nuclear-news

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

Life as a “displaced person”

Evacuated or not, we all need to protect ourselves from the radioactive contamination resulting from the Fukushima nuclear accident. “Evacuation” is a rightful act of a human being to avoid exposure to radiation so as to enjoy good health. In Japan, however, evacuees are subjected to discrimination and bullying, labeled as “rumor spreaders” since our very existence points out the dangers of radiation. Under this severe social pressure, we can barely express our rightful thought. 

 https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/03/09/life-as-a-displaced-person/

Fleeing the Fukushima disaster left many families fatherless, including my own, writes Akiko Morimatsu

I am Akiko Morimatsu. I left Fukushima to avoid radiation exposure caused by the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe, and I have been living as an internally displaced person.

Fourteen years have passed since the Great East Japan Earthquake of March 11, 2011 and the subsequent accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. The accident is far from over and the crippled power plant continues to contaminate the oceans, air, and land connected to the rest of the world. The situation is anything but “under control”, and I am outraged that none of the leaders of the Japanese State have acknowledged this fact.

Even after 14 years, many people continue to remain displaced. The number of evacuees registered with the government (Reconstruction Agency) is still approximately 29,000 people in all 47 prefectures of Japan, and they are in desperate need of government protection and relief.

However, the exact number of evacuees has never been counted by the Japanese government.

In fact, many more people than registered in official statistics have been compelled to flee their homes and are still in distress with no relief in sight, as they are not officially recognized as evacuees.

I have two children. At the time of the disaster, they were a 5-month-old baby and a 3-year-old toddler. For the past 14 years, my husband (the children’s father) lived in Koriyama City, Fukushima Prefecture, and I was living with my children in Osaka City, far apart one from the other.

Thus, people living in contaminated areas outside of the mandatory evacuation zones, made their not-easy-to-take decision to escape from the radiation source with only mothers and their children, who are more vulnerable to radiation. And this, without official aide or support. Even now, there are many people displaced living by their own means, and among them, a large number of households without fathers.

Evacuated or not, we all need to protect ourselves from the radioactive contamination resulting from the Fukushima nuclear accident. “Evacuation” is a rightful act of a human being to avoid exposure to radiation so as to enjoy good health. In Japan, however, evacuees are subjected to discrimination and bullying, labeled as “rumor spreaders” since our very existence points out the dangers of radiation. Under this severe social pressure, we can barely express our rightful thought. 

I would also like to strongly emphasize that this issue is not only a problem for the people of Fukushima. I would like to share with everyone in the world the following question: when threatened with nuclear damage, will you stand on the side of those who impose radiation exposure, or will you stand on the side of those who protect people’s lives and health from radiation exposure?

If nuclear power is promoted as a national policy, fleeing will not be easily allowed, and the government can claim, as in Japan, that coexistence with radiation is possible, in order to preserve nuclear power. It is nothing but deception.

The year 2025 will mark 80 years since the end of World War II. Last year, Nihon Hidankyô, the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and hibakusha gave a speech to the world audience, drawing attention to the issue of radiation exposure. 

We believe that now is the time to connect with people around the world concerned about nuclear damage. Avoiding radiation exposure to protect lives should be a universally recognized principle. As a victim of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, I, too, have renewed my determination to continue to raise my voice and strive for the establishment of this universal right. Let us continue fighting together.

Following the Great Earthquake and nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Akiko Morimatsu moved from Fukushima to Osaka with her two children aged 5 months and 3 years, leaving her husband who decided to continue working in Fukushima. She is the co-chair of the national coordination of the plaintiffs’ groups of the lawsuits filed by victims of the Fukushima nuclear accident, and the representative of the plaintiffs’ group in the Osaka metropolitan area. She lectures in Japan and abroad to defend the rights of nuclear accident victims. In 2018, she gave a speech at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. Translation from the Japanese by Kurumi Sugita, Nos Voisins Lontains 3.11.

March 12, 2025 Posted by | Japan, PERSONAL STORIES | Leave a comment

14 years since Fukushima nuclear disaster: Greenpeace statement

Greenpeace International, 11 March 2025 

Tokyo, Japan – 14 years have passed since the Great East Japan Earthquake and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster devastated the northeast region of Japan. Greenpeace Japan extends heartfelt condolences to the victims and their families who are still suffering the aftermath of this devastating catastrophe……………………………

The risks of nuclear power plants increase with the length of time they have been in operation, as does their vulnerability to natural disasters such as earthquakes. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident occurred at a nuclear power plant that had been in operation for more than 30 years, and radiation levels remain so high that even 14 years after the accident, it is still impossible for humans to directly inspect the damaged reactors. Therefore, the change of policy to promote nuclear power is unacceptable.[1] 

There is no prospect for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel while the existing storage facilities are already close to full capacity, and many local authorities have yet to put in place an effective method for the safe evacuation of residents living near nuclear power stations in the event of an unforeseen emergency. 

In addition, the Japanese Government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), pushing aside the concerns of fishermen, residents and others, have decided to start deliberately discharging contaminated water containing radioactive substances from the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the environment. This discharge is expected to continue for about 30 years until 2051.

14 years ago, the then Government considered the possibility of evacuating 50 million people in the Tokyo metropolitan area. In fact, water treatment plants in Tokyo even introduced temporary restrictions on the amount of water that infants should drink. Due to the direction of the wind, much of the released radioactive material was carried out to sea, but a different wind direction would have resulted in a completely different outcome. The Prime Minister secretly drafted a statement at that time which stated that the worst case scenario had occurred.  Have we, who experienced the accident, stayed true to the feelings we had in our hearts at the time?

The Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake 30 years ago, the Great East Japan Earthquake 14 years ago, the Noto Peninsula Earthquake a year ago and other earthquakes and floods across the country have occurred in rapid succession. We can only prepare for these natural disasters as best we can, but nuclear disasters are different. Nuclear disasters are caused by our choice and use of nuclear power as a means of generating electricity in Japan. Fortunately, there are many possibilities in Japan to pursue comfortable energy savings, as the electricity supply can be replaced by renewable energies that use neither nuclear power nor fossil fuels. 

Therefore, Greenpeace Japan, whose vision is to preserve the bounty of the earth for our children 100 years from now, believes that the only reasonable course to take is to stop nuclear power generation in order to prevent nuclear disasters from happening again. The government should clearly state its policy to phase out the use of nuclear power and fossil fuels, in order to ensure a stable energy supply and decarbonise the country. They should make great strides in energy conservation in a way that promotes health, comfort and efficiency, and the use of renewable energy in a way that is in harmony with local communities and nature, thereby aiming to make Japan an energy-saving and renewable energy powerhouse. We will do our utmost this year to work towards this goal.”  https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/73383/14-years-since-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-greenpeace-statement/

March 12, 2025 Posted by | Fukushima continuing | Leave a comment

Nuclear power’s global stagnation

There were no ‘small modular reactor’ (SMR) startups in 2024. Indeed there has never been a single SMR startup.

