nuclear-news

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

Holding the Memories Webinar

Join us for our webinar co-hosted with Labrats, Holding the Memories: Communities Leading the Fight for Nuclear Archival Justice a panel presentation exploring barriers to accessing nuclear archives and expose the power of community-held memory.

WHEN
NEW YORK Wednesday November 19, 4pm, EST
LONDON    Wednesday November 19, 9pm, GMT
MELBOURNE   Thursday, November 20, 8am, AEST
FIJI/MARSHALL ISLANDS  Thursday 20 Nov – 9am FJT & MHT

For more timezones please view here

View or event on our new website and help us share the webinar out on Instagram, Facebook & Linkedin

REGISTER – https://events.humanitix.com/holding-the-memories

Featuring: 

  • Dimity Hawkins (Nuclear Truth Project, Australia)
  • Alan Owen (LabRats International, UK)
  • Karina Lester (Yankunytjatjara-Anangu community leader, Australia)
  • Dr Chris Hill (University of South Wales, UK)
  • Dr Jon Hogg (University of Liverpool, UK)

Building on the Nuclear Truth Project’s Challenging Nuclear Secrecy report (2025), this international collaboration brings together affected community members, nuclear justice advocates and organisations from the UK and Australia. 

The webinar will explore barriers to accessing nuclear archives and expose the power of community-held memory.

Focusing on British nuclear weapons testing in Australia and the Pacific (1952–1963), the discussion will focus on archival access as a core part of nuclear justice, victim assistance, and environmental restoration.

How do communities impacted by nuclear weapons testing overcome systemic barriers to accessing official records of harm to Peoples and Country? 

Join us to learn how memory is held — and fought for — by those most affected.

November 10, 2025 Posted by | Events | Leave a comment

Experts: Full nuclear weapons tests would backfire on US

Defense News, By Stephen Losey, 6 Nov 25,

Resuming full testing of nuclear weapons — as President Donald Trump called for last week — would be unnecessary, costly, undermine nonproliferation efforts, and empower the nation’s adversaries to use their own tests as intimidation, expertstold Defense News.

Trump’s unexpected announcement, which came in the form of an Oct. 29 social media post, surprised many nuclear specialists — and sparked concerns that the UnitedStates may end its 33-year moratorium on nuclear weapons testing.

“Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis,” Trump posted on TruthSocial.

“That process will begin immediately,” he wrote.

When asked for comment about nuclear testing plans, the Pentagon’s public affairs office pointed to an Oct. 31 video of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in Malaysia, in which he said testing nuclear weapons is a responsible way to ensure the country has “the strongest, most capable nuclear arsenal so that we maintain peace through strength.”

“The president was clear: We need to have a credible nuclear deterrent,” Hegseth said, “That is the baseline of our deterrence.

“Having understanding and resuming testing is a pretty responsible — very responsible — way to do that. I think it makes nuclear conflict less likely, if you know what you have and make sure it operates properly,” he said.

Hegseth also said the military would work with the Energy Department on this testing.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Fox News Nov. 2 that tests focusing on the subsystems of new nuclear weapons are already in the works, but he said the tests would not result in a full nuclear detonation………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

“The U.S. had conducted over 1,000 nuclear tests,” Erath said Monday in an interview with Defense News. “We had all the data necessary to know how nuclear weapons work, to verify that U.S. nuclear weapons would work, and other people didn’t. So by stopping testing when we did, we sort of locked in an advantage in knowledge that persists to this day.”

Since then, U.S. nuclear testing has relied on computer simulations designed to predict how a weapon would respond if triggered.

Wright said on Fox News that the United States’ advanced laboratories and computing power devoted to nuclear weapons provide a major advantage over other nations.

“We can simulate incredibly accurately exactly what will happen in a nuclear explosion,” Wright said. “And we can do that because in the ’60s, ‘70s and ‘80s, we did nuclear test explosions. We had them detailedly instrumented, and we measured exactly what happened. Now we simulate what were the conditions that delivered that, and as we change bomb designs, what will they deliver?”

Hans Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists, speaking Monday to Defense News, pointed to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s National Ignition Facility in California as an example of the kind of state-of-the-art facilities that the U.S. developed for safe nuclear testing purposes……………………………………………………………………………

As the government modernizes and extends the life of aging weapons in its nuclear stockpile, through efforts such as the W80-4 life extension program, it uses experiments at places such as the NIF to determine whether the weapons will still react properly if used.

Those simulation capabilities obviate the need for any testing of existing, upgraded, or new weapons,Kristensen said.

“It’s just a fundamentally different situation for the United States,” he said.

The U.S. now is modernizing its nuclear forces by creating a new gravity bomb, the B61-13, and new warheads to go on the upcoming LGM-35A Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile and the Trident II D5 missile.

Part of that work will involve tests of the warheads’ critical subsystems, Erath said.

He said, though, that is it not necessary to go through the entire process and trigger the nuclear reactions that create devastating blasts to know whether the weapon will work.

“What happens after the plutonium goes critical is well known,” Erath said, “So you don’t need to do an explosive mushroom cloud-and-crater kind of nuclear test.

“You can do the smaller-scale subcritical testing, and that has been happening.”

Rattling a house of dynamite?

