nuclear-news

Titanic misconceptions that things will be OK

Last night I watched a terrific programme on SBS world television. It was all about the sinking of the Titanic, covering so many aspects never shown on TV before. I was struck by the atmosphere on the ship, in the early hours of the sinking, with many people, particularly the rich upper-class passengers, taking the whole process as something not really serious, rather fun even. Of course, not all of them saw it that way. But enough of them – to be able to have quite a good party on the upper deck lounge, and to regard the messenger calling them up on deck as rather a nuisance, an ignorant lower-class person. And indeed, some people just refused to leave their (temporarily comfortable) beds, on such a cold night.

And here was I, trying to get my mind away form the rather scary world news. I suppose I’d have been better watching some “reality” show, or that good old Australian standby – sport.

Anyway, the thing was – the Titanic story showed how people are inclined not to take a critical event seriously, not to worry about it, until it’s too late.

And lo and behold, the same sort of thing is happening now. Today DW reports Iran war: Israel hits Iranian heavy water nuclear reactor. The good old news.com.au writes ‘Worst case scenario’: Wall St craters, oil surges as nuclear sites hit’. The fascinating part of this coverage, as shown by that last headline, is that the financial aspect is the first priority.. Yeah, I know that the world economy is important, and it’s not a good thing to have Wall St stocks going down, and investors “mashing the panic button”. I’m not saying that this is a trivial matter. It’s just that drone or missile strikes on a nuclear facility could be a helluva lot more serious than a drop on the stock exchange.

We don’t need an actual nuclear bombing to create a massive environmental and health catastrophe, a drone strike can do that job.

Both articles focus on this economic crisis, paying barely lip service to the fearful physical danger of a nuclear site being exploded, or even just damaged. Israeli air strikes hit a nuclear research reactor in Iran’s Khondab region, and a uranium processing plant in Yazd in Central Iran. The reports hastened to tell us there was no release of radioactive material. How reassuring! We can focus on the main issue – the share prices.

Questions come to mind. Will Iran retaliate by striking Israel’s Dimona reactor and other nuclear sites? How come it’s so terrible for Iran to have legally permitted nuclear research facilities, but apparently OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons. Estimates of Israel’s nuclear warheads range from 90 to 200, but Israel “does not confirm or deny” its nuclear weaponry numbers. So that’s apparently OK.

Yes, we’re all anxious about our petrol and diesel prices, and naturally so. But the possible ramifications of these Israeli strikes on nuclear facilities add up to something more horrendous. I don’t want to rave on here about the health, environmental, social toll that will ensue, if the warring states decide to use this very convenient weaponry – no need to have your own expensive nuclear bomb, just send a few cheap drones to attack your enemy’s nuclear sites.

As with those rich passengers on the Titanic, it’s time that world leaders woke up.

March 30, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

Why should Trump get all the blame?

10 March 2026 Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.net/why-should-trump-get-all-the-blame/

I’ve just read an article about planning nuclear power for a “post-Trump world” I’m wondering how many people are actually doing just that – planning for a “post Trump world.” Well, Donald Trump isn’t one of them. He’s got a pretty good plan for re-election in 2028. Never mind the fact that the USA Constitution forbids a President from having a third term in office. Heck, by 2028 there won’t be an American Constitution if Trump is still in office.

One way or another, I’d bet that Trump won’t be in office for that third term. By 2028, the apparently dim-witted American public might just not vote for Donald Trump, however colourful and entertaining he might be. Or the Republicans might have had enough, and somehow kicked him out in the meantime. Or some more dramatic events might have made him lose his grip on power – a nuclear war? He might even be in gaol – though I guess that’s a silly left-wing fantasy. Or even the seemingly immortally healthy Donald might get sick, or even die.

I just hope and pray that he is not assassinated. That would turn him into a martyr. A saint? As a recovered Catholic, I do think kindly of my old church. I just can’t imagine that current Catholicism could stomach the idea of Saint Donald Trump.

But anyway, I digress. And indeed this whole post is a digression. But to try to get to the point – what is wrong with the leaders of the Western world? It seems that only Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchéz has denounced the USA/Israel’s illegal attack on Iran. Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney in January, briefly saw through Donald Trump, but by March, Carney had second thoughts, and fell into line in the conga dance behind him. The UK wavered and waffled, but ended up supporting the war. Confusion reigns in the EU. As for Australia – words fail me, as the ruling so-called Labor Party wriggles about, trying to deny that it supports the USA/Israel war. Twas so nice of Albanese to present Trump with a pretty little statue-thing of an AUKUS submarine.

It’s not just the war on Iran. It’s the support for Israel’s genocide. It’s the spectacle over two years, of politicians giving Trump standing ovations, smiling happily as they shake hands with this deranged, ignorant, sociopathic President of the USA. Surely they could manage mere politeness, and not a complete vision of fawning servility.

And when it all goes to shit, as it surely will, what will be their legacy? Will they be remembered as leaders of insight and integrity? Will they be remembered at all. Most likely, they’ll be gone and forgotten after the next election.

Let’s just remember, that pathetic lying confidence man, Trump, could not have done so much damage, so much harm, caused all that suffering, without their support.

March 15, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

Raw, Rude, and Angry – in the new world of journalism

13 January 2026 Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.net/raw-rude-and-angry-in-the-new-world-of-journalism/

Amongst the many types of new independent journalism, my favourite is Raw, Rude and Angry, a type that would never have got into conventional “mainstream” media, which keeps up the facade of respectability (even while often condoning immoral lies and pretensions). Now there are lots and lots of raw, rude, and angry articles, and “social media” messages. I certainly don’t like them all, even when I sometimes empathise with the feelings expressed.

Where I do like raw, rude and angry, is where I can see that there is a genuine, valid, feeling of outrage, and especially where there are facts discussed, and information and sources given, too. Where it is clear that the writer has done their homework. Now these types of articles are few and far between, but their authors become popular, as their message resonates with readers, who are fed up with mainstream media’s often bland and uncaring coverage of the atrocities going on in the world. And because they are an accurate commentary on what is happening.

Enter Caitlin Johnstone, who is the absolute star of this genre, if it is now a genre. Caitlin is an Australian, who describes herself as a “bogan socialist.” I won’t go here into just what “bogan” means – it is a sort of derogatory term, implying unsophistication – and yet – there’s a hint of natural wisdom, unspoilt by the mask of etiquette. In Caitlin’s work, where profanities pop up, there’s an uncanny atmosphere of a background of thorough research having been done, by a highly educated person.

I think that is why Caitlin has become a controversial figure, much criticised, and seen as very “left-wing.” I don’t know about you, but to me, the accusation of “left-wing” has very little meaning nowadays – and seems to be applied to anyone who has a compassionate, humanitarian outlook.

So, Caitlin Johnstone’s work is having an impact, one way or the other. Her up-to-date commentary on international politics, Gaza, Venezuela, Zionism, Iran – includes information on international law, history, and current events, and is sprinkled with her powerful and compassionate opinions. Her January 12th article, The Imperial Crosshairs Move To Cuba, outlines Trump’s policies for Latin America, and Other Notes:

“Now he’s advancing every CIA/neocon agenda known to man in the middle east and Latin America with the goal of global domination as life in the US gets worse and worse.”

Other Notes discuss Palestine, Iran, and our right to dissent:

“Fuck Israel, free Palestine. Say it loud and say it often, because you won’t have the right to say it much longer.”

Of course, people are offended at her language. But I suspect that they are more offended by the difficult truths that she is explaining in a complicated subject like the protest movement in Iran.

Caitlin Johnstone doesn’t pull any punches. For example, she makes the clearest and most trenchant criticism of Zionism – Israel And Its Supporters Deliberately Foment Hate And Division In Our Society:

“Yelling “Muslims bad!” does not magically erase Israel’s abuses or address the grievances of its critics”

I haven’t found many journalists who can manage this conjuring trick of being across current affairs while writing in an incisive, outrageous, style. Rare in alternative media, they’re of course rare in mainstream media. Meghan Mangrum of the Chattanooga Times Free Press showed the emotional views about the killing of George Flloyd – “Mistreated. Unappreciated. Hated. Scared.” I can’t, at present, find any writer who compares with Caitlin Johnstone.

It has usually been a general principle that journalists, especially reporters, should aim for just reporting facts, and avoid giving their opinions. In reality, that’s never been easy – the mere inclusion or exclusion of certain facts, or statements, can imply opinion. And there has been scholarly discussion on the merits or otherwise of emotion, in journalism, and even a case for how anger can help you produce better journalism.

Well, that was then, and this is now. I think that we have entered a new era of international politics with changes happening at disturbing speed. People are confused about what is going on and what to think about it, what judgment to make. The current upheaval in Iran is the most obvious example at the moment.

Writers like Caitlin Johnstone, whether one agrees with them or not, do clarify a point of view, and one that is different from the conformity imposed by the corporate media. They hold power to account in a way that is easier to understand, compared with the scholarly approach of some longform critics of Western governments. So, I think that raw, rude, angry writings have a valuable role in today’s journalism.

January 15, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

The new world of journalism

My first effort. This is my first foray into the new jungle. I have been examining different types of journalism, and noting which sorts get an interested response. I plan to evaluate the different types – for their interest and effectiveness.

12 January 2026 Noel Wauchope https://theaimn.net/the-new-world-of-journalism/

Journalism is in a mess, and it is changing so fast. Meanwhile the world is changing even faster, and we need good journalism more than ever.

The old world of journalism is dead. Long live the new!

I liked the old world of journalism. And it still exists – a bit. In that old world, facts were valued, rather than opinions. Of course opinions were still there, not always apparent, and sometimes more effective in selective reporting of the facts, with some facts carefully omitted. Still, the facts were meant to be paramount. I loved an ancient TV series, Dragnet, in which Sergeant Joe Friday expressed it perfectly “Just wanna get the facts, ma’am – just the facts.”

Still, the old journalism did undergo editorial scrutiny, do fact-checking, and even had grammar and spelling checked. And it does still exist today, when the Internet has nearly killed print journalism, and its funding from advertisers.

But – it’s limited. The new digital media has overwhelmed it. You get not just young teenagers gossiping, but also heads of state announcing things, via TikTok or Twitter, X or Facebook, Instagram, and many other platforms. And the message is above all – new, fast, short and visually arresting. No, I haven’t done the research, nor produced a PhD paper about this, but my observation is that longform journalism is read by the much older generations.

Still, forms other than text are doing well, and information and opinion are broadcast by podcast and YouTube journalists, so providing perhaps a more accessible form of longer journalism, though the fact-checking may be dodgy.

So, in place of the staid, somewhat reliable old journalism, what do we have? We still have the struggling print, radio and TV “mainstream media”, where journalists “mind their p’s and q’s”, because they don’t have the job security that used to be taken for granted. Of course, there are “safe” specialities like sport, cooking and gardening, but current affairs, politics, environment, climate and much else – these are dangerous territories for the mainstream journalist.

Self-censorship is rife.

Then there’s “alternative media” where brave souls have branched out with new journals, funding this work sometimes by community organisations, libraries, universities, or just by themselves, and trying to get funding from readers. I really don’t know how successful they are, financially. But for some writers, myself included, these new journals provide the opportunity for self-expression.  For the public, they do provide a much-needed broader range of subject and opinion, than is available in the rather constipated traditional mainstream media.

So – where to – for the good journalism? And what is the good journalism? Well, back to good old Sergeant Joe Friday. For a start, we need to know that the writer’s facts are correct. Then there are those seemingly vague things, like authenticity and integrity. It’s a tortuous path to try and work this out. In Australia, the teaching of English does include awareness of logic, and of conflict of interest. These are aspects pretty much impossible to ascertain in the prevailing snappy digital media, but can be gauged in longer journalism.

Over many years, I’ve been studying articles from many sources – to find out what is effective, what is genuinely interesting and believable. I think that it’s time that those of us who appreciate integrity in writing should shout about it.

Just for a first shout – I’ll pick out a couple of shouts already made. Here I find examples of journalists who courageously identify mainstream media’s biased journalism. In FAIR (FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING) an experienced journalist, Ari Paul, takes on the enthusiastic coverage by The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, The Times, The Chicago Tribune of “Trump’s Doctrine in Venezuela.” Paul  concludes:

“By kidnapping a foreign head of state, the Trump administration is saying that international law doesn’t apply to the United States. That’s a sentiment most American editorialists are all too ready to applaud – despite the danger it poses for Americans, and for the world.”

Elizabeth Smith, writing for the NTI – The Nuclear Threat Initiative – asks:

“What does it take to reveal truth in the face of censorship?”

She applies that principle in the media coverage of the 1945 atomic bombing, described in a new PBS documentary, “Bombshell.” She concludes:

”Bombshell lays bare the power of narratives – and counter narratives. It shows, with infuriating and heartbreaking precision, how misinformation about the bombings influenced public opinion.”

There are a lot of independent writers out there – some, like Ari Paul and Elizabeth Smith are highly qualified and experienced journalists, who go into their subject in some depth, and are not scared to rock the prevailing boat of safe complacency that increasingly pervades the self-censoring mainstream media. Others are less masterful in their use of language, and less qualified, but still get their message across in a compelling way.

January 12, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

Looking to 2026 in nuclear news

28 Dec 25 https://theaimn.net/looking-to-2026-in-nuclear-related-news/

There are really a lot of good things happening, involving a huge number of good people. My favourite is that very persistent, won’t-be-beat boat – the Golden Rule, with its crew and supporters – Veterans for Peace. They sail the world, but especially from port to port in the USA, with their message of hope. 

Dozens of groups sailed with the crew—including Code Pink, the NorCal TPS Coalition, the People’s Arms Embargo, the Comfort Women’s Justice Coalition, the Task Force on the Americas, and the Cal Sailing Club.

But of course there are thousands of other groups working for compassion and good will, in every country, of whatever political style.  There are millions of people aware of, and prepared to be active in getting action on global heating.

I think that there’s a revival beginning in the media, with the growth of so many truly independent and alternative journalism sites. Some get funding from their readers, some soldier on providing free news and information.

Even the corporate media, and some USA Republicans are appalled at the antics of the deranged American “President for Peace” – leading to the thought that he might not last that much longer as “leader of the free world”.

Still – a reality check – if Donald Trump does cease to be USA  President – there could be worse to come, with another choice from his pack of greedy sycophants.

So – a reality check is needed. It’s not going to be a happy new year as things are going at present 

– “If we make no effort to change direction, we will end up where we are heading.”

         — Chinese Proverb

Giving up is not an option. A world run by emotionally-unintelligent squillionaire technocrats is not going to be sustainably viable. Addiction to super-profits and power, and absurd ideas of exceptionalism and superior race -these are not the characteristics of good leadership.  Jesus said that ‘the meek shall inherit the earth“.  But I’m rather hoping that some of the meek get into charge before then, before the current power-brokers wreck the place.

Meanwhile, we continue to try to shed light on the  absurdities of our current ‘civilised’ culture. And there are many hazards to expose and to combat – the horror of Zionism (which is NOT the Jewish religion), booming militarism,  climate denial, racism, injustice, suppression of civil rights, AI gone wild-   to name only a few. Lots of work to do.

The past week has been a busy one in non-corporate nuclear and nuclear-related news. The detailed list is at https://antinuclear.net/2025/12/28/the-non-corporate-nuclear-news-week-to-27-december/

December 30, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

2025 in nuclear-related news

To be honest, the really big news for the planet, is the super-fast melting ice in the Arctic and Antarctica,  but politicians and media don’t seem interested.

On the nuclear-related news, it’s not all gloomy.   The heroism of Ahmed al Ahmed was widely recognised. There are tens of millions of people, especially in the USA, who are getting together to oppose nuclear weapons and nuclear war.

So much news is nuclear-related. The year began and ended with Israeli anger. Here in Australia, in December, that was justified, with the horror of the Bondi massacre of Jewish people celebrating Hanukkah. But it’s  gone beyond anger, and has become uncannily like the 2023 referendum  on the Aboriginal Voice to Parliament – with relentless, illogical,  coverage on the theme of blaming Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.(The 2023 referendum was won by the negative, by blanketing the airwaves with one illogical cry “If you don’t know, vote No”.) 

15 murders – a terrible thing, – also terrible -over 70,000 killed in Gaza

And why is it nuclear-related? Because Israel’s ruthless Zionist government has nuclear weapons, and Netanyahu would be prepared to use them, (if he can’t get America to do it for him).

Also nuclear-related, the endless dilemma of Ukraine, the pretense that Ukraine is winning, the carnage mounting, as Ursula von der Leyen and co. flail around, trying to get all of Western Europe to come up with billions of Euros to buy American weaponry  for Ukraine (- Raytheon etc laughing all the way to the bank). War-mongering Europeans seem prepared to send drone/missile attacks deep inside Russia, despite the very real risk of nuclear retaliation from Russia.

Then there’s the chance of  the “President of Peace” starting a war with Venezuela, or Iran, or Greenland, or anywhere else where he could commandeer oil, or other resources. Things could so easily go nuclear.

The  arms race continues apace, even on the moon.

The propaganda for nuclear power roars on in the media, though just about everybody knows that it’s unaffordable, and small nuclear reactors exist pretty much only as optimistic designs.  It’s tacitly recognised that the only genuine purpose for new nuclear power is to sustain the nuclear weapons industry.  Renewable energy is known to be the cheapest  energy form.

And of course – looming over it all, has been the promise and the threat of AI.

Those were the general themes for 2025.  For the details on the past week – go to https://nuclear-news.net/2025/12/23/the-past-week-in-nuclear-related-news/

May you have happy holidays!

December 24, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

How long will the American Moronocracy last in the New Year?

Noel Wauchope, 15 Dec 25, https://theaimn.net/how-long-will-the-american-moronocracy-last-in-the-new-year/It’s hard to grab hold of the idea – of which of the morons in the USA administration will crack first?

I think that it has to be Pete Hegseth, the Minister for War. Perhaps “crack” is not the appropriate word. “Be thrown under the bus” might be more accurate.

The immediate problem is the rather gripping thought – of the vision of injured fishermen hanging desperately onto the debris, the wreckage, of their bombed boat. And then getting bombed again, and killled. Now, apparently, there exists a video of this wretched event.

CBS reported on December 4th, that U.S. lawmakers met behind closed doors, and viewed a video of a second strike on the boat. Well we, the public, are not allowed to see this video. Democrat Rep. Jim Himes said:

“what I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.“

“You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, who are killed by the United States.” 

Even without seeing the video, our imaginations are struck with the horror of this event. And if it was not so terrible, why the need to cover it up?

And it’s not just that picture which is covered up. There’s also the trail of denials, blames, contradictory statements about that attack, – an incident that clearly breached international law, in the Geneva Conventions , The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and also the Defense Department’s Law of War Manual .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np1dG7qjzZM

The Washington Post reported that  Pete Hegseth had given the order to “kill everybody,” but this was later denied by Admiral Bradley, who was in charge of the operation, and also by Hegseth and the White house.

The family of Colombian fisherman Alejandro Carranza Medina, believed killed by the US military in a boat bombing in the Caribbean Sea on Sept. 15, has filed a formal complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights accusing US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth of murder over the unlawful attack. The complaint also notes that President Donald Trump the commander in chief of the US military, “ratified the conduct of Secretary Hegseth described herein”.

That legal initiative mightn’t get anywhere, but the entire chain of command could be held liable for killing the survivors of the boat strike. The United States clearly imposes a duty to refuse unlawful orders.

That thought must be striking a bit of terror in the minds of the military officers involved, – and indeed in any U.S. military officer who might one day be given a similar order.

Anyway, wriggle around as he might, Pete Hegseth is at the top of decision-making on the whole illegal bombing of civilian boats in international orders. Unless you count Donald Trump as the top decision-maker. Trump would like this issue to just fade away. But if it doesn’t – well, then, perhaps a head should roll.

In his first presidency, Trump made a record number of his associates’ heads roll. But here’s the difference – some of them were quite skilful, and capable.

Not these days. Some examples :

Notably RFK Jr, is totally unsuited for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Tulsi Gabbard , with no strong background in Intelligence, is Director of National Intelligence, Attorney General, Pam Bondi has a background in criminal law, but is most notable for unflinching dedication to Donald Trump, no matter what. Director of DOGE, Elon Musk – well, he had to go in the inevitable clash between two grandiose egos. Steve Witkoff’s background as real estate developer, gave him no expertise to qualify him as Special Envoy to the Middle East. Marco Rubio as Secretary of State does have experience in politics, but is notable for having a fanatical war-hawk’s hatred of Cuba and China,

What all Trump appointees do have in common is unswerving devotion to Donald Trump. And that’s not going to be enough to sort out the Trump administration’s messes, with more surely to come.

But now, to come back to Pete Hegseth. Yes, he does have university degrees in politics. But even with university degrees you can still behave moronically. And Pete Hegseth sure does. He has a history of alcoholism, and an accusation against him of sexual assault. Even his mother accused him of being an abuser of women (though she later retracted this).

Hegseth was forced out of two veterans groups, due to his alcoholism, and accusations of financial mismanagement. Colleagues at his former employment at Fox News reported his drinking problem there.

Apparently Hegseth promised to stop drinking if confirmed in the job as Defense Secretary. There are rumours that he hasn’t stopped. But anyway that’s not his only problem. There was his careless use of commercial messaging app Signal to talk about an impending operation in Yemen.

All this has got Republican law-makers worried. And the mid-term elections will be coming up. Trump might just have to start the head-rolling, if this boat-bombing issue doesn’t go away.

And Pete Hegseth is the obvious first candidate.

By the way, the Internet is awash with stuff about Trump being not only a deranged narcissistic megalomaniac (which we all knew anyway), but on top of that, claims that dementia is setting in on him. (How long will the moron-in-chief last, anyway)

December 17, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

Right wing- Left wing – on the nuclear issue it doesn’t matter.

30 October 2025 Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.net/right-wing-left-wing-on-the-nuclear-issue-it-doesnt-matter/

The promotion of nuclear power is a right-wing thing- isn’t it?

Over the years, I’ve been following the propaganda of the climate-change denialists, among other liars and frauds. I found that the Koch bothers in America were the source of much successful barrage against the truth on our heating climate.

Alongside the fight for a sustainable, liveable planet, there’s the fight for freedom against the nuclear peril. I’ve concentrated on the latter, but find that the two are strangely embroiled.

How do you know whom to believe? Well, as with the issue of cigarettes causing cancer – I’ve always found that the genuine scientific organisations to be credible, as against the propaganda from tobacco corporations, coal, oil gas, nuclear an uranium companies -and their political lackies.

So – the promotion of nuclear power is a right-wing thing- isn’t it?

So, in my efforts for a nuclear-free world, I’ve assumed that the pro-nuclear push is a right-wing thing, like climate denial. All self-respecting activists will know of the notorious climate-denialist campaigns of the Koch Charles and David Koch from 1980 onwards.

In 1974, the Charles Koch Foundation was set up, and later its name was changed to the CATO Institute.

The CATO Institute is largely funded by the Koch Family, (Koch Industries family foundation ) and also numerous right-wing organisations and corporations. It is a gloriously right-wing organisation, and I suppose I should hate it.

So, it comes as a shock to me today, to find the most plausible, credible case against the nuclear industry – coming not from my beloved anti-nuclear movement , but in a very long article from the CATO Institute.

Author Steve Thomas does not denounce the nuclear industry. He just opens up the question – does it have any real hope of surviving, let alone thriving?

Thomas points out, in the later part of the article, that even for China and Russia, the countries now supposedly leading in nuclear development, the home demand is falling, and their hope is more to export nuclear technology. Meanwhile for the Western world, despite the brouhaha from policy-makers and the media , about new nuclear development, it’s just not really happening. Well, it is, a bit, but with the absolute imperative of tax-payer funding.

Thomas discusses all the publicity this century, about new nuclear reactors: the actual results have been dismal. In the USA there have been the abandoned V.C Summer project, and the  A.W. Vogtle project, completed six or seven years behind schedule and at more than double the forecasted cost. There are now no proposals for additional large reactor projects in the United States.

In the UK, after years of “no government subsidy” for new nuclear, they still can’t get enough investors, even with government subsidy, and all sorts of perks about insulating insulate the reactors from competitive wholesale electricity markets. Hinkley Point C project is estimated now at  £35 billion and rising. For the Sizewell project, France’s EDF has pulled out on financial grounds, and completion is not expected before 2040.

Thomas goes on to demolish the spin about Small Nuclear Reactors -showing that some are not even small, and all are not cheap, not so safe, not waste-free, and not happening, anyway, despite the hype.

He looks at the costs and feasibility of re-opening old closed reactors, and of  life-extension of old ones still functioning:

“Life-extending a reactor by 20–40 years effectively means giving a whole new operating life to an old design that would not be considered if it were offered for a new reactor. In other words, life-extended nuclear power plants would not come close to meeting the standards required for new reactors. This raises several important safety questions“

The author concludes that the nuclear industry is just not going to revive.

And shock- horror !- this right-wing publication concludes that other power options are needed to face “serious risks from climate change”.

In other CATO publications, they have pushed for reducing America’s nuclear arsenal, and even for the USA to deal with the Ukraine crisis by diplomacy, not weaponry.

Yeah, I know CATO’s awful on health education etc – but it’s refreshing to find a right-wing institution explaining the nuclear industry so clearly. Do we have to do this right-wing left-wing fight all the time?

October 30, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

Vladimir Putin and a world without Russia

7 Oct Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.net/vladimir-putin-and-a-world-without-russia/

He’s supposed to have said it as a joke.

In a 2018 comment, Mr Putin talked about destroying the world in a nuclear holocaust because “what is a world without Russia good for?”

OK. perhaps it was a joke. But –many a true word is spoken in jest.

And here is where I run into trouble, because I am known to have a very sympathetic attitude towards Russia.

I think that Volodymyr Zelensky should have kept to the pledge on which he was elected as Ukrainian President in April 2019. Zelensky promised to honour the Minsk agreements of 2014-15 – to accept the Donbass having a limited autonomy within Ukraine, and to end the years of war between the Ukrainian government and the Donbass. But In an interview with the German daily Der Spiegel, published on February 9, 2023, Zelensky made it clear that he intentionally chose to sabotage Minsk.

Even in subsequent negotiations with Russia, in April 2022, Zelensky’s government came close to a peace agreement with Russia, acknowledging the Donbass autonomy, and rejecting Ukraine membership of NATO. Zelensky quickly scuttled that deal.

That is the background to Putin’s decision to start a Special Military Operation in support of the Donbass – ending the 8 years of civil war in Ukraine, but starting what soon became a full scale war against Ukraine. Some commentators see this as Putin having been provoked into war by the Russia-hating West. Others say that it is Putin’s first step to invading Europe.

Anyway, the Western politics and media have indeed swallowed wholesale the story that Putin wants to take over Europe into a grand Russian empire.

I don’t think that the facts on Russia’s economic and military power actually stack up on that interpretation. And I don’t think that Putin is stupid enough to bring the whole might of the USA and Europe down on Russia. It is more reasonable to consider that many NATO states are uncomfortably close to Russia, – indeed on Russia’s border. Ukraine is the largest European state on that border, and for Ukraine to join NATO would mean that Russia would be almost surrounded by hostile states. If the USA had Canada as a hostile state, that would make USA politicians anxious. So Putin’s resistance to Ukraine being a NATO state is understandable. It comes from fear, rather than part of a grand desire to take over Europe.

In a brief, but telling article, Walt Zlotow has argued that now, 80 years after Russia was our major ally, defeating Nazism in 1945, it is time to stop hating Russia. Zlotow also pointed out that “Russia had neither the desire nor the capability to attack America without suffering its utter destruction from an overwhelming American nuclear capability”.

That last point is an important one. Individual persons matter. Why we haven’t had nuclear war for all these decades, is partly because we haven’t had leaders who were willing to press the button for humanity’s annihilation. Not even the bravado of Kim Yong Un, the pomposity of a Macron, the dogged war-making of successive American presidents – has led to that fatal decision.

Vladimir Putin is intelligent, and he has, in my opinion anyway, some reason and logic in his initial attack on Ukraine, and in his conditions for peace, especially regarding NATO membership for Ukraine. Putin has consistently spoken clearly and reasonably about the possible terms for a peace settlement. Meanwhile Zelensky and the West seem implacably bound to the position of demanding unconditional surrender by Russia as their term for a peace agreement.

So the West is all go for “Whatever It Takes”. The problem that I see, is that despite Putin’s quite admirable diplomatic restraint, and clear argument, he is still the one leader who actually is prepared to launch Armageddon – “what is a world without Russia good for?”

I do put up pro-Russian arguments, mainly because somebody has to counter the prevailing Russiaphobia which swamps us all the time in the media. That does not mean that I think that Putin is a nice guy. I think he’s a ruthless tyrant. But he should be taken seriously, and treated reasonably- not just seen as an excuse to continue this mindless hatred of Russia. Putin is an exceptionally dangerous leader, and we may all pay the ultimate price for our stupidity.

October 8, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes | Leave a comment