If you count so-called SMRs that are not built using factory ‘modular’ construction techniques, then there has still been just one each in China and Russia.

Dr Jim Green ,  10th March 2025 ,
https://theecologist.org/2025/mar/10/nuclear-powers-global-stagnation

The proponents of nuclear power rely on an excessive optimism which, once again, sits in stark contrast to the reality of the decades-long stagnation the industry worldwide. That contrast is the subject of our new report for the EnergyScience Coalition.

The latest nuclear proposals are built on three speculations, each of which is a castle built on sand. 

First, we have the projected AI-related energy demand. This ignores emerging evidence that such projections are overblown. For example, the new leading AI entrant DeepSeek requires just 10 percent of the energy of competitors. This is a repeat of the claims of the nuclear power proponents of the 1970’s whose projected demand that never eventuated.

Grids

Second, then we see speculative techno-optimism that new technologies such as small modular reactors will resolve industry project management issues. These small reactors are unproven.

Third, finally we note the prospective wish fulfilment, where dozens of nuclear ‘newcomer’ countries are offered as saviours. This is despite the hero countries in a large majority of cases not having reactor approvals and funding in place.

So what is the actual state of nuclear power in 2025? Worldwide nuclear power capacity was 371 gigawatts (GW) at the end of last year. That figure is near-identical to capacity of 368 GW two decades earlier in 2005.

A review by the World Nuclear Industry Status Report notes that seven new reactors were connected to grids last year while four reactors were permanently closed. The net increase in operating nuclear capacity was 4.3 gigawatts (GW).

Ageing reactors

The industry faces a daunting challenge just to maintain its pattern of stagnation, let alone achieve any growth. As of Wednesday, 1 January 2025, the mean age of the nuclear power reactor fleet was 32.1 years. In 1990, the mean age was just 11.3 years. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency projects the closure of 325 GW of nuclear capacity from 2018 to 2050 due simply to the ageing of the reactor fleet ‒ that’s 88 percent of current worldwide capacity. 

There were no ‘small modular reactor’ (SMR) startups in 2024. Indeed there has never been a single SMR startup. If you count so-called SMRs that are not built using factory ‘modular’ construction techniques, then there has still been just one each in China and Russia. 

The SMR sector continues to go nowhere, with further setbacks in 2024. The Nuward project in France has been suspended. This followed previous decisions to abandon four other SMR projects and the bankruptcy of US company Ultra Safe Nuclear. 

Renewables

In striking contrast to nuclear power’s marginal gain of 4.3 GW in 2024, the International Energy Agency’s October 2024 ‘Renewables 2024’ report estimates 666 GW of global renewable capacity additions in 2024. 

Based on the Agency’s estimate, renewables capacity growth was 155 times greater than that of nuclear power. In China, the ratio was 100:1 last year.

The International Energy Agency expects renewables to jump sharply from 30 percent of global electricity generation in 2023 to 46 percent in 2030.

Conversely, nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation has fallen steadily since the 1990s. As of 2025, nuclear power accounted for 9.15 percent of global electricity production, barely half of its peak of 17.5 percent in 1996.

Renewable investments were 21 times greater than nuclear investments. A Bloomberg analysis finds that renewable energy investments reached $US728 billion in 2024, up eight percent on the previous year. This compares with nuclear investment that remains flat at US$34.2 billion. 

Renewable costs have fallen sharply, in contrast to massive cost overruns with nuclear projects. Lazard investment firm data shows that utility-scale solar and onshore wind became cheaper than nuclear power from 2010‒2015. 

From 2009‒2024, the cost of utility-scale solar fell 83 percent; the cost of onshore wind fell 63 percent; while nuclear costs increased 49 percent.

Newcomer

Claims that between 40 and 50 countries are actively considering or planning to introduce nuclear power, in addition to the 32 countries currently operating reactors, do not withstand scrutiny.

At the start of this year reactors were under construction in just 13 countries, two less than a year earlier. Seven percent of the world’s countries are building reactors – 93 percent are not.

Of the 13 countries building reactors, only three are potential nuclear newcomer countries building their first plant: Egypt, Bangladesh and Turkiye. In those three countries, the nuclear projects are led by Russian nuclear agencies with significant up-front funding from the Russian state.

The World Nuclear Association observes that apart from those three countries, no countries meet its criteria of having ‘planned’ reactors: those with “approvals, funding or commitment in place, mostly expected to be in operation within the next 15 years”.

The number of potential newcomer countries with approvals and funding in place, or construction underway, is just three and those projects are funded heavily by the Russian state.

Phase-outs

There is no evidence of a forthcoming wave of nuclear newcomer countries. 

At most there will be a trickle, as has been the historical pattern. There has in fact been just seven newcomer countries over the past 40 years, and just three in the current century.

The number of countries operating power reactors in 1996–1997 reached 32. Since then, newcomer countries have been matched by countries completing nuclear phase-outs and thus the number is stuck at 32. And less than one-third of those countries are building reactors.

It is doubtful whether the number of nuclear newcomer countries will match the number of countries completing phase-outs in 20 to 30 years’ time.

Capital strike

Nuclear power just can’t compete economically. The industry’s greatest problem at the moment is a recognition of this by investors, resulting in a capital strike. 

Even with generous government and taxpayer subsidies, it has become difficult or impossible to fund new reactors ‒ especially outside the sphere of China and Russia’s projects at home and abroad.

Who would bet tens of billions of dollars on nuclear power projects when the recent history in countries with vast expertise and experience has been disastrous?

In France, the latest cost estimate for the only recent reactor construction project, the 1.6 GW Flamanville EPR, increased seven-fold from €3.3 billion to €23.7 billion for just one reactor. Construction took 17 years. No reactors are currently under construction in France.

And this problem sits alongside the risk of Fukushima-scale disasters, the risk of weapons proliferation, the risk of attacks on nuclear plants and the risks from the intractable nuclear waste legacy. 

Some of these risks have already come to pass, as with the reality of attacks on nuclear plants in Ukraine.

Bankruptcy

In the US, one project in South Carolina, comprising two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, was abandoned in 2017 after at least US$9 billion was spent. 

Westinghouse declared bankruptcy immediately after the cancellation of the South Carolina project, and its debts almost forced its parent company Toshiba into bankruptcy. All that remains is the nukegate scandal: an avalanche of legal action, including criminal cases.

The only other reactor construction project in the US ‒ the twin-reactor Vogtle project in the state of Georgia ‒ reached completion at a cost 12 times higher than early estimates. The final cost of the Vogtle project was at least US$17 billion per reactor. Completion was about seven years behind schedule.

No power reactors are currently under construction in the US. Thirteen reactors have been permanently shut down over the past 15 years.