If the United States shatters the taboo against nuclear tests it helped create, other nations are sure to follow with their own tests, Erath said. Once that happens and they start to gather more detailed information on their own nuclear devices, he said, they will start to catch up to America…………

In an interview with 60 Minutes that aired Sunday, Trump claimed without evidence that China and Russia have conducted clandestine nuclear weapons tests deep underground……………………………………………………………………………………………………

If the U.S. government were to proceed with full tests that explode nuclear weapons, Erath said, it would likely happen underground. That would minimize the environmental impact, he said, but not eliminate it entirely, because leaks can happen.

The diplomatic consequences and harm to nonproliferation efforts would be far more severe, Erath said. The United States would likely receive a storm of condemnation from other nations, he said.

With the global moratorium on nuclear weapons testing broken, Erath said, nations such as Russia, China, North Korea, India and Pakistan would likely follow Washington’s example…………………………………………………………..

“This kind of confusion and uncertainty undermines U.S. credibility with its allies,” Kristensen said. “They need to know if they can trust U.S. policies. … If the U.S. president now begins to signal that he’s interested in [nuclear testing] in some shape or form … it’s going to add to the pool of uncertainties [allies] have about what kind of partner the United States is now, and will be in the future.”…………………………………………………

Digging a hole deep enough for a nuclear bomb test would take months, Kristensen said — and finding the right digging equipment would be another challenge, since not many organizations have needed to dig such holes in the desert for a long time. Once the nuclear device is in there, it has to be sealed properly with materials such as gravel and concrete to keep radioactive materials from venting.

“They would have to build a whole tower over the hole in which they have this instrument package that would be lowered in there,” Kristensen said. “Those instruments would have to be designed by the nuclear laboratories to be able to do what it is that they want to record. There’s so many levels of this that have to fall into place.” https://www.defensenews.com/global/the-americas/2025/11/05/experts-full-nuclear-weapons-tests-would-backfire-on-us/

About Stephen Losey

Stephen Losey is the air warfare reporter for Defense News. He previously covered leadership and personnel issues at Air Force Times, and the Pentagon, special operations and air warfare at Military.com. He has traveled to the Middle East to cover U.S. Air Force operations.

November 10, 2025 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Deal That Never Was: Washington Proposed, Moscow Agreed – and Trump Blocked It

Russia no longer expects meaningful negotiations with Trump, having recognized the limits of his actual power within the American system, namely the permanent Deep State.

Key Takeaways

  • The Alaska ceasefire plan was originally proposed by the U.S., not Russia.
  • The plan collapsed due to U.S. indecision and Ukrainian-European rejection of territorial compromises.
  • Russia considers regions such as Donbass, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson historically legitimate Russian territories.
  • Trump’s transactional style, evident in both South Korea and Anchorage, reflects a pattern of coercive, short-term deal-making.
  • Moscow’s distrust of Washington has deepened; the U.S. is seen as unreliable, politically fragmented, and incapable of sustained diplomacy.

A ceasefire in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, including Ukraine’s withdrawal from the Donbass, was on the table. Moscow was ready – but Washington pulled back at the last moment, letting the agreement collapse.

Felix Abt, Fri 07 Nov 2025 https://forumgeopolitica.com/article/the-deal-that-never-was-washington-proposed-moscow-agreed-and-trump-blocked-it
The Deal That Never Was reveals how Trump’s transactional diplomacy – from Seoul to Anchorage – turned a tangible opportunity for peace into yet another missed chance.

The proposed plan – something akin to an “Istanbul Plus” – was formulated by Washington and then abruptly abandoned. From Lavrov’s revealing interview, which we discuss below, to the collapse of the Alaska summit, the story shows how a U.S.-initiated ceasefire plan in Ukraine failed, leaving Russia skeptical, freezing diplomatic channels, and escalating military tensions.

It was a unique opportunity that could have altered the course of the war and strengthened Washington’s international credibility – but it went unused, serving as a lesson in how short-term political calculations can destroy long-term prospects for peace.

Trump’s Pattern of Transactional Diplomacy

President Donald Trump recently visited South Korea, where he received ceremonial honors and negotiated a new trade agreement. According to reports, Trump agreed to lower U.S. tariffs on South Korean exports in exchange for South Korea’s pledge to invest roughly $350 billion in the United States.

This deal illustrates Trump’s typical tactic: imposing crushing tariffs, extracting enormous investment pledges – and then rolling the tariffs back. He applied the same strategy to the EU, Japan, and others, while China resisted and retaliated. The approach resembles less a coherent protectionist policy than a 1920s-style protection racket, more akin to Mafia extortion than modern statecraft. Many doubt that the promised investments will ever materialize, and the U.S. Supreme Court is set to review the constitutionality of Trump’s tariff strategy, widely viewed as coercive diplomacy rather than sound economic policy.

This approach mirrors Trump’s methods in other areas, particularly in dealing with Russia. During the Anchorage summit, Trump’s envoy proposed a peace plan for Ukraine, which Moscow accepted. Yet Trump later withdrew, issued new demands, publicly disparaged Putin, and escalated tensions through threats of sanctions and missile deployments. The pattern – bluster, theatrical deal-making, and retreat – has become a defining feature of his foreign policy and has severely undermined U.S. credibility in the eyes of many international observers.

Russian analyst Dmitri Trenin, writing in Kommersant, a newspaper widely read in Russia’s business circles, described Moscow’s evolving perception of Trump, suggesting that meaningful business dealings between Russia and the U.S. are unlikely in the foreseeable future. He portrays President Trump as:

  • unpredictable and manipulative, alternating between threats and charm;
  • motivated by personal glory rather than a consistent strategic vision;
  • economically predatory, using tariffs and trade wars to suppress rivals;
  • more concerned with optics than substance, favoring photo-op “truces” over lasting peace.

Trenin concludes that Russia no longer expects meaningful negotiations with Trump, having recognized the limits of his actual power within the American system, namely the permanent Deep State. Still, Moscow’s engagement with Trump – the so-called “special diplomatic operation” – served a strategic purpose: signaling to key partners such as China, India, and Brazil that Russia remained open to dialogue and, absent Western interference or obstruction by the Banderite regime, interested in a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine conflict. At the same time, it reassured the Russian public of their leadership’s resolve and reinforced the belief that only military success – not U.S.-brokered, coercive “diplomacy” – can secure Russia’s long-term objectives in Ukraine.

Lavrov’s Interview: New Insights into a Failed Peace Plan

Continue reading →

November 10, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Russia urges Trump administration to clarify ‘contradictory’ signals on nuclear testing

By Dmitry Antonov, November 7, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-says-it-wants-us-clarify-its-nuclear-testing-intentions-after-trump-2025-11-07/

  • Summary
  • Trump yet to spell out what kind of nuclear tests he means
  • Russia and US have not tested since 1990s
  • Russia says uncertainty is prompting global concern
  • Putin has ordered proposals for possible test by Russia

MOSCOW, Nov 7 (Reuters) – Russia urged the United States on Friday to clarify what it called contradictory signals about a resumption of nuclear testing, saying such a step would trigger responses from Russia and other countries.

President Donald Trump last week ordered the U.S. military to immediately restart the process for testing nuclear weapons. But he did not make clear if he meant flight-testing of nuclear-capable missiles or a resumption of tests involving nuclear explosions – something neither the U.S. nor Russia has done for more than three decades.

“If it is the latter, then this will create negative dynamics and trigger steps from other states, including Russia, in response,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told reporters.

“For now, we note that the signals emanating from Washington, which are causing justified concern in all corners of the world, remain contradictory, and, of course, the real state of affairs must be clarified.”

Citing the lack of clarity around U.S. plans, President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday instructed top officials to prepare proposals for Russia to carry out its own potential nuclear test in response to any U.S. test.

Security analysts say a resumption of testing by any of the world’s nuclear powers would be a destabilising step at a time of acute geopolitical tension, notably over the war in Ukraine, and would likely prompt other countries to follow suit.

Russia and the U.S. possess the world’s largest nuclear arsenals.

The last remaining treaty between them that limits the number of strategic nuclear warheads on both sides is due to expire in three months, potentially fuelling an arms race that is already in progress.

Putin has proposed that both sides continue to observe the treaty limits for another year, but Trump has yet to respond formally to the idea.

November 10, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Russia | Leave a comment

British Nuclear Jets Programme Costs ‘Unrealistic’ – CND

“Just as we’ve seen the ‘blank cheque’ approach to the spiralling costs of replacing Britain’s nuclear submarines, so we see it again here with Britain’s new nuclear-capable jets.”

, by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), https://labouroutlook.org/2025/11/08/british-nuclear-jets-programme-costs-unrealistic-cnd/


The chair of the Government’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, has described the MoD’s cost forecast for the F-35 fighter jet programme as “unrealistic”.

The report also shines a spotlight on the repeated and systematic failure of the MoD to demonstrate financial responsibility or accountability. Just as we’ve seen the ‘blank cheque’ approach to the spiralling costs of replacing Britain’s nuclear submarines, so we see it again here with Britain’s new nuclear-capable jets.  

The Public Accounts Committee report states that the MoD ‘acknowledged that becoming certified for the NATO nuclear mission will add new requirements to training, personnel and possibly infrastructure.’ Yet, PAC reports that it was only once the Committee requested evidence about the F-35 programme that the MoD started discussions with ‘other partner nations’  to understand these requirements.  Therefore ‘the Department [MoD] did not provide any indication of forecast costs.’

The MoD had argued that buying the F-35A nuclear-capable fighter jets would be 20% to 25% cheaper than the F-35B non-nuclear fighter jets.  However, PAC’s report reveals that because the MoD had not familiarised itself with the technical implications of NATO integration before the decision was made to buy the F-35As, it had not allowed for additional costs associated with this. The report concludes ‘We believe it is a reasonable assumption that this may end up proving more expensive’.


This is the latest in a series of failures to forecast costs for the programme, resulting in substantially underestimating the scale of the spending needed. Back in 2013, when the decision was made to buy 138 F-35 fighter jets, the MoD set out the initial cost of £18.4 billion, which was only for the first 48 fighter jets. It was then discovered that the MoD had failed to update this figure following the extension of the programme from 2048 to 2069 – more than a 20 year extension. The MoD then revised this figure to £57 billion but did not include any of the far more costly sustainment expenditure such as personnel, infrastructure or fuel.

The National Audit Office calculates the full programme is likely to be £71 billion. However, this does not take into consideration the additional costs associated with the certification of the F-35A jets for NATO nuclear missions, so this figure will certainly increase. And there are still further questions about the purchases of an additional 63 F-35A jets, as whether these will also be part of NATO’s nuclear mission.


The committee also reveals the level of chaos, mis-manageable and lack of planning of the programme. For instance, the MoD underestimated the number of engineers it would need for the programme, failing to consider annual leave and staff working in other roles. Consequently staffing costs have had to be increased by 20%. 

A delay in upgrading the accommodation at RAF Marham, which has been the main operating base for the F-35s since 2013, means not all the accommodation will be ready in time for the 2029 delivery of the new F-35A fighter jets, likely causing delays and further costs in the programme.

This mismanagement, lack of financial accountability resulting in spiralling costs is typical of Britain’s nuclear weapons industry. The replacement of Britain’s nuclear submarines has been repeatedly rated ‘unachievable’ by the government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority, due to cost overruns and delays.

Instead of pouring hundreds of billions more into this black hole of deadly weaponry – tying Britain even closer to NATO and Trump’s reckless nuclear war drive – the British government should redirect these funds to kick-start the British economy investing in transport, housing and healthcare, improving living standards and tackling the real threats we face from climate breakdown

The Committee – which scrutinises the financial accounts and holds the government to account for the delivery of public services’ – produced a report into the MoD’s management of its F-35 fighter jet programme, which will see Britain buy a total of 138 jets – likely to be 63 F-35B ‘stealth’ jets and 75 of the nuclear-capable F-35A fighter jets.  

Despite Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s announcement in June at the NATO summit that Britain, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, would be expanding its nuclear capability through the purchase of 12 F-35A jets, the Committee’s report reveals the Ministry of Defence had little understanding of the implications – both technical or financial – of NATO integration of its nuclear-capable fighter jets when this announcement was made.

November 10, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Putin considers nuclear tests after Trump threat.

8 Nov 25 https://www.politico.eu/article/russian-president-vladimir-putin-nuclear-tests-donald-trump-weapons/

The Russian president has asked for a feasibility study on resuming nuclear testing following a surprise announcement by his American counterpart.

3Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday ordered top officials to come up with proposals for the potential resumption of nuclear testing for the first time since the end of the Cold War more than three decades ago.

Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump instructed the Pentagon to “immediately” start testing nuclear weapons “on an equal basis” with nuclear testing programs in other nations.

Putin, speaking at Russia’s Security Council, told the country’s foreign and defense ministers, its special services and the relevant civilian agencies to study the matter and “submit coordinated proposals on the possible commencement of work to prepare for nuclear weapons testing.”

Defense Minister Andrei Belousov told Putin at the meeting that it would be “appropriate to immediately begin preparations for full-scale nuclear tests.”

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov later clarified that “the president did not give the order to begin preparations for the test” but merely ordered a feasibility study.

Russia announced last week that it had successfully tested a nuclear-powered torpedo, dubbed Poseidon, that was capable of damaging entire coastal regions as well as a new cruise missile named the Burevestnik, prompting Trump to respond. The U.S. today launched an intercontinental ballistic missile, Minuteman III, in a routine test.

The Cold War was characterized by an intense nuclear arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union as the superpowers competed for superiority by stockpiling and developing nuclear weapons. It ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the signing of nuclear treaties such as START, which aimed to reduce and control nuclear arsenals. The Soviet Union conducted its last test in 1990 and the U.S. in 1992.

A report this year by the SIPRI think tank warned that the global stockpile of nuclear weapons is increasing, with all nine nuclear-armed states — the U.S., U.K., Russia, France, China, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea — upgrading existing weapons and adding new versions to their stockpiles.

November 10, 2025 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Radioactive waste from Canada would be buried in Utah under EnergySolutions proposal.

The company wants to import more than 1 million cubic yards of low-level radioactive waste from Canada to its facility in Utah’s West Desert.

Salt Lake Tribune, By  Leia Larsen  and  Jordan Miller, Nov. 8, 2025

A Utah company wants to import massive amountsof Canadian radioactive waste to a facility less than 100 miles from the state’s largest population center.

EnergySolutions seeks to transport up to 1.3 million cubic yards of low-level radioactive and mixed waste — enough to fill roughly 400 Olympic-sized swimming pools — from Ontario, Canada, to its Clive facility in Tooele County,it confirmed in a statement Thursday. The international nuclear services company is headquartered in Salt Lake City.

Its proposal, if approved, would mark the first time Utah allows foreign radioactive waste to be stored within state boundaries.

The company currently accepts low-level radioactive and other hazardous waste from across the nation at the Clive site for burial, which opened in 1988.

The request is under consideration by the Northwest Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management, which manages the disposal of such waste in Utah and seven other states. At least six states must approve the proposal, and Utah can veto it.

EnergySolutions says it will ask Utah regulators for permission to expand its storage capacity to accept the waste from Canada and shipments from across the U.S. The company expects to pay $30 million under a new tax imposed by the state Legislature in order to generate money for Gov. Spencer Cox’s Operation Gigawatt — his initiative to double energy production in Utah over the next decade…………………………………………………………………..

What kind of radioactive waste could come to Utah?

……………………..Typical low-level radioactive materials include contaminatedprotective clothing, filters, cleaning rags, medical swabs and syringes, according to the NRC. However, a lobbyist for EnergySolutions told lawmakers this year, while discussing the proposed expansion, the waste could include components of decommissioned nuclear power plants.

The Canadian shipments would also include mixed waste, which is any type of radioactive material that is combined with hazardous waste.

The Clive facility currently holds Class A radioactive “soil, concrete rubble, demolition debris, large components and personal protective equipment,” a company spokesperson said. That waste comes from the federal government and domestic power plants.

EnergySolutions will only accept foreignwaste generated within the province of Ontario, it noted in a letter filed Sept. 9 seeking approval from the interstate compact. The materials cannot be shipped from other locations. No depleted uranium will travel from Canada to the landfill site, the company confirmed.

This case would mark the first time a state in the compact accepts foreign radioactive waste, confirmed Kristen Schwab, executive director of the Northwest Interstate Compact. And only two states in the compact accept low-level radioactive waste for disposal at all — Utah and Washington.

…………………………………… HEAL Utah, an environmental watchdog, said it has concerns about potential spills along the route.

“Historically, Utah residents have been concerned about waste coming through their communities to be dumped in our state,” said Carmen Valdez, a senior policy associate for the nonprofit.

EnergySolutions previously sought to ship parts of a dismantled nuclear plant from Italy to its Utah location in 2008. The state vetoed the plan with the backing of then-Gov. Jon Huntsman, who bristled at the idea of storing radioactive materials from other countries.

“As I have always emphatically declared,” Huntsman said at the time, “Utah should not be the world’s dumping ground.”

Cox did not directly respond Friday to a question about whether he supports EnergySolutions’ proposal.

In order to import the Canadian waste, EnergySolutions must get a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the company confirmed.

The company also needs approval from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality to move forward with its facility expansion. The company estimates will keep the Clive site operational for another 45 years.

The Utah Legislature earlier this year passed Senate Bill 216, which streamlined the process for such expansions and added a new tax on facilities that plan to scale up. Revenue generated from that tax would go to the Utah Energy Research Fund.

EnergySolutions said it would apply for the expansion by Dec. 31, and DEQ confirmed it has not yet received an application.

The company wants compact officials to approve the Ontario deal ahead of that state process, EnergySolutions said in an Oct. 31 follow-up letter. Waiting until DEQ approves its expansion would cause delays, it said.

One member of the compact committee suggested imposing a 10-year deadline for EnergySolutions to import the 1.3 million cubic yards of waste from Ontario to the Clive site. The company opposed the timeline, saying it would jeopardize its ability to “reasonably recover its investment,” including the $30 million expansion tax………

Shipments from Ontario will account for a fraction of the waste ultimately stored in the planned expansion, the company and DEQ said.

……………………………….Environmental advocates at HEAL remain wary about importing waste from other countries.

“We do have to find solutions to storing that waste safely,” Valdez said, “but we want to really ensure that we have enough means to manage the waste that already exists in the United States before we start accepting international waste at the benefit and profit of a private company.”

Low-level radioactive waste generated in Utah — from facilities like medical labs or universities, for example — is not disposed of in the state. As a member of the compact, Utah sends its waste to a facility in Richland, Washington.

The compact committee plans to discuss EnergySolutions’ proposal again at a meeting on Nov. 25. https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2025/11/07/utahs-energysolutions-proposes/

November 10, 2025 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Six pieces of data that give hope for the future of the climate

The world may not be on track to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of keeping the temperature rise ‘well below’ 2C – but there remain grounds for hopeas the international Cop30 summit gets underway.

For starters, the rate at
which emissions are rising has slowed considerably in the years since the
Paris Agreement was signed, even if the achievement of “peak emissions”
remains elusive for now. A key milestone was also marked this year, with
the news that China’s emissions are now believed to have peaked.

One big
reason why the world is beginning to get a handle on emissions is the
soaring growth in the capacity to generate renewable energy. Electric
vehicles have also boomed over the past decade, from less than a million
cars sold in 2015 to more than 15 million sold last year, driven by the
Chinese market. More than 140 countries have pledged to reach net zero,
with 37 of them holding the target in law, according to the think tank
ECIU.

 Independent 6th Nov 2025, https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/cop30-climate-brazil-paris-agreement-b2859763.html

November 10, 2025 Posted by | climate change | Leave a comment

Brussels attempts to sink Europe in debt to help Zelensky

it represents for European countries a new abandonment of their national interests for the sake of Ukraine.

Raphael Machado, November 7, 2025, https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/11/07/brussels-attempts-to-sink-europe-in-debt-to-help-zelensky/

It is striking how European governments seem incapable of extricating themselves from Ukraine.

The European Union has a dilemma. It insists, against all rationality, on continuing to support and finance the Zelensky regime. But it no longer knows how to continue doing so.

Since 2022, European authorities in Brussels have spoken of confiscating Russian assets to fund Ukraine under the banner of “Ukrainian reconstruction.”

The proposal itself is extremely dubious. The measure would set a serious legal precedent. We know that Russian assets were frozen shortly after the start of the special military operation thanks to the economic sanctions regime. Nevertheless, formally, even under the deficient logic of current International Law, these assets are simply paralyzed, awaiting the end of the Ukrainian conflict.

A permanent confiscation, especially of sovereign funds linked to the Russian Central Bank, would be of a different, fundamentally aggressive nature that would shake international legal security. Many countries, especially Third World countries engaged in sovereign development strategies, may see this as a sign that their potential reserves in euros and dollars are not safe – which could lead, in the short term, to capital flight and, in the long term, to an accelerated search for alternative currencies and payment systems.

In the long run, this accelerates the formation of a multipolar financial system, less dependent on the euro and the dollar.

But the alternative that Ursula von der Leyen’s “gang” is trying to impose on European countries is not much better. On the contrary, it represents for European countries a new abandonment of their national interests for the sake of Ukraine.

The European Commission is trying to force European countries to borrow money in exchange for European Central Bank bonds, aiming to cover the 140 billion euros promised to Kiev in its “reconstruction plan.” Naturally, this loan would represent a new blow to the national budgets of European economies, already affected by the long-standing economic stagnation plaguing the countries in question. To finance the plan, several countries in the region would probably have to raise taxes.

Beyond the fact that some countries in the region, especially the Mediterranean ones, are already deeply indebted, there is obviously the political problem linked to the electoral consequences of a potential tax increase to fund Ukraine. There is a clear correlation between the difficulties experienced by European countries due to support for Ukraine and the strengthening of nationalist or populist political trends.

Countries like Germany, Sweden, France, the Netherlands, and several others have seen announcements of cuts to social benefits over recent years. And although it is never publicly admitted that these cuts could be due to the budgetary weight of Ukraine, it is inevitable to conclude in this direction, as the funding for Ukraine increasingly weighs simultaneously with benefit cuts (and tax increases). An honest austerity policy, implemented for purely economic reasons, would also demand a reduction in support for Ukraine – and that is not what is happening.

Naturally, it is also necessary to take into account that, today, there is no concrete oversight by the European Commission of the use of funds transferred to Ukraine. The money sent by the West has fallen into a black hole of corruption, thanks to the Zelensky regime’s lack of accountability to European taxpayers.

But, to some extent, the very proposition of this collective loan constitutes a chess move by the European Commission. Faced with pressure to increase spending for Ukraine, von der Leyen believes it is possible to convince European countries to approve the confiscation of Russian assets.

This duality imposed by Brussels, however, does not exhaust the decision-making possibilities of European countries. Since these hypotheses require the consensual adhesion of European countries, a Hungarian-Czech-Slovak bloc (which Viktor Orban is trying to build) could simply try to sabotage both propositions, leaving the issue of Ukrainian funding in limbo.

Finally, it is striking how European governments seem incapable of extricating themselves from Ukraine, despite the fact that support for the Zelensky regime continues to pile up costs and disadvantages for each of the European governments involved in this farce.

November 9, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

Trump and the Deep State: The Tomahawk deadlock and the illusion of presidential autonomy

This oscillation reflects, more than personal indecision, the tension between two competing power projects within the United States. On one hand, Trump seeks to maintain a more restrained foreign policy, focused on avoiding the strain of a direct confrontation with Russia. On the other hand, the military-industrial complex and its allies in Congress, the media, and the intelligence services continue to push for the escalation of the war in Ukraine.

The supply of weapons to Kiev is, above all, a multibillion-dollar business that guarantees extraordinary profits for corporations such as Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.

Lucas Leiroz, November 5, 2025, https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/11/05/trump-and-deep-state-tomahawk-deadlock-and-illusion-of-presidential-autonomy/

The Tomahawk issue is vital in determining Donald Trump’s political future.

The current controversy over the possible delivery of Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine reignites a crucial debate in American politics: to what extent does the president of the United States truly control his country’s strategic decisions? The episode suggests that Donald Trump, despite his rhetoric of independence and his supposed desire for a “pragmatic rapprochement” with Moscow, remains bound by the constraints of the so-called Deep State — the bureaucratic-corporate-military structure that has dictated the course of Washington’s foreign policy for decades.

According to Western media sources, the Pentagon had given the White House the green light to release the Tomahawks, arguing that the transfer would not harm U.S. stockpiles. The final decision, however, would rest with Trump. Initially, the president indicated that he did not intend to send the missiles, stating that “we cannot give away what we need to protect our own country.” A few days later, however, he reversed his stance — and then reversed it again, after a phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

This oscillation reflects, more than personal indecision, the tension between two competing power projects within the United States. On one hand, Trump seeks to maintain a more restrained foreign policy, focused on rebuilding the domestic economy and avoiding the strain of a direct confrontation with Russia. On the other hand, the military-industrial complex and its allies in Congress, the media, and the intelligence services continue to push for the escalation of the war in Ukraine.

The Deep State does not act solely out of abstract strategic interests. The supply of weapons to Kiev is, above all, a multibillion-dollar business that guarantees extraordinary profits for corporations such as Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. The Tomahawks, in particular, symbolize this economic power. Mass-produced and widely used in previous wars, they represent both a military tool and a currency of political influence. Allowing Ukraine to use them against strategic targets deep inside Russia would, however, be a dangerous act of escalation — something that Trump, in a rare moment of prudence, seems to understand.

Putin’s phone call to Trump, as reported by the press, was likely a direct reminder that the use of missiles with a thousand-mile range against cities such as Moscow or St. Petersburg would have incalculable consequences. Contrary to the Western narrative, which tries to portray Russia as isolated and vulnerable, Moscow maintains full retaliatory capability, including nuclear. By avoiding authorization for the Tomahawks’ transfer, Trump did not yield to “Russian blackmail” — as the Atlanticist media would claim — but rather to the elementary logic of global security.

Even so, the fact that the Pentagon and European allies pressured the White House to approve the delivery shows how the structure of real power in the U.S. transcends the president himself. The Deep State shapes not only foreign-policy decisions but also the perceptions of what is “possible” or “acceptable” for an American leader. When Trump seeks dialogue with Moscow, he is immediately accused of “weakness” or “complicity.” When he imposes sanctions, even tactical ones, he is praised for his “toughness.” Thus, a political siege is created in which any attempt at rationality is seen as betrayal of American hegemony.

Analyzing this episode, it becomes clear that presidential autonomy in the United States is largely an illusion. Trump, who came to power promising to break with globalism and restore national sovereignty, now finds himself in a dilemma: either he resists establishment pressure and risks political isolation, or he yields and becomes just another administrator of Washington’s perpetual wars.

The hesitation over the Tomahawks is, therefore, a symptom of the deeper struggle that defines contemporary American politics. Russia, for its part, watches cautiously, aware that the true interlocutor in Washington is not the president but the system surrounding him — a system that profits from war and fears, above all, peace.

November 9, 2025 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

The rise of the US ‘digital-military-industrial complex’

Xinhuanet, Editor Huang Panyue2 025-10-20 http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/2025xb/W/N/16416523.html

On Oct 13, Anduril Industries, an American defense technology company, unveiled its “Eagle Eye” headset at the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) annual meeting as part of the Army’s Soldier Borne Mission Command program. The system — offered in four variants — integrates multiple augmented-reality devices designed to provide timely, accurate battlefield information, enhance soldiers’ situational cognition, and improve both offensive and defensive decision-making. This unveiling highlights the growing trend of digital technology firms entering the US defense market, with Anduril emerging as one of the most typical representatives of this shift.

Over the past decade, the familiar concept of the “military-industrial complex” — coined by President Dwight D Eisenhower in 1961 — has evolved into a new hybrid: the “digital-military-industrial complex”. This variant revolves around firms that specialize in data, artificial intelligence and digital platforms, as well as startups deliberately positioned as defense-oriented technology providers. These entities are collaborating closely with the US military and traditional defense contractors to accelerate the digitization and intelligent transformation of military capabilities. Some analysts warn that this digital variant could drive large-scale US intervention abroad — potentially becoming a “new war machine”.

Traditional defense giants such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics, now face intense competition from two kinds of digital players. The first category comprises big tech corporations — Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Oracle, HP, Dell, Motorola, IBM and others — many of which have secured sizable Pentagon contracts to supply advanced systems software and cloud, data and AI services. The second category consists of venture-backed startups, often funded by Silicon Valley investors that focus on AI, autonomy, sensing and networked command-and-control systems tailored to military and intelligence needs. These startups market “national security” as a core product attribute in pursuit of a share of US defense procurement.

Examples are plentiful. Anduril, founded in 2017 by investors including Palmer Luckey and Peter Thiel, now supplies autonomous systems that combine AI and robotics — from unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and counter-UAS solutions to semi-portable autonomous surveillance systems and networked command and control (C2) software. Palantir, founded in 2003, has long partnered with government agencies and has significantly expanded military collaboration in recent years. Its market capitalization soared in 2024, exceeding the combined valuations of several legacy defense giants. Other comparable companies include Rebellion Defense (AI military applications), Shield AI (autonomous flight and navigation), Skydio (drones for military and law enforcement), HawkEye 360 (satellite-enabled radio-frequency monitoring), Epirus (directed-energy and electromagnetic defense), and various private ventures targeting dual-use space capabilities.

At first glance, Silicon Valley’s deepening ties to the Pentagon may appear anomalous. For years, Silicon Valley projected liberal, antiwar values, resisting the militarization of its technologies. Yet the region’s militarized trajectory represents a return to its historical roots rather than a novel development. Since the 1950s, US federal agencies — particularly the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — decisively shaped the development of transformative technologies like the Internet and GPS.

Traditional defense firms also played formative roles in Silicon Valley’s rise. Although these ties waned after the Cold War, in recent years, major tech figures have publicly embraced national-security collaboration. In 2019, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos publicly urged big tech to show greater patriotism and actively participate in defense cooperation with the Department of Defense. In June 2025, the Army formalized the fusion of tech expertise and military innovation by appointing four tech leaders as reserve lieutenant colonels to its newly established “Detachment 201”, also known as the “Executive Innovation Corps” — a symbolic merger of commercial tech leadership and military roles.

Three drivers underpin the rise of the digital-military-industrial complex. First, the advent of AI has made integration of commercial data and algorithms essential to military modernization. The Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), established by the Pentagon in Silicon Valley in 2015, channels venture-style procurements to accelerate conversion of commercial technologies for defense.

By September 2022, DIU had awarded roughly $1.2 billion in contracts to over 320 startups, and it was elevated in 2021 to report directly to the Secretary of Defense. Second, escalating global tensions such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict and turmoil in the Middle East have heightened US urgency to field technologies proven effective on modern battlefields. Third, China’s rapid advances in AI have fueled US concerns, prompting American policymakers to increasingly frame the competition as, in essence, an AI arms race.

Operationally, the digital-military-industrial complex differs from the traditional procurement model. Legacy contractors depend on large, long-term, bureaucratic contracts focused on platform performance. Tech firms, by contrast, move with commercial speed and market leverage, adapting civilian technologies for defense use — a model that strengthens their bargaining power and reduces regulatory constraints. To engage these new actors, the Department of Defense has adopted more agile acquisition mechanisms — notably “Other Transaction Agreements” (OTAs) — and established accelerators and programs to welcome nontraditional vendors.

n short, the US defense ecosystem is undergoing structural change: from a Washington-centered “contractor + Pentagon” system to a Silicon Valley-centric network combining venture capital, tech firms, legacy defense primes and the military. This emerging “Silicon Valley-Pentagon axis” is reshaping the tools, logic and ethical contours of warfare. The trend may intensify great-power rivalry and arms races, lower the threshold for war, obscure responsibility, and accelerate the militarization of technology — posing new threats to global peace and security.

Whether Silicon Valley will ultimately evolve into a cradle for militarism, and whether the digital-military-industrial complex will operate as a fully activated “war machine”, are questions that deserve the vigilance, concern, and reflection of people worldwide.

Shi Bowei is a lecturer from the Department of Political Science at the Party School of Zhejiang Provincial CPC Committee.

November 9, 2025 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Can France’s nuclear legacy weather climate change?

 The delicate-looking water primrose, an invasive aquatic plant with golden, daisy-like flowers,brought unit 4 at the 3.6 GW Cruas nuclear power plant in southern France to a grinding halt.

In recent years, extreme heat, droughts and warmer
rivers have repeatedly disrupted operations, forcing EDF to reduce output
or shut down reactors at sites along the Garonne and the Rhone. During the
record 2022 heatwave, the government even issued exceptional exemptions so several plants could temporarily exceed environmental discharge limits to avoid potential blackouts.

What’s driving the concern?

River temperatures regularly reaching regulatory thresholds; More frequent
droughts limiting cooling water; Increased ecological pressure on already
stressed river basins; Data showing production cuts clustering in summer
when demand is highest.

France’s Court of Auditors and climate agencies
warn that such shutdowns could become three to four times more common by 2050. EDF says annual impacts remain small overall, but seasonal risks are rising. With an ageing fleet and new reactors planned, the question is how resilient France’s nuclear system can remain in a rapidly warming climate

 Montel News 30th Oct 2025, https://montelnews.com/news/2e2e5374-e4ef-433a-ac00-1f2d049478c0/can-france-s-nuclear-legacy-weather-climate-change-2

November 9, 2025 Posted by | climate change, France | Leave a comment

Governments’ Financial Support for New Nuclear Developments in Canada

Frank Greening , 7 Nov 25

From a website run by the Canadian law firm Fasken:

Canada’s Ongoing Commitment to Nuclear Energy:

Governments in Canada, at the federal, provincial and territorial levels, continue to dedicate significant financial and other resources to the further development of nuclear energy in Canada, both for large-scale nuclear and SMRs. At the federal level, some recent examples include:

From a website run by the Canadian law firm Fasken:

November 9, 2025 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

YouTube deletes hundreds of videos documenting Israeli war crimes

The company cited compliance with US sanctions on three Palestinian organizations working with the International Criminal Court

News Desk NOV 5, 2025, https://thecradle.co/articles/youtube-deletes-hundreds-of-videos-documenting-israeli-war-crimes

YouTube, owned by Google LLC, has deleted more than 700 videos documenting Israeli human rights violations, citing compliance with US sanctions imposed on Palestinian human rights groups cooperating with the International Criminal Court (ICC), according to an investigation by The Intercept published on 5 November.

The investigation revealed that the videos were removed after US President Donald Trump’s administration sanctioned three Palestinian organizations over their work with the ICC on war crimes cases against Israeli leaders.

The organizations sanctioned are Al-Haq, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights.

The deletions, carried out in early October, erased years of archives detailing Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, including footage of home demolitions, civilian killings, and torture testimonies from Palestinians. 

Among the deleted material were investigations into the murder of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh and documentaries such as ‘The Beach’, which recounts the killing of children by an Israeli airstrike as they played by the sea.

YouTube confirmed the removals were made in compliance with “trade and export laws” after Trump sanctioned the groups. 

Human rights advocates said the company’s decision effectively aided US efforts to suppress evidence of Israeli atrocities.

“It’s really hard to imagine any serious argument that sharing information from these Palestinian human rights organizations would somehow violate sanctions,” said Sarah Leah Whitson of Democracy for the Arab World Now.

The Center for Constitutional Rights condemned the decision as an attempt to erase war crimes evidence, while Al-Haq described the move as “an alarming setback for human rights and freedom of expression.” 

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights said YouTube’s action “protects perpetrators from accountability,” accusing Google of complicity in silencing victims of Israeli aggression.

Al Mezan stated that its channel was removed without warning. The three organizations warned that US-based platforms hosting similar content could soon face the same censorship, potentially erasing further documentation of Israeli war crimes.

The Intercept investigation highlighted YouTube’s bias, noting that pro-Israel material remains largely untouched while Palestinian narratives are disproportionately targeted.

It reported that the platform had shown a “ready willingness to comply with demands from both the Trump administration and Israel.”

The crackdown comes amid renewed US efforts to shield Israeli officials from prosecution after the ICC issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant over Gaza war crimes. 

Washington has since reimposed sanctions on ICC judges and entities assisting the court’s investigations.

Separately, Wikipedia cofounder Jimmy Wales intervened after editors locked the site’s “Gaza genocide” page from further changes on 28 October. 

Wales called the entry “particularly egregious” and insisted it “needs immediate correction” to reflect a “neutral approach.” 

His remarks drew backlash from editors who accused him of bowing to political pressure and undermining UN and academic findings confirming that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide.

November 9, 2025 Posted by | media | Leave a comment

How thousands of fossil fuel lobbyists got access to UN climate talks – and then kept drilling

Research shows oil, gas and coal
firms’ unprecedented access to Cop26-29, blocking urgent climate action.
After years of campaigning by civil society groups, Cop delegates this year
are being asked to publicly disclose who is funding their participation –
and confirm that their objectives are in alignment with the UNFCCC.

But the new transparency requirement excludes anyone in official government delegations or overflows, and calls for stricter conflict of interest protections to cut industry influence have not been adequately heeded, advocates say.

 Guardian 7th Nov 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/07/fossil-fuel-lobbyists-cop-un-climate

November 9, 2025 Posted by | climate change | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »