at Calder Hall in Cumbria, in 1956. The newsreel commentary described how it would produce cheap and clean nuclear energy for everyone.
This was untrue. Calder Hall was not a civil power station. It was built primarily to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. The electricity it produced was a by-product to power the rest of the site.
Fire at Windscale piles………………………………………………………………..
Subsidising the arms industry
The development of both the nuclear weapons and nuclear power industries is mutually beneficial. Scientists from Sussex University confirmed this once again in 2017, stating that the government is using the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to subsidise Trident, Britain’s nuclear weapons system.
As part of a Parliamentary investigation into the Hinkley project, it emerged that without the billions of pounds ear-marked for building this new power station in Somerset, Trident would be ‘unsupportable’. Professor Andy Stirling and Dr Phil Johnstone argued that the nuclear power station will ‘maintain a large-scale national base of nuclear-specific skills’ essential for maintaining Britain’s military nuclear capability.
This could explain why Prime Minister Theresa May continues to support subsidising a project which looks set to cost the taxpayer billions. Subsidies which go to an industry which still can’t support itself sixty years after it was first launched.
What to do with the radioactive waste?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….The safe, long-term storage of nuclear waste is a problem that is reaching crisis point for both the civil nuclear industry and for the military.
During the Cold War years of the 1950s and 1960s, the development of the British atomic bomb was seen as a matter of urgency. Dealing with the mess caused by the production, operating and even testing of nuclear weapons was something to be worried about later, if at all.
For example, the Ministry of Defence does not really have a proper solution for dealing with the highly radioactive hulls of decommissioned nuclear submarines, apart from storing them for many decades. As a result, 19 nuclear-powered retired submarines are still waiting to be dismantled, with more expected each year. Yet Britain goes on building these submarines………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Reprocessing…………………………………………………………………………
Terrorism
A major objection to reprocessing is that the plutonium produced has to be carefully guarded in case it is stolen. Four kilos is enough to make a nuclear bomb. Perhaps even more worrying, it does not have to undergo fission to cause havoc: a conventional explosion of a small amount would also cause chaos. A speck of plutonium breathed into the lungs can cause cancer. If plutonium dust were scattered by dynamite, for example, thousands of people could be affected and huge areas might have to be evacuated for decades.
Conclusion
The many connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons are clear. Nuclear power has obvious dangers and its production must be stopped. We need a safe, genuinely sustainable, global and green solution to our energy needs, not a dangerous diversion like nuclear power. CND will continue to campaign to stop new nuclear power stations from being built, as well as for an end to nuclear weapons.
Ian Fairlie is an independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/12/14/does-britain-really-need-nuclear-power/
Drones targeting European and UK nuclear weapons infrastructure
Online Analysis , Dr Daniel Salisbury, 12th December 2025
Amid concerns of Russian hybrid activity across Europe, reports of a series of mysterious drone flights over NATO’s nuclear bases are raising questions about espionage, potential sabotage operations and the vulnerability of strategic infrastructure.
In early December 2025, French officials reported the detection of several drones over the Île Longue nuclear-submarine base in Brittany, western France. The base hosts France’s nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarine (SSBN) fleet, which carries the bulk of the country’s nuclear warheads on submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
The drones were allegedly intercepted using a jamming system. French sources have been cautious in assigning culpability. Commander Guillaume Le Rasle, spokesperson for the maritime prefecture, also claimed that ‘sensitive infrastructure was not threatened’ by the suspicious flights.
High value nuclear targets
The submarine base at Île Longue is heavily protected because it handles nuclear warheads, missiles, and submarine nuclear-reactor fuel. France’s SSBN fleet carries around 240 of the country’s estimated 290 nuclear warheads, constituting most of its strategic deterrent. Recently, French forces have been at the centre of a debate over European nuclear deterrence amid concerns over Russian aggression and a withdrawal of support from the United States.
Events at Île Longue are the latest in a series of similarly mysterious flights over NATO nuclear bases as well as a range of other military and civilian targets.
Drones were observed over Kleine-Brogel Air Base in Belgium on three consecutive nights in early November 2025, prompting a helicopter deployment in response. Guards shot at ten suspicious drones seen over Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands in late November, although no wreckage was recovered. In December, two Dutch F-35s from Volkel scrambled to intercept an unidentified aircraft, reportedly a drone. Kleine-Brogel and Volkel are two of six bases located in five European countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkiye) that together host 100 US non-strategic nuclear B61-12 gravity bombs.
In the United Kingdom, there were reports of similar drone flights around RAF Lakenheath in November 2024. The base has not hosted US nuclear weapons since their quiet withdrawal from the country in 2008. However, mounting open-source evidence since 2022 suggests US nuclear weapons will return to Lakenheath. In the summer of 2025, the British government announced it would base 12 nuclear-capable F-35As (procured by Whitehall for NATO’s dual-capable nuclear mission) at nearby RAF Marham.
12th December 2025
Drones targeting European nuclear weapons infrastructure
Amid concerns of Russian hybrid activity across Europe, reports of a series of mysterious drone flights over NATO’s nuclear bases are raising questions about espionage, potential sabotage operations and the vulnerability of strategic infrastructure.
In early December 2025, French officials reported the detection of several drones over the Île Longue nuclear-submarine base in Brittany, western France. The base hosts France’s nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarine (SSBN) fleet, which carries the bulk of the country’s nuclear warheads on submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
The drones were allegedly intercepted using a jamming system. French sources have been cautious in assigning culpability. Commander Guillaume Le Rasle, spokesperson for the maritime prefecture, also claimed that ‘sensitive infrastructure was not threatened’ by the suspicious flights.
High value nuclear targets
The submarine base at Île Longue is heavily protected because it handles nuclear warheads, missiles, and submarine nuclear-reactor fuel. France’s SSBN fleet carries around 240 of the country’s estimated 290 nuclear warheads, constituting most of its strategic deterrent. Recently, French forces have been at the centre of a debate over European nuclear deterrence amid concerns over Russian aggression and a withdrawal of support from the United States.
Events at Île Longue are the latest in a series of similarly mysterious flights over NATO nuclear bases as well as a range of other military and civilian targets.
Drones were observed over Kleine-Brogel Air Base in Belgium on three consecutive nights in early November 2025, prompting a helicopter deployment in response. Guards shot at ten suspicious drones seen over Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands in late November, although no wreckage was recovered. In December, two Dutch F-35s from Volkel scrambled to intercept an unidentified aircraft, reportedly a drone. Kleine-Brogel and Volkel are two of six bases located in five European countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkiye) that together host 100 US non-strategic nuclear B61-12 gravity bombs.
In the United Kingdom, there were reports of similar drone flights around RAF Lakenheath in November 2024. The base has not hosted US nuclear weapons since their quiet withdrawal from the country in 2008. However, mounting open-source evidence since 2022 suggests US nuclear weapons will return to Lakenheath. In the summer of 2025, the British government announced it would base 12 nuclear-capable F-35As (procured by Whitehall for NATO’s dual-capable nuclear mission) at nearby RAF Marham.
Likely culprits?
The characteristics of the drones and their flight patterns provide clues about their origins. At Kleine-Brogel, the flights unfolded in specific phases: the first, according to Belgian Defence Minister Theo Francken, used ‘small drones to test the radio frequencies’. Later phases allegedly involved drones ‘of a larger type and flying at higher altitude’, and deploying a jammer to counter them was unsuccessful. Francken suggested the activity was espionage, but stopped short of speculating who was responsible. He claimed that the drones had ‘come to spy, to see where the F-16s are, where the ammunition are, and other highly strategic information’.
The flights at Île Longue, Kleine-Brogel and Volkel all started at around 6–7pm and continued late into the night.
Flights around RAF Lakenheath also involved systems described as ‘large “non-hobby”’ sized drones.
There are possible explanations for these incidents that are less concerning. Hobbyist and drone photography activity has increased due to the widespread availability of drones. Environmental pressure groups have also used drones to target nuclear facilities, and have trespassed on nuclear bases in the past.
In 2024, a drone panic around New Jersey saw 5,000 tip-offs reported to the FBI, who attributed them to a ‘combination of lawful commercial drones, hobbyist drones, and law enforcement drones, as well as manned fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and stars mistakenly reported as drones’.
However, the patterns of the drone incursions around nuclear bases – the use of more capable non-hobby drones, the similarities between incidents, and the spate of them in quick succession at a time of high tension in Europe – suggest a hostile state actor is behind them.
In recent months, Russia has undertaken a campaign of probing NATO airspace, flying drones and aircraft in Estonian, Polish and Romanian airspace, testing Alliance resolve, and leading Poland and Estonia to invoke Article 4 of the Washington Treaty that requests NATO consultations. These activities form part of Moscow’s broader effort to intimidate NATO allies, highlight vulnerability, and sow fear and unease amongst populations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
A spider’s web of escalation?
The drone flights raise concerns about the vulnerability of NATO’s European nuclear assets. During the war in Ukraine, Kyiv has used drones to target Russian nuclear-capable assets. Earlier this year, Operation Spiderweb saw over 100 short-range, explosive-laden uninhabited aerial vehicles (UAVs) (launched remotely from the back of a cargo truck parked fewer than ten kilometres from Russian air bases) wreak havoc on the Russian Aerospace Forces – including its nuclear-capable aircraft.
The operation destroyed seven of Russia’s 58 Tu-95MS/MS mod Bear bombers and four of the country’s 54 Tu-22M3 Backfire C bombers, as well as damaging at least another two Backfire aircraft. Although it was a costly lesson, it likely opened Moscow’s eyes to the opportunities afforded by these capabilities.
The asymmetric nature of the operation highlights how states with even minimal capability can use emerging technologies to hold nuclear assets at risk. In a conflict scenario, this could create escalation risks – particularly in Europe, where nuclear capabilities are smaller and often co-located with conventional military assets. https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2025/12/drones-targeting-european-nuclear-weapons-infrastructure/
Europe Continues To Interfere In Ukraine’s Last Chance For Peace
by Tyler Durden, Dec 13, 2025 – https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/europe-continues-interfere-ukraines-last-chance-peace
For those who understand the basics of attrition warfare, the outcome of the fight in Ukraine was obvious a long time ago. Russia’s superior logistical position along with its grinding offensive tactics have worn down Ukraine’s defenses and left the country with a desperate manpower shortage. The recent capture of the vital hub of Pokrovsk has now opened the door to an accelerating Russian advance.
The Russian offensive is gaining significant ground from Pokrovsk to the north, all the way to Kupiansk. The strategic city of Siversk is now largely under control of Russia according to geo-location mapping. Myrnohrad, also near Pokrovsk, has been flattened by artillery and FABs.
Ukraine’s ability to stall Russian forces is faltering, allowing the Kremlin to move troops in a swift manner closer to maneuver warfare instead of the slow and methodical process of attrition. Ukraine continues to deny they are in trouble, but the writing is on the wall.
This helps to explain Europe’s sudden interest in “peace negotiation”, but not for the purposes of establishing actual peace. First and foremost, we know Europe is not interested in peace because they largely refuse to engage directly with Putin and Russia in negotiations.
Instead, European leaders continue to pretend as if they can establish a peace deal unilaterally without involving the Kremlin. They have also consistently tried to sabotage Donald Trump’s efforts for a quick resolution by deluding Zelensky with promises of access to Russian assets.
The Europeans have in fact announced their plan to confiscate Russian assets that have been frozen since the beginning of the war, using them to help fund Ukraine’s military and infrastructure. Trump had initially intended to use those assets as a bargaining chip to convince the Russians to support his peace plan.
Zelensky and European officials have spoken often about sustaining the war for at least another two years, which is foolish given the current state of Ukraine’s front lines. Russia does not need to conquer vast swaths of territory to win, all Russia needs to do is kill Ukrainian troops until there aren’t enough left to maintain a proper defensive line. After that, Zelensky will lose the whole country, not just the eastern third.
Europe also continues to push for troop deployments, using NATO as a “peacekeeping force” as part of the negotiations. Putin has repeatedly stated that this would lead to wider war. After all, it was the encroachment of NATO into Ukraine over a decade ago that ultimately triggered the current war.
In a recent admission, Trump asserted that there will be no more handouts from the US to Ukraine, ending speculation on whether or not the hundreds of billions of dollars in US aid would continue under his administration. The statement comes just after Trump’s revelation that Zelensky “had not even read the US peace proposal” despite other Ukrainian officials supporting the plan.
NATO and EU leaders claim that Russia is in financial peril due to sanctions and other measures, but there isn’t enough evidence to support this theory. Russia has seen a slowdown in GDP and PMI, but so has 70% of all other national economies in the face of a global decline in economic activity.
Ukraine drone strikes on Russian infrastructure have been increasingly ineffective. Their most recent attack involved nearly 300 drones with minimal success. Ukraine called for a truce on attacks on energy infrastructure, indicating that their strikes are not doing as much damage as they would like. The Kremlin rejected the offer.
🚨🇬🇧 “The Defence Minister said – the UK is rapidly developing plans to prepare the whole country for war”
“The sense that war isn’t that far away from us – what does that do to people here?”
EU & UK Politicians along with NATO have seriously been ramping up the wartime… pic.twitter.com/N4DUWlptbS— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) December 13, 2025
It would appear that the Europeans are trying to use peace negotiations as a way to stop Russia’s advance, arguing that there can be no peace until Russia agrees to a ceasefire. As any tactician knows, ceasefires are often nothing more than a way to stall an offensive in order to gain an advantage over an enemy who thinks you are sincere.
Europe’s behavior indicates they have no intention of ending the war. Instead, they seem hellbent on expanding the conflict and turning it into a world war.
Fire at Windscale piles
Does Britain Really Ned Nuclear Power? by Ian Fairlea, beyondnuclearinternational
“…………………………………………………………….In 1957, a major fire occurred at Windscale nuclear site (what is now known as Sellafield). The effects of the Windscale fire were hushed up at the time but it is now recognised as one of the world’s worst nuclear accidents. An official statement in 1957 said: ‘There was not a large amount of radiation released. The amount was not hazardous and in fact it was carried out to sea by the wind.’ The truth, kept hidden for over thirty years, was that a large quantity of hazardous radioactivity was blown east and south east, across most of England.
After years of accidents and leaks, several of them serious, and regular cover-up attempts by both the management and government, it was decided to change the plant’s name in 1981 to Sellafield, presumably in the hope that the public would forget about Windscale and the accident.
When, in 1983, Greenpeace divers discovered highly radioactive waste being discharged into the sea through a pipeline at Sellafield and tried to block it, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), who then operated the site, repeatedly took Greenpeace to the High Court to try to stop them and to sequestrate its assets. The first generation of British Magnox nuclear power stations were all secretly designed with the dual purpose of plutonium and electricity production in mind.
Some people think that because plutonium is no longer needed by the UK to make weapons as it already has huge stocks of weapons grade plutonium, there no longer is any connection between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. This is incorrect: they remain inextricably linked. For example:
- All the processes at the front of the nuclear fuel cycle, i.e. uranium ore mining, uranium ore milling, uranium ore refining, and U-235 enrichment are still used for both power and military purposes.
- The UK factory at Capenhurst that makes nuclear fuel for reactors also makes nuclear fuel for nuclear (Trident and hunter-killer) submarines.
- Nuclear reactors are used to create tritium (the radioactive isotope of hydrogen) necessary for nuclear weapons.
………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/12/14/does-britain-really-need-nuclear-power/
More than 200 environmental groups demand halt to new US datacenters.
Congress urged to act against energy-hungry facilities blamed for increasing bills and worsening climate crisis
Oliver Milman, Guardian 8 December 25
A coalition of more than 230 environmental groups has demanded a national moratorium on new datacenters in the US, the latest salvo in a growing backlash to a booming artificial intelligence industry that has been blamed for escalating electricity bills and worsening the climate crisis.
The green groups, including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Food & Water Watch and dozens of local organizations, have urged members of Congress to halt the proliferation of energy-hungry datacenters, accusing them of causing planet-heating emissions, sucking up vast amounts of water and exacerbating electricity bill increases that have hit Americans this year.
“The rapid, largely unregulated rise of datacenters to fuel the AI and crypto frenzy is disrupting communities across the country and threatening Americans’ economic, environmental, climate and water security,” the letter states, adding that approval of new data centers should be paused until new regulations are put in place.
The push comes amid a growing revolt against moves by companies such as Meta, Google and Open AI to plow hundreds of billions of dollars into new datacenters, primarily to meet the huge computing demands of AI. At least 16 datacenter projects, worth a combined $64bn, have been blocked or delayed due to local opposition to rising electricity costs. The facilities’ need for huge amounts of water to cool down equipment has also proved controversial, particularly in drier areas where supplies are scarce.
These seemingly parochial concerns have now multiplied to become a potent political force, helping propel Democrats to a series of emphatic recent electoral successes in governor elections in Virginia and New Jersey as well as a stunning upset win in a special public service commission poll in Georgia, with candidates campaigning on lowering power bill costs and curbing datacenters.
This threatens to be a major headache for Donald Trump, who has aggressively pushed the growth of AI but also called himself the “affordability president” and vowed to cut energy costs in half in his first year………………………………………………………………………………………….
it is the growth of datacenters to service AI – with electricity consumption set to nearly triple over the next decade, equivalent to powering 190m new homes – that is the focus of ire for voters as well as an unlikely sweep of politicians ranging from Bernie Sanders on the left to Marjorie Taylor Greene on the far right…………………………………………………………………………………………….https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/08/us-data-centers
The Oldest Nuclear Power Plant In The World Is Facing Public Backlash
By Talia Roepel Dec. 14, 2025, https://www.bgr.com/2047450/oldest-nuclear-power-plant-world-controversy-beznau/
The oldest nuclear power plant in the world that is still operating is Beznau in Switzerland. With both units of the power plant fully operational in 1972, plans are for it to continue to operate until it is completely decommissioned in 2033. Switzerland has no policies in place to stop nuclear power plants after a set amount of time, instead, it is determined based on safety evaluations. However, because of Beznau’s age and its presence in general, it has come under plenty of backlash.
The Beznau nuclear power plant has seen its fair share of incidents. It has had nearly 100 safety incidents across its history, alarming the residents of the surrounding area. It was even temporarily closed for repairs from 2015 to 2018 due to issues with its steam generators, and its reactor was found to have cracks around it that same initial year.
The public isn’t entirely happy about Beznau still being in operation. Nuclear power tends to be controversial because of the danger accidents pose, as well as the fact that nuclear waste doesn’t ever truly go away. There have been gatherings of protestors around Beznau a couple of times in the past, with one protest attracting 20,000 people. Still, it doesn’t look like Beznau has plans to retire early.
Decades of Global Drone War Made Trump’s Caribbean Killing Spree Possible
“Suspicion of smuggling is not an imminent threat. Even if known traffickers were on board, it would not give the military the authority to launch missiles at a civilian vessel”
The Caribbean is not a war zone.
The so-called war on terror laid the foundations for Trump to turn international waters into one-sided battlefields.
By Emran Feroz , Truthout December 13, 2025
In September 2, 2025, a small fishing boat carrying 11 people was targeted by a U.S. Reaper drone off the coast of Venezuela. Hellfire missiles were fired. Two survivors clung to the wreckage. Their identities and motives were unknown. Their behavior showed no hostility. Moments later, the drone operator launched a second strike — the so-called “double tap” — killing the final survivors. This scene is shocking, but it should not be surprising to anyone who has followed the trajectory of the U.S.’s drone wars. This tactic is familiar from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and, most recently, Gaza, where the Israeli military has used much worse violence to conduct genocide.
The U.S.’s first drone strike in the Caribbean, and the footage of the incident, reignited a debate about a conflict that Washington refuses to call a war — because it isn’t one. Instead, the Trump administration is using sheer violence to terrorize non-white populations and, as usual, has normalized lethal force far from declared battlefields and without any legal mandate.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has approved at least 21 additional strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific since September, killing at least 87 people. He has aggressively defended the very first operation, insisting he would have authorized the second strike as well — despite claiming he did not see it. Hegseth even misinterpreted the visible smoke on the video as the “fog of war,” seemingly unaware that the term refers to uncertainty in conflict, not the physical aftermath of a missile strike.
The details matter because they reveal something essential: the senior leadership overseeing these operations does not appear interested in the law, accuracy, or the basic meaning of proportionality. Instead, it has embraced escalation and mass murder as official policy.
Illegal Violence Dressed Up as Counter-Narcotics
Almost all legal experts agree that the U.S. strikes in the Caribbean violate international law. The Trump administration claims that suspected smugglers are “narco-terrorists” and therefore legitimate targets. But as Khalil Dewan, a legal scholar at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies who has studied U.S. and British drone programs for years, told me: “Drug trafficking is a crime, not an armed conflict.”
International law permits lethal force outside war zones only to prevent imminent threats to life. There is no indication that any of the boats the U.S. targeted — including the one in the September 2 video — posed such a threat. Dewan is clear: these are extrajudicial killings taking place on the high seas.
Former Air Force drone technician Lisa Ling, who left the program under the Obama administration due to the civilian casualties she witnessed, shares the same assessment. “Suspicion of smuggling is not an imminent threat. Even if known traffickers were on board, it would not give the military the authority to launch missiles at a civilian vessel,” she told me. Ling emphasizes a point that U.S. officials seem intent on ignoring: The Caribbean is not a war zone.
Ling also raises a question the military prefers not to confront: Who bears responsibility? “We were taught to disobey unlawful orders,” she said. “I’m still waiting to see that principle applied to those who carried out strikes on civilian boats in international waters.”
A Pattern With a Long History
The U.S. drone program did not begin with Trump. Its first lethal strike took place on October 7, 2001, in Kandahar province, targeting Taliban founder Mullah Mohammad Omar. It missed and killed civilians instead. That pattern — high-value targets declared dead, only to reappear alive — became common………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Trump Escalation and Total Blowback
Trump has not only expanded the use of drone strikes but also removed the few modest oversight mechanisms Obama left behind. Now, under his second administration, the U.S. is openly striking vessels in international waters with almost no pretext.
…………………………….For years, critics of the war on terror have warned that a globalized drone program, paired with militarized domestic security agencies, would eventually produce consequences within the Americas too. That moment is here.
At least one family in Colombia has announced legal action after a fisherman, Alejandro Carranza, disappeared at sea. At the same time, Washington claimed to have killed “three violent drug-smuggling cartel members and narco-terrorists.” Carranza leaves behind a wife and five children.
What happens in the Caribbean today is not an anomaly. It is the outcome of two decades of policy decisions made by presidents of both parties. The world was declared a battlefield long before Trump returned to office. What we are seeing now is the cost of refusing to confront that reality. https://truthout.org/articles/decades-of-global-drone-war-made-trumps-caribbean-killing-spree-possible/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=f725ba5970-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_12_13_05_12&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-f725ba5970-650192793
Radioactive fertilizer and the nuclear industry
Gordon Edwards. 14 Dec 25
CORRECTION
I wrote that
“…selling raffinate as fertilizer goes on all the time from the world’s largest uranium refinery owned by Cameco, situated at Blind River on the north shore of Georgian Bay.”
This sentence is incorrect. Raffinate from Blind River is not used as fertilizer. I apologize for the error.
Radioactive fertilizer from the Canadian uranium industry does not come from the Cameco Blind River refinery but from two other sources – the Cameco Key Lake uranium mill in Northern Saskatchewan, and the Cameo uranium dioxide conversion facility at Port Hope Ontario.
Moreover, the material that is being used in radioactive fertilizer is not raffinate (i.e. refinery waste). It is ammonium sulphate that is recovered from the Key Lake uranium processing circuits and sold as fertilizer, together with a liquid by-product of Cameco’s Port Hope uranium dioxide conversion plant – an ammonium nitrate solution – that is sold to a local agricultural supply company for use in fertilizer production.
The use of similar waste solutions from nuclear fuel facilities as fertilizer has been a concern in other jurisdictions as well. So at the present time, it is not raffinate but ammonium compounds that have been used in uranium processing that ends up in fertilizer. I apologize for not checking the facts much more carefully..
About radioactive fertilizer and the nuclear industry.
A lot of the phosphate used for fertilizer comes from Florida where the phosphate ore is mined. That ore is contaminated with uranium and its decay products, especially radium. Radium disintegrates to produce radon gas Radon-222) and this builds up in an enclosed space, without adequate ventiliation, reaching an “equilibrium” in about one month.
That’s why Florida was the first “hot spot” that alerted the US government to the major public health hazard posed by radon, which is estimated to kill about 20-30 thousand Americans every year. Every atom of radon comes from the disintegration of a radium atom, and in turn, every atom of radium started out as an atom of uranium.
Radioactive quilibrium means #becquerels of radium = #becquerels of radon. One becquerel being one disintegration per second. In a simiar way, if pure radon gas is in an enclosed container, it will reach equilibrium with its four short-lived decay products in a couple of hours – so the radioactivity in the container is about five times greater than it was originally, as all the short-lived decay products have attained roughly the same level of radioactivity as the radon.
When this radioactive fertilizer is used on tobacco crops, the radon from the soil and the fertilizer builds up under the thick canopy of tobacco leaves and hangs there for a time (radon being 7-8 times heavier than air). The radon atoms disintegrate to produce four airborne solid short lived decay products – polonium-218, bismuth-214, lead-214, polonium-214, all of which decay into lead-210 and polonium-210. [Note: the last two nuclides never reach equilibrium, unlike the first four.]
These radon decay products stick to the resinous (sticky) hairs on the undersides of the tobacco leaves and when the tobacco is harvested these radioactive materials are harvested along with the tobacco. By the time the tobacco is cured, rolled, and packaged, small quantities of lead-210 (22-year half-life) and its immediate successor polonium-210 are left in the tobacco/cigarettes for the unwitting smoker (or second-hand-smoke inhaler) to encounter.
When the cigarette is lit and the smoker draws on it, the temperature at the tip increases dramatically and it vaporizes the lead-210 and polonium-210 which is inhaled deep into the lungs, where polonium-210 sticks to and attacks the sensitive lung tissue with its very energetic alpha particles.
Polonium-210 is a very damaging radionuclide which Los Alamos Labs reckons is about 250 billion time more toxic than hydrogen cyanide. (It’s what was used to murder Alexander Litvenenko in London at the “request” of Putin who was openly criticized by Litvenenko).
Polonium-210 adds greatly to the cancer-causing characteristic of the tobacco residues lodged in the lung, making cigarettes smoke significantly more carcinogenic than it would otherwise be. (When the smoker is not inhaling, the lead-210/polonium-210 is wafted into the second-hand cigarette smoke as a respirable aerosol to endanger the health of those within sniffing distance,)
Inside the lung, some of the inhaled polonium-210 crosses the blood-air barrier end enters the bloodstream. Being solid, it attaches to pre-existing plaque build-up in the arteries of the smoker, usually near the arterial valves, where the alpha particle bombardment causes fibrosis of the arterial wall and valve, thus exacerbating the plaque build-up and increasing the restriction of blood flow, thereby contributing substantially to the incidence of heart attacks and strokes among smokers because of the alpha emitting polonium-210 in the plaque.
What you may not have heard is that voluminous sand-like radioactive waste from the uranium industry, called “raffinate” (leftovers from uranium refining), is also sold as fertilizer on the open market without any warnings about the radioactive content. The justification for this nefarious practice seems to be, that since “natural” phosphate from Florids is used to make fertilizer, and it is clearly radioactive (due to the radium-radon chain), and since raffinate from a uranium refinery is not much higher in radioactive content, then what the heck, we (the uranium industry) may as well turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse by selling the radioactive raffinate waste as fertilizer.
Extensive radioactive contamination – involving uranium raffinate – of the homes, schools, roadways, ravines, and the public beach in the town of Port Hope (prior to 1985) – has led to a $2.6 billion radioactive environmental cleanup of the town (by the federal government) resulting in over a million cubic metres (about a million tonnes) of radioactibve waste to be stored for 500 years in a gigantic earthen mound just north of the town. The subsequent fate of the still-radioactive waste will be decided at that time.
This practice of selling raddinate as fertilizer goes on all the time from the world’s largest uranium refinery owned by Cameco, situated at Blind River on the north shore of Georgian Bay. The Blind RIver plant turns uranium mill concentrates from Saskatchewan, Australia and South Africa, called “yellowcake” (mostly U3O8), into a product called “uranium trioxide” UO3. At that point the raffinate is the waste product, contaminated with radium. That’s what’s sold for fertilizer.
The trioxide then goes to Port Hope Ontario, where it is chemically converted into UO2 (uranium dioxide) for domestic use, about 15% of the total, and into UF6 (uranium hexafluoride or “hex”) for export to enrichment plants outside of Canada where the concentration of U-235 is increased to the level required by the customer.
At the enrichment plant, the “hex” is turned into a gas at a fairly low temperature so that the heavier U-238 atoms can be separated from the lighter U-235 atoms, resulting in an enriched uranium product that goes out the front door while the voluminous discarded U-238 (called depleted uranium or “DU”) goes out the back door.
For low enrichment in light water nuclear power plants, about 85% of the refined uranium is discarded as depleted uranium. The DU has important military uses, and a few civilian uses, but for the most part DU is part of the radioactive legacy of the nuclear age wth a half-life of 4.5 billion years.
Besides using DU in conventional bullets, shells, missiles, tanks, et cetera, used in the former Yugoslavia and in other conflicts, resulting in a battlefield litters with radioactive waste, the military also uses DU as “target rods” in plutonium production reactors to breed plutonium for nuclear warheads. In addition, the military uses DU metal in almost all nuclear warheads as a way of significantly multiplying the explosive power of the warhead by a sizable factor. These weapons are called “fission-fusion-fission” weapons,
The first fission is from a small ball of plutonium (usually with a tritium “spark-plug” inside) whose sole purpose is to ignite the fusion reaction by raising it to a temperature of about 100 million degrees. When fusion occurs, extremely energetic neutrons are goven off which fission the U-238 that has been used for that exact purpose in the construction of the warhead. That third stage, the fission of U-238, provides the bulk of the explosive power and the lion’s share of the radioactive fallout.
It is a sad story from beginning to end.
And, to add to this tale of woe, Canada currently has about 220 million tonnes of radioactive waste (tailings) stored at or near the surface from uranium milling (the operation that produces yellowcake) along with about 167 million tonnes of radioactive “waste rock”. Yet the Canadian authorities and others routinely and unabashedly declare that nuclear power is a “clean” source of energy and for the most part, Canadian academic scientists and sientific bodies say not a peep to the contrary.
Nuclear power: the courts put a stop to the project for two EPR2 reactors at Bugey
December 10, 2025
“ It’s a dramatic turn of events ” against the project to build two EPR2 reactors in the Ain region. Speaking by phone, Jean-Pierre Collet, from the Sortir du nucléaire ( SDN ) Bugey network, made no secret of his satisfaction. On Wednesday, December 10, 2025, the Lyon Administrative Court
overturned amendments to urban planning documents—
the SCOT ( Regional Planning Scheme ) in February 2023 and
the PLU ( Local Urban Development Plan ) in September 2024—that would have allowed the construction of these two new reactors on the EDF site at Bugey.
This decision follows a hearing on November 18th and sides with the anti-nuclear group Sortir du nucléaire Bugey and several residents. The court ruled that the ecological impact had not been sufficiently considered, particularly the presence of numerous protected species and the proximity of the Natura 2000 site of Isle Crémieux.
This decision comes as the project was already underway, with archaeological excavations already begun, according to Jean-Pierre Collet. A public debate held in early 2025 took place in a heated atmosphere, with the team in charge of organizing the debates lamenting the lack of data on the actual cost of the new facilities.
“
The construction site is suspended for a while,” Jean-Pierre Collet rejoiced.
“This shows that even on large-scale projects, you can’t ignore the rules. There are urban planning regulations, you can’t pretend they don’t exist. For us, this is very good news. ”……………………………………………………………………… https://reporterre.net/Nucleaire-la-justice-met-un-coup-d-arret-au-projet-de-deux-EPR2-au-Bugey
The worrying new detail in UK plans for nuclear-capable jets
Bill Kidd MSP: Thanks to the publication of a new Nuclear Education Trust report, Stepping Back From The Brink: The Myths Of Tactical Nuclear Weapons And Limited Nuclear War, we have additional detail on how the Ministry of Defence is to spend billions reintroducing tactical nuclear weapons into
the RAF.
We also know that these are weapons the RAF will not own or control. Re-nuclearising the RAF requires much more than the purchase of an additional squadron of F-35A jets at around £1 billion. Creating the logistical and command and control infrastructure will be 10 times the cost of just the aircraft. What additional cuts to our already stretched public
services will that presage?
Going back on his word is, of course, how Starmer was elected. He conned the public with his slogan of change, when he really meant more of the same.
The National 13th Dec 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/politics/25695116.worrying-new-detail-uk-plans-nuclear-capable-jets/
How nuclear submarines could pave the way for nuclear weapons in South Korea
Bulletin, By Sharon Squassoni | December 12, 2025
Share
The mystique of nuclear-powered submarines has been captured by at least half a dozen popular Hollywood films. Some have centered on the drama of undersea warfare and the risk of global nuclear apocalypse should the nuclear-tipped missiles aboard most of them be launched. Others confront the issues of rogue submarine commanders or the dilemmas of decision-making when out of communication with national leadership. One or two, including Kathryn Bigelow’s K-19 Widowmaker, portray real-world disasters of a reactor meltdown aboard submarines. (Bigelow is also the director of the new film, A House of Dynamite, which depicts the last 20 minutes before a nuclear-armed missile of unknown origin falls on an American city.)
The underlying message of these fictional works is that nuclear submarines—powered by reactors and armed with atomic missiles—are a tightrope act. One misstep could endanger many, many lives.
The United States’ recent nuclear submarine deal with South Korea is a tightrope act for a different reason. Lost in the noise about nuclear submarines, the Trump administration has agreed to let South Korea enrich uranium and reprocess commercial nuclear spent fuel. This step—which could give South Korea a virtual or latent nuclear weapons capability—is needlessly destabilizing.
US nuclear technology exports. In the last five years, the United States has made deals with Australia and South Korea to hasten the day when some countries will deploy nuclear-powered submarines that don’t carry nuclear missiles. Under the 2021 AUKUS deal (a partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), Australia will build nuclear-powered submarines using UK reactors and US highly enriched uranium fuel at the latest estimated cost of $368 billion. And in October, South Korea scored a political coup in convincing US President Donald Trump to allow its pursuit of nuclear-powered submarines.
South Korea has sought nuclear-powered submarines for more than 30 years. Sparked by the first international crisis over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, Seoul has dabbled in the relevant technologies in an on-again, off-again fashion. Past forays included a 1994 directive to the Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute to design a nuclear-powered submarine (cancelled in 1998) and the so-called “362” covert task force formed in 2003 that reportedly utilized Russian help to design a submarine reactor. This task force was disbanded in 2004 after South Korean officials revealed that scientists had enriched uranium without declaring it to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
More recently, Moon Jae-in campaigned on South Korea acquiring nuclear-powered submarines in 2017, and Korean officials since 2020 have suggested that their next generation of submarines would be nuclear-powered. Speculation persists over whether South Korean efforts to develop small modular reactors fueled with 19.5 percent high-assay low-enriched uranium could be adapted or modified for naval applications.
Many details about South Korea’s nuclear submarines are still unknown— when, where, and how they will be built. Those details will matter a great deal in terms of the proliferation implications. Allowing South Korea to indigenously produce its own nuclear submarines could be riskier than if South Korea were to purchase US subs or the reactors that go into these subs.
Nuclear-powered vs. nuclear-armed. Nuclear-powered submarines make total sense to nuclear weapon states, which weigh the risks and costs of these vehicles against the benefits of stealth, range, and having a platform for assured, nuclear retaliation. (In theory, such submarines can enhance stability because they provide assured destruction in case an opponent seeks advantage by striking first—the so-called delicate balance of terror.) Already engaged in high-cost and high-risk nuclear projects, nuclear-powered submarines are not a huge step up for countries with nuclear weapons.
For countries without nuclear weapons, however, the costs far outweigh the benefits.
Per unit, a single modern diesel-electric attack submarine with air-independent propulsion costs between $500 million and $900 million. A modern nuclear-powered attack submarine will cost between $3 billion and $4 billion each, based on the current cost of Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines in the United States, a country with experience in building such ships. This is on top of the considerable investment in shipbuilding that countries like South Korea and Australia would have to make. For instance, South Korea has vowed to invest $350 billion in the United States, of which half will be spent on US shipbuilding…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://thebulletin.org/2025/12/how-nuclear-submarines-could-pave-the-way-for-nuclear-weapons-in-south-korea/
1 This Month
5 January -Webinar-What is Trump’s Golden Dome?
REGISTER AT Massachusetts Peace Action Education
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
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 