Subsidies

The situation is just as bleak in the UK where there have been 24 permanent reactor shut-downs since the last reactor startup 30 years ago, in 1995.

The 3.2 GW twin-reactor Hinkley Point project in Somerset was meant to be complete in 2017 but construction didn’t even begin until 2018. The estimated completion date has been pushed back to as late as 2031. The latest cost estimate ‒ £23 billion per reactor ‒ is 11.5 times higher than early estimates. 

The UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for the Hinkley Point project could amount to A$60.8 billion and the UK Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee said that “consumers are left footing the bill and the poorest consumers will be hit hardest.”

The estimated cost of the planned 3.2 GW twin-reactor Sizewell C project in the UK has jumped to nearly £40 billion – or £20 billion per reactor – which is twice the cost estimate in 2020.

Securing funding to allow construction to begin at Sizewell is proving to be difficult and protracted despite a new ‘Regulated Asset Base’ funding model which foists the enormous risk of enormous cost overruns onto taxpayers and electricity bill payers. Securing funding to complete the Hinkley Point project is also proving difficult.

Lessons

France, the US and the UK have vast nuclear expertise and experience. They all enjoy synergies between civil and military nuclear programs ‒ President Macron said in a 2020 speech that without nuclear power in France there would be no nuclear weapons, and vice versa.

All of the above-mentioned construction projects were or are on existing nuclear sites. All projects were or are long delayed and tens of billions of dollars over-budget.

Claims that potential nuclear newcomer countries, without any of those advantages, could build reactors quickly and cheaply are simply not credible.

This Author

Dr Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group.

A report expanding on these issues is posted at the EnergyScience Coalition website. The report is co-authored by Darrin Durant, associate professor in science and technology studies at the University of Melbourne, Jim Falk, professorial fellow in the school of geography, earth and atmospheric sciences at the University of Melbourne and emeritus professor at the University of Wollongong and Dr Jim Green.

March 12, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Qatar calls for Israel’s nuclear facilities to be under IAEA supervision

March 10, 2025 ,  https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250310-qatar-calls-for-israels-nuclear-facilities-to-be-under-iaea-supervision/

Qatar called on Sunday for all of Israel’s nuclear facilities to be subjected to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and for Israel to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a non-nuclear state if that is what it claims to be.

Qatar’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN Office and International Organisations in Vienna, Jassim Yacoup Al-Hammadi, said before the session of the IAEA Board of Governors in the Austrian capital, that there is a “need for the international community and its institutions to uphold their commitments under resolutions of the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, the IAEA, and the 1995 Review Conference of the NPT, which called on Israel to subject all its nuclear facilities to IAEA safeguards.”

He noted that some of these resolutions explicitly urged Israel to join the NPT as a non-nuclear state if its non-confirmation of its nuclear programme is, in effect, a denial of its existence.

The Qatari Ambassador pointed out that all Middle Eastern countries, except Israel, are parties to the NPT and have effective safeguard agreements with the Agency.

He also noted that. “Israel continues its aggressive policies, including increasing extremist calls for the forced displacement of the Palestinian people, intensifying military operations against cities and refugee camps in the West Bank, blocking humanitarian aid to Gaza, and maintaining restrictions on the operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).”

Al-Hammadi stated that Qatar “submitted a written memorandum last week to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding a request for an advisory opinion based on the UN General Assembly resolution of 19 December, 2024. The request seeks clarification on Israel’s obligations concerning the activities of the United Nations, other international organisations, and third-party states.”

March 12, 2025 Posted by | Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The nuclear testing revival: Global fallout with deadly consequences

By Karl Grossman | 10 March 2025 https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/the-nuclear-testing-revival-global-fallout-with-deadly-consequences,19502

The push to restart U.S. nuclear testing raises fears of global fallout, echoing a dangerous past with lasting consequences, writes Karl Grossman

https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/the-nuclear-testing-revival-global-fallout-with-deadly-consequences,19502

RESEARCH FELLOW for nuclear deterrence and missile defence at The Heritage Foundation, Robert Peters, declared: 

‘The United States may need to restart explosive nuclear weapons testing.’ 

The right-wing organisation close to the Trump Administration released a lengthy report on 15 January, titled: ‘America Must Prepare to Test Nuclear Weapons‘, in which Peters also stated:

‘…The President may order the above-ground testing of a nuclear weapon….And while the United States leaving the [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty may not be optimal and may indeed have negative downstream effects, doing so may be necessary to stave off further adversary escalation.’

There has not been a nuclear weapon tested above-ground in the United States since 1962, Peters said. That was a year before the Test Ban Treaty 1963 was signed by the U.S., Soviet Union and United Kingdom. It prohibited nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, underwater or in outer space. It allowed underground tests as long as they didn’t result in ‘radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial limits of the state under whose jurisdiction or control’  the test was conducted.

“ [Nuclear testing] leads to children and grandchildren with cancer in their bones, with leukemia in their blood, or with poison in their lungs.”

~ President John F Kennedy

However, executive director of the Radiation and Public Health Project Joseph Mangano says:

‘Resuming atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons would be disastrous.’ 

Mangano also cited:

‘…lessons learned from above-ground nuclear weapons testing — the radioactive fall-out that harmed many people, especially infants and children.’

Testimony by a co-founder of the Radiation and Public Health Project, the late Dr Ernest Sternglass – a physicist, before the then Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy – was instrumental in U.S. President John F Kennedy signing the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963.

As Kennedy said in a 1963 national address:

This treaty can be a step towards freeing the world from the fears and dangers of radioactive fallout…over the years the number and the yield of weapons tested have rapidly increased and so have the radioactive hazards from such testing.

Continued unrestricted testing by the nuclear powers, joined in time by other nations which may be less adept in limiting pollution, will increasingly contaminate the air that all of us must breathe.

Kennedy also spoke of “children and grandchildren with cancer in their bones, with leukaemia in their blood, or with poison in their lungs” as a result of the testing.

According to Susan Caskie, executive editor of The Week, the Heritage Foundation’s 900-page publication ‘Project 2025‘ is the ‘governing agenda’ for the Trump Administration. She notes, ‘many of its authors and contributors’  are now members of the Trump Administration, with some even appointed to Cabinet posts. 

Tom Armbruster, former U.S. Ambassador to the Marshall Islands and earlier the U.S. Embassy in Moscow’s nuclear affairs wrote in an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists titled, ‘Project 2025’s stance on nuclear testing: A dangerous step back’:

‘On page 431, Project 2025 calls for the United States to “Reject ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and indicate a willingness to conduct nuclear tests in response to adversary nuclear developments if necessary. This will require that the National Nuclear Security Administration be directed to move to immediate test readiness…”.’

Ambruster also said:

We should be negotiating further cuts in the world’s nuclear arsenals, a prohibition of weapons in outer space, and cleanup of the “legacy” test sites around the world. It would help if Russia were a responsible partner in denuclearisation but sadly that is not the case.

We could be working together to find ways to mend the planet, rather than inflict further damage that will last for thousands of years.

But in The Heritage Foundation’s report, Peters writes:

 ‘There are two major reasons why the United States may want to restart nuclear testing in the coming years. First, it may be technically correct that the United States does not need to test its current arsenal, but the United States is building new warheads as part of the nuclear modernisation effort.’

He goes on:

It may, in fact, be necessary to test these new systems to ensure that they work as designed. Modelling and simulation may be sufficient to assess the viability and characteristics of these new warheads — but that is not a proven proposition.

Moreover, the purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter one’s adversaries from carrying out breathtaking acts of aggression. In that sense, even if nuclear explosive testing is not necessary to convince American policymakers that next-generation nuclear systems work, it may be necessary to convince America’s adversaries that its nuclear arsenal is credible.

Peters continued:

Second and more importantly, a nuclear explosive test may be necessary to demonstrate resolve. In recent years, autocrats have increasingly leveraged nuclear coercion or nuclear threats in an attempt to intimidate the West or secure geopolitical concessions.

While the United States signed and ratified the Treaty under President Kennedy – and has adhered to its requirements for over six decades – the Treaty allows a state to withdraw with three months notification if it deems it in its national interests to do so.

It was also in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that Mangano and Robert Alvarez, former senior policy advisor to the secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy and now senior policy advisor at the Institute for Policy Studies, wrote an article in 2021 on radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons tests and the ‘baby tooth’ study, which began:

How many nuclear weapons can be detonated in support of weapons development or during a war before imperilling humans from radioactive fallout?

To find the answer, independent scientists and citizens turned to baby teeth. Lots and lots of baby teeth. Why baby teeth?….The most commonly measured isotope in these tissues – strontium 90 – is absorbed as if it were calcium. This isotope lodges in human bone tissue for many years and was the principal contaminant of concern in fallout investigations…

Beginning in December 1958, the St. Louis Committee for Nuclear Information and scientists at Washington University, ‘began assembling the most significant collection of human samples in the atmospheric bomb test era.’  Donated were 320,000 baby teeth.

Findings were published in a 2023 issue of the Journal of Social Determinants of Health and Health Services titled, ‘Strontium 90 in Baby Teeth as a Basis for Eliminating U.S. Cancer Deaths From Nuclear Weapons Fallout’.  The report was written by biology professor at the University of South Carolina Dr Timothy Mousseau, professor emeritus of chemistry and biology at North Arizona University Dr Michael Ketterer, and Kelli S. Gaus and, comments Mangano, ‘This saved many lives.’ 

It detailed a 63-fold increase in strontium-90 in baby teeth from children born in the years after large-scale nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere started in 1950, then dropping in half in the five years after the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963 took effect.

If there is a return to atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, are we to go back to the years of radioactive fallout – and the resulting health impacts – fallout that would have a global impact? And, as Kennedy stated, “children and grandchildren with cancer in their bones, with leukaemia in their blood, or with poison in their lungs”?

Karl Grossman is a professor of journalism at the State University of New York. He is also an award-winning investigative reporter. Click here to go to Karl’s website.

March 12, 2025 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

How the Arts Play a Role in the Fight for Nuclear Disarmament

conversations surrounding nuclear weapons have been largely absent from the cultural zeitgeist. The Atomic Age, also known as the period of time between the detonation of the first atomic bombs in 1945 and the end of the Cold War in 1991, was saturated with pop culture that dealt heavily with themes of nuclear fallout.

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 6 2025 (IPS) -By Oritro Karim,  https://www.ipsnews.net/2025/03/arts-play-role-fight-nuclear-disarmament/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=arts-play-role-fight-nuclear-disarmament
This week countries and communities converge in New York for the 3rd Meeting of State Parties on the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), with multiple side events to address the social, political and cultural impact of nuclear abolition across different sectors.

On March 5, the Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations held an event called Fábulas Atómicas – Artists Against the Bomb in collaboration with Mexican artist Pedro Reyes, in which the relationship between the arts and the use of nuclear weapons was discussed. Throughout the last century, the arts have been used to provide cultural commentary on the threats that nuclear weapons pose to humanity.

“Using art for disarmament can take many different forms. I started by transforming gun parts into musical instruments, for instance taking a rifle and transforming it into a flute…What is the principle of a nuclear weapon? I thought it was possible to make a chain reaction that could be a creative force rather than a destructive force. That is how Artists Against the Bomb was born,” said Reyes.


Since 1952, the United Nations Disarmament Commission (UNDC) has continuously stressed the importance of international peace and disarmament. With geopolitical tensions on the rise and world superpowers such as Russia, North Korea, and the United States wielding more atomic weapons than ever before, the threat of nuclear proliferation is the highest it has been in decades.

“The bilateral and regional security arrangements that underwrote global peace and stability for decades are unravelling before our eyes. Trust is sinking, while uncertainty, insecurity, impunity and military spending are all rising. Others are expanding their inventories of nuclear weapons and materials. Some continue to rattle the nuclear sabre as a means of coercion. We see signs of new arms races including in outer space,” said United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres at the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

Despite this, conversations surrounding nuclear weapons have been largely absent from the cultural zeitgeist. The Atomic Age, also known as the period of time between the detonation of the first atomic bombs in 1945 and the end of the Cold War in 1991, was saturated with pop culture that dealt heavily with themes of nuclear fallout.

Since the late 1980s, projects began to shift away from these themes. Reyes highlighted the importance of art in relation to cultural commentary surrounding nuclear weapons by saying, “The end of the 80s made it seem like the cold war was over. To a certain extent, people born after 1989 had not been exposed to cultural materials…With the nuclear testing ban, there haven’t been any nuclear detonations since around 1999. There’s a saying called ‘out of sight out of mind’. The threat became somewhat invisible. It is our job to use culture to bring awareness to this issue through culture by provoking rage and fear.”

Reyes adds that the current undersaturation of the nuclear weapons issue in pop culture helps to facilitate conversations as the public has become wary of discussing issues that dominate culture today. “There is no fatigue about the subject. There’s a certain fatigue surrounding projects that have been strongly discussed in the past twenty years. Nuclear weapons are an issue that we have not spoken out about enough in recent times. We need to take advantage of this lack of fatigue,” he said.

The Nuclear Art movement rose in 1945, shortly after the United States’ detonation of two atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. At this time, the majority of the American public were unaware of the scale of destruction that had occurred in Japan.

Japanese photographers that had survived the attacks such as Yoshito Masushige (Hiroshima) and Yosuke Yamahata (Nagasaki), as well as American photographers such as Wayne Miller and Joe O’Donnell, published photos of the aftermath, which were classified by the United States government for decades. Much of the world instead relied on artwork that visualized the devastation.

Contemporary artists and corporations alike began incorporating themes of atomic weapons and nuclear fallout in their work shortly after the bombings in Japan. This movement grew more prominent after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, which is considered to be the closest the world has ever come to nuclear warfare.

Western art pieces, such as Charles Bittinger’s 1946 painting, Atomic Bomb Atomic Bomb Mushroom Cloud, brought the now well-known mushroom cloud imagery into public consciousness in the United States. Other examples include U.S. military artist Standish Brackus’s pieces Still Life (1946) and At the Red Cross Hospital (1945), which depicted the wide scale destruction that nuclear weapons inflict on civilian infrastructure and the human body, respectively.

Additionally, Nuclear Art also became a fixture in Western propaganda. In 1957, the Walt Disney Company released an episode of Disneyland titled Our Friend the Atom, which highlighted the ways atomic weapons can be used for peace, falling in line with the themes of Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace speech at the UN General Assembly in 1953.

In the early 1950s, blockbuster films from both American and Japanese studios led to a widening public consciousness surrounding nuclear weapons. Science-fiction films such as The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953) and Godzilla (1959) highlighted the unintended biological consequences of nuclear fallout.

However, On the Beach (1959) marked a pivotal shift in the depiction of nuclear fallout by explicitly marking humans as responsible for a deliberate detonation that led to a societal collapse. Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove (1964) expanded on these themes by using absurdism to emphasize humanity’s role in nuclear proliferation.

Most recently, Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer (2023) brought nuclear weapons into the public consciousness once more, particularly in the West, There have been critiques on if modern artists are depicting these themes effectively. Reyes told an IPS correspondent that the arts have the ability to sway audiences in either direction. Certain representations of nuclear weapons in pop culture can be classified as either “above the cloud” or “under the cloud”.

“Films like Oppenheimer show the overwhelming power of science and the moral conflict of atomic bombs but never show the victims or consequences. Films like that are almost pro-bomb because they fail to humanize these conflicts. Other films show what’s really at stake. It’s important to be able to identify which side cultural productions are on,” said Reyes.

It is crucial for contemporary artists to depict the correct messages in their work to achieve any substantial cultural progress in nuclear disarmament. Pop culture must continue to show the true extent of the dangers that nuclear weapons pose.

“We have to be very clear in arguing that nobody can win a nuclear war,” said Reyes. “And that’s why it’s very important to show the consequences. It has been normalized through video games and other mediums that make them seem not as problematic as they are. It’s our job to do a lot of explaining and find entertaining ways for people to understand.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

March 12, 2025 Posted by | culture and arts | Leave a comment

 US makes fresh push for World Bank to back nuclear power

 New administration wants Washington-based multilateral lender to help the west
compete with China and Russia.

The World Bank is facing renewed calls from
its biggest shareholder to drop a decades-old ban on funding nuclear power
to help the west compete with China and Russia in atomic diplomacy. French
Hill, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has signalled that
the new US administration will continue to support the push to fund nuclear
projects just months ahead of a crucial decision on the contentious ban.

 FT 9th March 2025
https://www.ft.com/content/e5e497a3-0c61-46a2-9a50-91757e7f1a61

March 12, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

How many nuclear weapons does the United States have in 2025?

10 Mar 2025

Since 1987, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has published the Nuclear Notebook, an authoritative accounting of world nuclear arsenals compiled by top experts from the Federation of American Scientists.

Today, it is prepared by Hans M. Kristensen, Matt Korda, Eliana Johns, and Mackenzie Knight of FAS.

This video explores the United States’ nuclear arsenal, which is currently undergoing a broad modernization effort to replace every nuclear delivery system over the next decade. You can read more from the Nuclear Notebook about other nuclear arsenals here: https://thebulletin.org/nuclear-noteb… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vsNKk9vkIE

March 12, 2025 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Elon Musk Announces ‘Massive Cyberattack’ Causing X Outage

Thousands of people reported on March 10 that the social media platform was down for them.

Epoch Times, 3/10/2025By Jack Phillips

Tech billionaire Elon Musk on March 10 said that an outage affecting his social media platform, X, is being caused by a “massive cyberattack” that is ongoing.

On March 10, tens of thousands of reports were submitted to DownDetector saying users could not access the X app or website or they could not access posts.

In response, Musk wrote at midday: “There was (still is) a massive cyberattack against X. We get attacked every day, but this was done with a lot of resources.”

“Either a large, coordinated group and/or a country is involved,” the Tesla and SpaceX CEO wrote, adding that his company is “tracing” the attacks.

In a later interview with Fox News on the same day, Musk said that the attacks’ IP addresses in the X cyberattack were “linked to IP addresses originating in the Ukraine area.” The Epoch Times could not immediately authenticate Musk’s comment.

People on the platform first started reporting issues after 5 a.m. ET on March 10, according to DownDetector. After a brief period of time, the number of reports appeared to drop before picking back up again at about 11 a.m. ET……………………………………

More than 10,000 people in the United Kingdom also reported an X outage earlier on March 10, according to DownDetector’s website…………………..

The outage comes amid Musk and Secretary of State Marco Rubio having publicly sparred with Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski on March 9 after Musk said on X that the Ukraine war with Russia would be severely hampered if he were to turn off Starlink internet access in the Eastern European country.

On March 9, Musk, who is currently a senior adviser to President Donald Trump, wrote that Starlink has served as the “backbone of the Ukrainian army” and asserted that “their entire front line would collapse if I turned it off.” He also said he wants peace for Ukraine and that he’s backed the country in its war effort by providing the internet service.

Sikorski responded to Musk by saying that Poland was paying for the internet service and claimed Musk was threatening Kyiv. The Trump administration and Ukraine’s leadership have been engaged in high-stakes talks about ending the conflict and a deal for continued support of Ukraine that also benefits the United States………. https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/elon-musk-announces-massive-cyberattack-causing-x-outage-5823029?utm_source=Aobreakingnoe&utm_medium=Aoemail&utm_campaign=Aobreaking-2025-03-11&utm_content=NL_Ao&src_src=Aobreakingnoe&src_cmp=Aobreaking-2025-03-11&cta_utm_source=Aobreakingnoecta&est=iIzbjUv5GHdVOivdisxCzrbEBMMMNm2pOhOa%2F2%2Bo%2B8Uc84LMJe%2BVuIounSiENahxKSKfQOBK8pkU

March 12, 2025 Posted by | technology | Leave a comment

“Difficult-to-Return” zones

Some have returned to areas contaminated by the Fukushima disaster but they should never be considered safe, writes Ruiko Muto

 https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/03/09/difficult-to-return-zones/ 9 Mar 25

Last summer, I had the opportunity to visit parts of the Difficult-to-Return zones in Fukushima. A hospital, where more than 50 patients died during evacuation efforts in the 2011 nuclear disaster, was now overgrown with dense trees and grasses. In a care home for older people, I saw disarrayed beds and scattered items, such as diapers, medicines and documents, all left untouched since the residents had to evacuate suddenly for safety. The meal plan for 11th March 2011 was still written on the whiteboard.

At a nearby primary school, I found dictionaries placed on each small wooden desk. Pupils’ bags, shoes, brush washers, and even fallen bicycles as well as helmets were still there – everything was left behind. No sounds were to be heard except for the hum of cicadas. There is no doubt that people lived here until just 13 years ago, but now, there is no one. These places remain abandoned even today.

Only a very small number of people have returned to the areas where evacuation orders were lifted. Empty houses need to be demolished one by one. Grand gates and storehouses, seemingly with centuries of history, are being torn down. New homes have been built nearby for disaster-affected families, with some residents with children moving in from outside Fukushima. A resident told me that the current indoor radiation level was as high as 0.3μSv/h, five to ten times higher than the levels before 2011. Part of the Difficult-to-Return zone begins just behind the fences surrounding these homes. Such living conditions should never be called safe.

Meanwhile, the Japanese government has removed its pledge to reduce reliance on nuclear energy from its Seventh Strategic Energy Plan, signalling their intention to revive the industry. To someone like me, who is acutely aware of the ongoing sufferings from the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the reality that local residents cannot safely stay or evacuate if a similar disaster were triggered by an earthquake in areas like the Noto Peninsula, the epicentre of a major earthquake in 2024, Japan’s continued reliance on nuclear energy seems inconceivably absurd. 

In 2022, Japan’s Supreme Court ruled that the government was not liable for the 2011 disaster, dismissing the claims of many evacuees and victims seeking fair compensation and accountability. Since then, it has been revealed by a journalist that there was a collusion between the judge and the executives of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). The state of the judicial system in Japan is deeply concerning. Similar rulings in other Fukushima nuclear disaster related cases followed in lower courts, leaving those suffering in an incredibly difficult position.

The extraction of 0.7 gramme of nuclear debris from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has been recently reported, but the modest “success” was achieved only after repeated failed attempts. Harsh working conditions with high levels of radiation exposure and mismanagement by TEPCO — such as failing to send a company staff member to properly inspect a telescopic device — became evident during the process. No review of the plant’s decommissioning roadmap has been carried out to account for the radioactive decay period, even though no one believes the decommissioning process will be completed by 2051, as originally planned.

Having released contaminated underground water from the plant into the ocean despite strong opposition, Japan is now distributing contaminated soil to wider areas, touting it as a “recycled” material for rebuilding works. In doing so, the Japanese government continues to propagate nuclear safety myths, particularly among younger people, while asserting that they alone have the authority to determine which evidence is scientific and which is not.

Along the quiet Fukushima coastline, almost empty of people, lavish corporate facilities and state-of-the art laboratories have been built with generous subsidiaries under the guise of reconstruction efforts. 


A nuclear disaster not only devastates your life and home, but it also deprives you of basic human rights. Confronted with this harsh reality even 14 years after the disaster, I cannot help but feel a sense of despair about the future of Fukushima.

With winter nearly gone and spring just around the corner, I long to be filled with good intentions and to see the world with discerning eyes. Encouraged by the knowledge that many friends around the world are tirelessly working to end nuclear energy production, I will continue to contribute as much as possible to this important cause.

Update: Last week the Japanese Supreme Court upheld the acquittals made by a lower court of two of the three TEPCO ex-executives charged. The charges against ex-chairman Katsumata Tsunehisa were dropped following his death in October last year.  Lawyers from the criminal trial support group and Ruiko Muto, the plaintiff’s representative, held a press conference. The following are excerpts from Ms. Muto’s statement, translated from the original Japanese:

“Although the defendants were all acquitted by the District Court and the High Court, we put our hope in the dignity of judges and in the justice of the Supreme Court.

“The fact that this decision was made today just before March 11 shows the heartlessness with which the victims of the nuclear accident were truly treated. I wonder how many victims are disappointed and angry.

“The Fukushima nuclear accident is still ongoing. How much damage has been caused by this accident, how many lives have been ruined, how much negative legacy has been inflicted on future generations! Failure to hold accountable the management of the companies responsible for the accident could lead to another nuclear accident. It is very regrettable and disappointing that the court did not understand all this. We cannot challenge this decision in court, but we are not convinced of its validity. I believe that the responsibility for this accident will be challenged in many ways in the future, and we are determined to continue working towards that goal.”

Ruiko Muto is a Fukushima native and a longtime opponent of nuclear power who has spent more than 30 years in the anti-nuclear movement. Ms. Muto is also co-representative of the Nuclear Accident Victims Group Liaison Committee and the Chair of the Complainants for the Criminal Prosecution of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster. Translation from the Japanese by Japanese Against Nuclear (UK).

March 11, 2025 Posted by | Fukushima continuing | Leave a comment

Fukushima victims angered, saddened by TEPCO acquittals.

THE ASAHI SHIMBUN, March 7, 2025,  by Susumu Okamoto, Noriyoshi Otsuki, Yuto Yoneda and Takashi Endo.  https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15659097?fbclid=IwY2xjawI5r7VleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHWN3s0dp9P01VgNx6-uHR7J7t09vvNY9N_2gIceMP_VQvQV1fbE1ExO8Qw_aem_q068mi2UQmCXSqQO2wrDJQ

Victims of the Fukushima nuclear disaster expressed outrage and sadness after the Supreme Court upheld the acquittals of two former executives of Tokyo Electric Power Co., operator of the stricken nuclear plant.

But for Yoshinobu Ishii, the March 5 decision came as no surprise.

“I expected this because the rulings of the first and second trials were ‘not guilty,’” said Ishii, 80, from Kawauchi, Fukushima Prefecture.

Ishii’s mother, Ei, died at the age of 91 after being forced to flee from the nuclear accident in March 2011.

“My mother is not coming back, even if I blame someone (for her death),” said Ishii, resigned.

The two former vice presidents at TEPCO were charged with professional negligence resulting in death and injury concerning the company’s preparations for a tsunami that could hit its Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

However, the top court agreed with earlier rulings that said a tsunami of that scale could not have been foreseen and absolved them of criminal responsibility.

Ishii said he was concerned the ruling could further promote Japan’s return to using nuclear power generation for its energy needs.

EVACUATION PLAN ‘USELESS’

On the morning of March 11, 2011, Ishii’s wife, Aiko, 75, visited Ei at an affiliated facility near Futaba Hospital in Okuma, near the nuclear plant.

Ei, who had hurt her back, ate the grated apple and pickled radish that Aiko had brought, and then said her last words to her daughter-in-law: “Be careful on your way home. Come again tomorrow.”

The Great East Japan Earthquake struck that afternoon, unleashing a tsunami that caused the triple meltdown at the nuclear plant.

In the ensuing chaos, patients left behind in hospitals and related facilities were forced to take buses and other means on a harsh evacuation route exceeding 200 kilometers.

A week after the tsunami, the Ishii couple found Ei’s body wrapped in a white cloth in a high school gymnasium. Her death certificate read: “Cause of death: hypothermia” and “Date of death: around March 14.”

The former TEPCO executives were cleared of negligence charges concerning the deaths of 44 people, including hospital patients like Ei who died in evacuation.

Immediately after the nuclear accident, there was a growing movement to move away from nuclear power generation.

Now, however, nuclear reactors are increasingly being restarted around the nation.

“Japan is a country where many earthquakes occur, so ‘100 percent safety’ is impossible,” Ishii said. “That’s why the nuclear accident happened and why the evacuation plan was useless.”

FEELING HELPLESS

A group of victims in Fukushima Prefecture initiated the criminal procedures against the former TEPCO executives.

The group’s leader, Ruiko Muto, 71, ran a coffee shop in Tamura, Fukushima Prefecture, about 40 kilometers west of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

She had no choice but to close the shop after the accident.

“I wanted to make it clear through a criminal trial who should take responsibility to prevent a repeat of the same mistakes,” she said.

She had sat in the galleries of court rooms since the first hearing of the trial at the Tokyo District Court in 2017.

When she learned on March 6 that the Supreme Court had effectively finalized the not guilty verdicts, she felt frustrated and shed tears.

She fears the acquittals will intensify a sense of helplessness among those affected in Fukushima Prefecture.

“Victims of damage caused by the nuclear accident tend not to speak out,” Muto said.

FOCUS NOW ON CIVIL CASE

Yuichi Kaido, a lawyer representing plaintiffs in both the criminal case and a civil lawsuit against former TEPCO managers, criticized the Supreme Court’s decision at a news conference on March 6.

“Its logic was too rough,” Kaido said.

But he said some good came out of the trial and appeals process, which took more than seven years to complete.

Many TEPCO employees and other related parties testified as witnesses.

“The testimonies at the trial have become invaluable evidence when discussing the nuclear accident,” Kaido said.

In the civil lawsuit, the Tokyo District Court ordered the former TEPCO managers to pay more than 13 trillion yen ($88 billion) in damages over the nuclear accident.

The defendants appealed the ruling, and the Tokyo High Court is expected to hand down its ruling in June.

“It is important to ensure the district court’s ruling is upheld,” Kaido said.

DISAPPOINTMENT

In the criminal case, prosecutors initially decided not to charge the former TEPCO executives.

But a citizens inquest panel twice ruled that they should be prosecuted, and mandatory indictments were applied.

(A third former TEPCO executive was charged, but his trial was terminated after his death in October last year.)

The four designated lawyers who acted as prosecutors in the trial held a news conference after the top court’s decision.

“The Supreme Court did not respond to our arguments,” Shozaburo Ishida said. “I wish they had made a more rigorous decision.”

March 11, 2025 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, Legal | Leave a comment

US Threatens Possible Military Response After Tehran Rejects Nuclear Outreach

The White House again warned Tehran that it can be dealt with either through military means or by reaching a deal over its nuclear program, remarks that came hours after Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected a US proposal for negotiations between the two bitter rivals.

“We hope the Iran Regime puts its people and best interests ahead of terror,” White House National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes said in a statement on March 9 while reiterating remarks by President Donald Trump that “if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing.”

In an interview with Fox Business recorded on March 6, Trump said, “There are two ways Iran can be handled: militarily, or you make a deal” to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

“I’ve written them a letter saying, ‘I hope you’re going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing,'” Trump said.

“I would rather negotiate a deal. I’m not sure that everybody agrees with me, but we can make a deal that would be just as good as if you won militarily,” Trump added.

“But the time is happening now. The time is coming up. Something’s going to happen one way or the other.”

Snippets of the interview were aired on March 7,  but the full sit-down will be broadcast on March 9, Fox said.

In separate comments to reporters, Trump said: “We have a situation with Iran that, something’s going to happen very soon. Very, very soon.”

Ali Khamenei, speaking on March 8 to a group of Iranian officials — without specifically mentioning Trump or the United States — said, “Their talks are not aimed at solving problems.”

“It is for…’Let’s talk to impose what we want on the other party that is sitting on the opposite side of the table.'”

“The insistence of some bullying governments on negotiations is not to resolve issues…. Talks for them is a pathway to have new demands; it is not only about Iran’s nuclear issue…. Iran will definitely not accept their expectations,” Khamenei was quoted by state media as saying.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on March 8 said Tehran had not yet received a letter from Trump……………………………… more https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-trump-nuclear-khamenei-negotiations/33341412.html

March 11, 2025 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Turbine, cooling: these unforeseen events that keep the Flamanville EPR at a standstill.

EDF is extending an unscheduled shutdown of the Flamanville EPR until the end of March in order to make adjustments to the turbine. During its first 100 days of operation, the nuclear reactor will have undergone 76 days of maintenance.

By Amélie Laurin, March 6, 2025

EDF had warned: the ramp-up of the Flamanville EPR, the first nuclear reactor to be commissioned in France in twenty-five years, would be very gradual. The public group has once again shut down, for a month and a half, its Normandy pressurized water reactor, which had been connected to the electricity grid on December 21, the first day of winter.

These maintenance operations were not planned and are the result of technical difficulties. They began on February 15 and are due to continue until March 30, after being extended three times.

Turbine heating

This work follows two initial suspensions of electricity production at Flamanville, between Christmas and mid-January, and at the turn of February. Two shutdowns that were, themselves, scheduled. In total, the reactor will have been immobilized for 76 days, during its first 100 days of operation.

The cause: various technical adjustments. In mid-February, the EPR stopped producing electrons due to an insufficient water flow in the seawater cooling circuit, which is only used “in exceptional situations”. This was followed by an intervention “on a temperature probe of the main circuit”, specifies a regulatory press release.

March 11, 2025 Posted by | climate change, France | Leave a comment

More Guns, Less Butter: Starmer’s Defence Spending Splash

To pursue such rearmament, Starmer has decided to take the axe to the aid budget, 

March 8, 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark,  https://theaimn.net/more-guns-less-butter-starmers-defence-spending-splash/

The urge to throw more money at defence budgets across a number of countries has become infectious. It was bound to happen with Donald Trump’s return to the White House, given his previous insistence that US allies do more to fatten their own armies rather than rely on the largesse of Washington’s power. Spend, spend, spend is the theme, and the UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has shown himself willing to join this wasteful indulgence.

On February 25, just prior to his visit to Washington, Starmer announced that spending on defence would reach 2.5% of GDP from April 2027. In the next parliament, it would rise to 3%. “In recent years,” states a UK government press release, “the world has been reshaped by global instability, including Russian aggression in Ukraine, increasing threats from malign actors, rapid technological change, and the accelerating impacts of climate change.”  

Almost predictably, the term “Cold War” makes its retro appearance, with the spending increase the largest since that conflict of wilful misunderstandings and calculated paranoia. Russia figures prominently, as do “malign actors” who have burdened “the working people of Britain” with “increased energy bills, or threats to British interests and values.”

The governing Labour Party has also gone a bit gung-ho with the military–industrial establishment. In an open letter reported by the Financial Times, over 100 Labour MPs and peers thought it wise that ethical rules restricting investment by banks and investment firms in defence companies be relaxed. Financial institutions, the letter argues, should “rethink ESG [environmental, social and governance] mechanisms that often wrongly exclude all defence investment.” It was also important to address the issue of those “unnecessary barriers” defence firms face when “doing business in the UK.” Among such barriers are those irritating matters such as money laundering checks banks are obliged to conduct when considering the finance needs of defence and security firms, along with seeking assurances that they are not financing weapons banned under international law.

That these uncontroversial rules are now being seen as needless barriers to an industry that persists in shirking accountability is a sign of creeping moral flabbiness. Across Europe, the defence and arms lobbyists, those great exploiters of fictional insecurity, are feeling more confident than they have in years. They can rely on such figures as European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, who stated on March 4 that, “We are in an era of rearmament. And Europe is ready to massively boost its defence spending.”

To pursue such rearmament, Starmer has decided to take the axe to the aid budget, reducing it from its current level of 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% in 2027. It was, as the press release goes on to mention, a “difficult choice” and part of “the evolving nature of the threat and the strategic shift required to meet it.” The Conservatives approved the measure, and the populist Reform UK would have little reason to object, seeing it had been its policy suggestion at the last election.

It was a decision that sufficiently troubled the international development minister, Anneliese Dodds, to quit the cabinet. In a letter to the prime minister, Dodds remarked that, while Starmer wished “to continue support for Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine; for vaccination; for climate; and for rules-based systems,” doing so would “be impossible … given the depth of the cut.”

Making the Office of Overseas Development Assistance absorb such a reduction would also see Britain “pull-out from numerous African, Caribbean and Western Balkan nations – at a time when Russia has been aggressively increasing its global presence.” It would be isolated from various multilateral bodies, see “a withdrawal from regional banks and a reduced commitment to the World Bank.” Influence would also be lost at such international fora as the G7 and G20.

Defence establishment figures have also regarded the decision to reduce aid with some consternation. General Lord Richards, former Chief of Defence Staff, saw the sense of an increase in military spending but not at the expense of the aid budget. “The notion that we must weaken one to strengthen the other is not just misleading but dangerous,” opined Richards in The Telegraph. “A lack of investment and development will only fuel greater instability, increase security threats and place a heavier burden on our Armed Forces.”The aid budgets of wealthy states should never be seen as benevolent projects. Behind the charitable endeavour is a calculation that speaks more to power (euphemised as “soft”) than kindness. Aid keeps the natives of other countries clothed, fed and sufficiently sustained not to want to stray to other contenders. The sentiment was expressed all too clearly by a disappointed Dodds: a smaller UK aid budget would embolden an already daring Russia to fill the vacuum. How fascinating, then, that a daring Russia, its threatening posture inflated and exaggerated, is one of the primary reasons prompting an increase in Britain’s defence spending in the first place.

March 11, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

US report discusses possibility of nuclear submarine accident, if subs supplied to Australia

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/544422/us-report-discusses-possibility-of-nuclear-submarine-accident-if-subs-supplied-to-australia 11 Mar 25

A report to the US Congress discusses the possibility of an accident with a nuclear-powered submarine if it supplies one to Australia.

This comes amid renewed questions over whether an AUKUS submarine deal would leave the US vulnerable, and an accident off the English coast where a tanker carrying jet fuel for the US military has hit a cargo ship.

The risk of a marine accident is one of three risks looked at around the submarines deal that is central to the the AUKUS Pillar One pact.

The congressional research report said an accident “might call into question for third-party observers the safety of all US Navy nuclear-powered ships”.

That could erode US public support and the ability of US nuclear-powered ships to make port calls around the world.

The 111-page report by the Congressional Research Service discussed the US not handing over the subs at all – although Canberra just made a $870m downpayment on them.

Keeping them might make up for the US sub fleet hitting “a valley or trough” around now till the 2030s, and shipbuilding being at a low point, it said.

Donald Trump’s pick for the top defence policy role at the Pentagon, Elbridge Colby, has said AUKUS could leave the US short and “it would be crazy to have fewer SSN Virginia-class [attack submarines] in the right place and time”.

The new research report to Congress said Pillar One was launched in 2021 without a study of the alternatives.

One alternative “would keep all US-made SSNs under the control of the US Navy, which has a proven record extending back to 1954 of safely operating its nuclear-powered ships”.

The original Pillar One pact is for the US to sell between three and five subs to Australia, then Australia to use US and UK nuclear propulsion technology to build another three-to-eight nuclear powered, conventionally armed submarines itself, for a total fleet of eight.

Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles said on Monday that Elbridge Colby was broadly supportive of AUKUS, if enough subs were available.

Canberra was aware of the challenge in the US around producing submarines, “and that’s why we’re contributing to the US industrial base”.

“And it’s a significant contribution and it’s going to increase the availability of Virginia class submarines for the United States.

“That’s a point which has been accepted and understood by the US Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, in the meeting that I had with him.”

Australia was last year included as a “domestic source” of US military production for the first time, and is aiming to ramp up making ammunition and missiles, as well as test hypersonic weapons with the US and UK.

“That’s going well in the sense that we are making the contributions, we are seeing an increase in production rates, and over the time frame in which we are looking to have our Virginia class submarines transferred to us, we are confident that this challenge can be met,” Marles told the ABC.

In the US, Trump appears most focused on building an ‘Iron Dome’ missile defence system, as he mentioned in his speech to Congress. This would be another huge pressure on military spending.

The report to Congress covered three big risks – accidents and whether Pillar One was the best option for deterrence and “warfighting cost-effectiveness”, and how the tech – the “crown jewels of US military technology” – could be kept secret, especially from China.

It debated a different “military division of labour”.

“Australia, instead of using funds to purchase, build, operate, and maintain its own SSNs, would instead invest those funds in other military capabilities – such as … long-range anti-ship missiles, drones, loitering munitions, B-21 long-range bombers, or other long-range strike aircraft” to conduct “missions for both Australia and the United States”.

The general rule was programmes should not go ahead without a sound business case, it noted.

“There is little indication that, prior to announcing the AUKUS Pillar 1 project in September 2021, an analysis of alternatives … or equivalent rigorous comparative analysis was conducted to examine whether Pillar 1 would be a more cost-effective way to spend defence resources for generating deterrence and warfighting capability”.

The report made no mention of how New Zealand, Japan, Korea and others might join AUKUS Pillar Two, an agreement for sharing advanced military tech.

March 11, 2025 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, safety | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »