nuclear-news

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

Ukraine to soon jump back out of the fire and into the frying-pan?

 https://theaimn.net/ukraine-to-soon-jump-back-out-of-the-fire-and-into-the-frying-pan/ 1 Mar 25

Volodymyr Zelensky met Donald Trump and J.D. Vance to work out a peace agreement.  “What started as nervous diplomacy ended as a  Three Stooges pie-fight,”- but as Trump put it “It made great television“.

Was anyone really expecting Zelensky to cave in to the planned deal, when he continued to insist on NATO membership for Ukraine, all territories returned, and American military support? As Trump unkindly put it, the Ukrainians “don’t have any cards” in this negotiation.

The military situation? It looks as if Russia is winning, and there is no doubt that Ukraine cannot prevail unless the USA continues its military backing:

“Russia’s military for months has been reporting a slow but steady advance westward across Donetsk region, capturing village after village……….The troops have been closing in for several seeks on the key logistics centre of Pokrovsk….. Moscow’s troops have focused on capturing Donbas — made up of Donetsk and Luhansk regions.”

The humanitarian situation:

“The conflict in Ukraine has displaced over 3.5 million people within the country and forced over 6.8 million to leave the country as of January 2025……….. an estimated 12.7 million requiring humanitarian aid and protection, according to the U.N. Refugee Agency (UNHCR).The war has sparked economic shocks and disruption with global ramifications, impacting people in poverty and contributing to an escalating global hunger crisis”

Millions of people are living in damaged buildings without basic necessities like electricity, water, or heat.”…………………………………According to the United Nations (U.N.), 12.7 million people will need humanitarian aid and protection in 2025

The war in Ukraine has had a devastating impact on children, with over 2,400 killed or injured since the conflict escalated in February 2022, an average of 16 child casualties every week, according to UNICEF.

So where do negotiations stand now?

Zelensky doesn’t seem to understand that in a real negotiation, both sides have to get something out of it. However much Zelensky and the West hate the Russian President, Vladimir is in a powerful position, and it is simple logic that he would need some concessions from Ukraine. That’s something that Donald Trump well understands, (along with the opportunities for American business in this negotiation.)

What happens next is very much up to the Ukrainian Parliament, and also to Trump, who has already shown willingness to make some concessions on his demands for financial repayments to USA . We could see a dramatic fall from grace by Volodymyr Zelensky, and his departure into irrelevance.

Politics in Ukraine.

The Western media have fawned over Zelensky, and ignored some unsavoury aspects of his government. His rule has become dictatorial. “The president has reduced the national legislature to a tool for rubber-stamping his decisions, a major outlet reports” The national parliament – the Verkhovna Rada has long been tightly controlled by the presidential administration. Before 2022 Zelensky cracked down on opposition politicians and critical media. He has admired, and restored the reputation of, Ukraine’s past Nazi group leaders, Stepan Bandera, Evgeny Konovalets, Yaroslav Hunka. He banned Ukraine’s largest Christian orthodox, church, banned the use of the Russian language in official and public documents, banned performance of all Russian language books, music, and films, in public. He has supported one of the most notorious neo-Nazis in modern Ukrainian history: Azov Battalion founder Andriy Biletsky.

Business and Corruption in Ukraine. One can hardly blame Zelensky for this – corruption has been consistent in Ukraine, following paths similar to organised crime and political parties in the post-Soviet Union .  Transparency International ranks Ukraine low on the “clean” list. In the annual ranking it still ranks 104th among 180 countries.   92% of Ukrainians identify corruption as a severe national issue in 2024, second only to the war.

The USA role in corruption in Ukraine. Well, it’s hard to find information on this. The U.S. Republicans tried hard to pin this on President Biden’s son Hunter, without much success. However he did not come up squeaky clean. Hunter Biden did have business dealings in Ukraine, which included high paid consultancies and gifts, In December 2024, Biden’s father pardoned him for all federal offenses committed between 2014 and 2024, including any potential offenses not yet discovered.

But let’s wait and see what kind of corruption might emerge in Ukraine, once Trump has achieved this contentious peace deal. His record from his previous presidency:

As president, Donald Trump has flouted all kinds of norms, starting with his decision not to divest from his business interests while in office. That set the stage for an administration marked by self-interest, profiteering at the highest levels and more than 3,700 conflicts of interest.”

All of which leads me to conclude that things are not going to be easy for Ukraine, whatever the outcome of this crisis about a peace deal. It is generally accepted that Ukraine simply cannot fight on without the military backing of the USA. It’s difficult, and confusing, to predict what kind of backing can Ukraine expect from European nations and the UK.

The most likely outcome – the Ukrainian parliament does decide to agree to a deal with Russia, which will entail considerable USA business presence , and commercial gain from resources, both in Ukraine and in Russia. Hardly a surprise – as that’s what Donald Trump is all about- American business interests in control.

It doesn’t sound like a great outcome for Ukraine. But from the humanitarian point of view, it sounds better than the carnage of war.

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

More powerful than Hiroshima: how the largest ever nuclear weapons test built a nation of leaders in the Marshall Islands.

Shiva Gounden and Shaun Burnie ,  Greenpeace 28th Feb 2025, https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/65565/nuclear-victims-remembrance-day-united-states-must-comply-with-marshall-islands-demands-for-recognition-and-nuclear-justice/

71 years ago, on Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, a nuclear bomb with the codename “Castle Bravo”, exploded with an energy of 15 megatons. The mushroom cloud reached 40 kilometres into the atmosphere, resulting in thousands of square kilometres of the Pacific Ocean being contaminated by radioactivity. Its explosive yield was 1000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb; and within four hours of the explosion, radioactive fallout made up of crushed coral, water, and radioactive particles, rained down over inhabited atolls, including Rongelap Atoll, which was 150 kilometres away. A fine white ash landed on the heads and bare arms of people standing in the open, dissolving into water supplies and drifting into houses. Witnesses of the Bravo nuclear fireball described seeing a second sun rising in the west, just before the terrifying shock waves hit them.

For the people of the Marshall Islands, that day on March 1 1954 will forever be known as Remembrance Day – the anniversary of Castle Bravo, the largest ever nuclear weapons ‘test’ conducted by the United States military.

In the 1950s, after the explosion, U.S. government scientists warned that the people of Marshall Islands were subjected to “high sub-lethal dose of gamma radiation, extensive beta burns of the skin, and significant internal absorption of fission products”. They were subjected to decades of medical experiments run by secretive U.S. laboratories, later to be discovered as “Project 4.1”.

71 years after the detonation, there remains no cancer clinic in the whole country. Many of the citizens still live in permanent exile, with some of the islands vaporised by nuclear weapons, while others remain too radioactive for safe return. The consequences of Castle Bravo have echoed through generations of the people in the Marshall Islands who have been denied the right to justice, proper medical care, and full reparation for loss and damage. 

“After centuries of colonial rule, the people of the Marshall Islands and the wider Pacific, were made 20th century victims of a nuclear arms race which for them was never a ‘Cold War’,” said Shiva Gounden, Head of Pacific at Greenpeace Australia Pacific. “But all through this, their decades of resilience, resistance and refusal to be silenced in their quest for nuclear justice, has been an inspiration across generations. The proud people of the Marshall Islands have retained their profound and deep connection to their Pacific home, despite all efforts to destroy that connection through displacement and contamination. That same determination is now evident in their response to the devastating impacts of climate change. The refusal of the U.S. to meet in full their obligations, is matched today by the neo-colonial forces which deny the right of Pacific islanders to climate justice, funds for climate adaptation and mitigation, and financing for loss and damage. Today, we pay our deepest respects to the people of the Marshall Islands and their demands for nuclear and climate justice.”

The Marshall Islands government continues its strenuous efforts to secure compensation and justice from the U.S. government. It received US$150 million in nuclear compensation under its 1986 Compact of Free Association (COFA) with the U.S. The COFA established a tribunal to adjudicate compensation claims. The tribunal sought over US$3 billion in today’s dollars that the U.S. has never paid.  In addition the US government has left the Marshallese with a “ticking time bomb” – the Runit Dome. After years of nuclear testing, a concrete dome measuring 114 meters in diameter and filled with radioactive waste has been left to the Marshallese. Climate change and rising sea levels have caused cracks to appear; and since the Marshall Islands independence in the late 70s, the US has absolved all responsibility of the maintenance of the Dome and have left it to the Marshall Islands government.

Like the resilient people of the Marshall Islands who refuse to give up, Greenpeace stands in genuine and deep solidarity by elevating the voices and stories of the communities impacted by the testing of nuclear weapons  and the dangers it imposes. As their people are today pursuing those responsible for their suffering through the human rights institutions of the United Nations, Greenpeace will also continue to highlight this injustice. Jimwe im Maron


This article was originally published in 2024, to mark the 70 year anniversary of the Castle Bravo test. In 1957, just three years after the detonation, the people of Rongelap were told by the US government their island was deemed safe and asked to return. Decades later, after experiencing too many health complications and finding the island unsafe to live in, the people of Rongelap asked for assistance from Greenpeace; and in 1985, the Rainbow Warrior helped evacuate them from their home and move them to Mejatto Island.

In 2025, the Rainbow Warrior will be visiting again – this time to support and amplify the Marshall Islands’ courageous ongoing call for justice and fight for systemic change at a global level. 

Shiva Gounden is the Head of Pacific at Greenpeace Australia Pacific

Shaun Burnie is International Climate & Nuclear Campaigner for Greenpeace International.

March 1, 2025 Posted by | OCEANIA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

ELON AND THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL-COMPLEX

Bruce Gagnon, Feb 28, 2025, Pentagon and StarLink

“…………………………………………………………………………………………….Until he entered the Trump White House, many still perceived Musk as a radical tech industry outsider. Yet this was never the case. From virtually the beginning of his career, Musk’s path has been shaped by his exceptionally close relationship with the U.S. national security state, particularly with Mike Griffin of the CIA.

From 2002 to 2005, Griffin led In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capitalist wing. In-Q-Tel is an organization dedicated to identifying, nurturing, and working with tech companies that can provide Washington with cutting-edge technologies, keeping it one step ahead of its competition.

Griffin was an early believer in Musk. In February 2002, he accompanied Musk to Russia, where the pair attempted to purchase cut-price intercontinental ballistic missiles to start SpaceX. Griffin spoke up for Musk in government meetings, backing him as a potential “Henry Ford” of the tech and military-industrial complex.

After In-Q-Tel, Griffin became the chief administrator of NASA. In 2018, President Trump appointed him the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. While at NASA, Griffin brought Musk in for meetings and secured SpaceX’s big break. In 2006, NASA awarded the company a $396 million rocket development contract – a remarkable “gamble,” in Griffin’s words, especially as it had never launched a rocket. National Geographic wrote that SpaceX “never would have gotten to where it is today without NASA.” And Griffin was essential to this development. Still, by 2008, both SpaceX and Tesla Motors were in dire straits, with Musk unable to make payroll and assuming both businesses would go bankrupt. It was at that point that SpaceX was savedby an unexpected $1.6 billion NASA contract for commercial cargo services.

Today, the pair remain extremely close, with Griffin serving as an official advisor to Castelion. A sign of just how strong this relationship is that, in 2004, Musk named his son “Griffin” after his CIA handler.

Today, SpaceX is a powerhouse, with yearly revenues in the tens of billions and a valuation of $350 billion. But that wealth comes largely from orders from Washington. Indeed, there are few customers for rockets other than the military or the various three-letter spying agencies.

In 2018, SpaceX won a contract to blast a $500 million Lockheed Martin GPS into orbit. While military spokespersons played up the civilian benefits of the launch, the primary reason for the project was to improve America’s surveillance and targeting capabilities. SpaceX has also won contracts with the Air Force to deliver its command satellite into orbit, with the Space Development Agency to send tracking devices into space, and with the National Reconnaissance Office to launch its spy satellites. All the “big five” surveillance agencies, including the CIA and the NSA, use these satellites.

Therefore, in today’s world, where so much intelligence gathering and target acquisition is done via satellite technology, SpaceX has become every bit as important to the American empire as Boeing, Raytheon, and General Dynamics. Simply put, without Musk and SpaceX, the U.S. would not be able to carry out such an invasive program of spying or drone warfare around the world.

The repugnantly infantile libertarian extremist Elon Musk

An example of how crucial Musk and his tech empire are to the continuation of U.S. global ambitions can be found in Ukraine. Today, around 47,000 Starlinks operate inside the country. These portable satellite dishes, manufactured by SpaceX, have kept both Ukraine’s civilian and military online. Many of these were directly purchased by the U.S. government via USAID or the Pentagon and shipped to Kiev.

In its hi-tech war against Russia, Starlink has become the keystone of the Ukrainian military. It allows for satellite-based target acquisition and drone attacks on Russian forces. Indeed, on today’s battlefield, many weapons require an internet connection. One Ukrainian official told The Times of London that he “must” use Starlink to target enemy forces via thermal imaging.

The controversial mogul has also involved himself in South American politics. In 2019, he supported the U.S.-backed overthrow of socialist president Evo Morales. Morales suggested that Musk financed the insurrection, which he dubbed a “lithium coup.” When directly charged with his involvement, Musk infamously replied, “We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it!” Bolivia is home to the world’s largest lithium reserves, a metal crucial in producing batteries for electric vehicles such as the ones in Musk’s Tesla cars.

In Venezuela last year, Musk went even further, supporting the U.S.-backed far-right candidate against socialist president Nicolás Maduro. He even went so far as to suggest he was working on a plan to kidnap the sitting president. “I’m coming for you Maduro. I will carry you to Gitmo on a donkey,” he said, referencing the notorious U.S. torture center.

More recently, Musk has thrown himself into American politics, funding and campaigning for President Trump, and will now lead Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). DOGE’s stated mission is to cut unnecessary and wasteful government spending. However, with Musk at the helm, it seems unlikely that the billions of dollars in military contracts and tax incentives his companies have received will be on the chopping block.

At Trump’s inauguration, Musk garnered international headlines after he gave two Sieg Heil salutes – gestures that his daughter felt were unambiguously Nazi. Musk – who comes from a historically Nazi-supporting family – took time out from criticizing the reaction to his salute to appear at a rally for the Alternative für Deutschland Party. There, he said that Germans place “too much focus on past guilt” (i.e., the Holocaust) and that “we need to move beyond that.” “Children should not feel guilty for the sins of their parents – their great-grandparents even,” he added to raucous applause.

The tech tycoon’s recent actions have provoked outrage among many Americans, claiming that fascists and Nazis do not belong anywhere near the U.S. space and defense programs. In reality, however, these projects, from the very beginning, were overseen by top German scientists brought over after the fall of Nazi Germany. Operation Paperclip transported more than 1,600 German scientists to America, including the father of the American lunar project, Wernher von Braun. Von Braun was a member of both the Nazi Party and the infamous elite SS paramilitary, whose members oversaw Hitler’s extermination camps.

Thus, Nazism and the American empire have, for a long time, gone hand in hand. Far more disturbing than a man with fascist sympathies being in a position of power in the U.S. military or space industry, however, is the ability the United States is seeking for itself to be impervious to intercontinental missile attacks from its competitors.

On the surface, Washington’s Iron Dome plan may sound defensive in nature. But in reality, it would give it a free hand to attack any country or entity around the world in any way it wishes – including with nuclear weapons. This would upend the fragile nuclear peace that has reigned since the early days of the Cold War. Elon Musk’s help in this endeavor is much more worrying and dangerous than any salutes or comments he could ever make.  https://brucegagnon177089.substack.com/p/the-pentagon-and-starlink-satellites?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3720343&post_id=158057576&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=c9zhh&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

March 1, 2025 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Supreme Court faces the absurdly difficult problem of where to put nuclear waste

And so it now falls to the Supreme Court to decide whether this latest attempt to find a place to store some of the most undesirable trash on the planet must falter on the shores of NIMBYism.

America’s worst NIMBY problem comes to the Supreme Court.

by Ian Millhiser, Vox , 26th Feb 2025,
https://www.vox.com/scotus/399304/supreme-court-nuclear-waste-texas-nrc-nimby

On March 5, the Supreme Court will hear a case that may involve one of the most toxic examples of NIMBYism in American history. The issue at the heart of Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas arises out of a predictable problem: Absolutely no one wants radioactive waste anywhere near where they live or work, but that waste has to go somewhere.

Texas, as the case name suggests, involves an effort by the federal government to store nuclear waste in Texas, and at the same time, solve a problem it’s struggled with for nearly 40 years.

To fully understand what’s before the Supreme Court in Texas, we need to go back to 1982, when Congress passed a law that was supposed to establish a permanent repository for all of the radioactive waste produced by America’s nuclear power plants. This waste remains dangerous for thousands or even tens of thousands of years after it is produced, so it made sense to find a spot far from human civilization where it can be buried.

But then NIMBY — that’s “not in my backyard” — politics set in.

The US Department of Energy identified several possible sites for the waste, and eventually culled those sites down to three — one in Texas, one in Washington state, and Yucca Mountain in Nevada. But, in 1987, before these officials could complete the selection process, Congress stepped in and chose the Nevada site for them.

According to a Slate article on the eventual collapse of the Yucca Mountain plan, this choice is easy to explain when you look at who ran Congress at the time. The House speaker was Jim Wright, a representative from Texas. The House majority leader was Tom Foley, from Washington. So Nevada, which had the weakest congressional delegation at the time, lost out.

Indeed, according to Rod McCullum of the Nuclear Energy Institute, “the 1987 Amendment is now commonly referred to as the ‘screw Nevada’ bill.”

By the time President Barack Obama took office, however, the balance of power in Congress had changed. Sen. Harry Reid, of Nevada, was the majority leader. He set out, with the Obama administration’s support, to kill the Yucca Mountain project. Congress, at Obama’s urging, zeroed out funding for Yucca Mountain. Then, just in case the project wasn’t already dead enough, a 2013 court decision ordered the government to stop collecting taxes that would have funded the permanent storage facility until it could figure out where that facility would be located.

And that brings us to the present date, and to the issue before the Supreme Court in the Texas case. Without a permanent storage facility on the horizon, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission turned to an older statute which has been understood to allow it to authorize temporary storage facilities for nuclear waste since the 1970s, licensing a private facility to handle storage in Andrews County, Texas.

Texas eventually sued to block this facility, as did a nearby landowner. Their case wound up before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Two of these judges are from Texas. It’s not hard to guess what happened next.

And so it now falls to the Supreme Court to decide whether this latest attempt to find a place to store some of the most undesirable trash on the planet must falter on the shores of NIMBYism.

Indeed, the 1954 law’s language allowing the NRC to license possession of these three kinds of material is quite broad. The NRC may license possession of special nuclear material for reasons that it “determines to be appropriate to carry out the purposes” of the law. It may license possession of source material for any “use approved by the Commission as an aid to science or industry.” And it may license possession of byproduct material for “industrial uses” or for “such other useful applications as may be developed.”

Though both Texas and the landowner claim that this language should not be read to permit the kind of license at issue in the Texas case, they are swimming against at least a half-century of precedent. The landowner’s brief concedes that the NRC first claimed the authority to license facilities under the 1954 law in 1975 (it claims that this fact cuts against the government’s case, because the NRC waited two decades to claim this power, but the fact remains that this question has been settled for 50 years). The landowner’s brief also concedes that the NRC finalized regulations governing licenses for such facilities in 1980.

That said, the landowner’s brief does make a plausible — if not, exactly, airtight — argument that the 1982 law overrides the 1954 law’s provisions concerning private storage facilities. (Texas’s brief, by contrast, is heavy on overwrought rhetoric claiming that nuclear waste must be stored at Yucca Mountain, and light on the kind of statutory analysis that a responsible judge would rely upon in deciding this case.)

Among other things, the landowner’s legal team points to three provisions of the 1982 law which say that the NRC shall “encourage” storage of nuclear waste “at the site of each civilian nuclear power reactor,” and take other steps to promote such onsite storage. They also point to a provision calling for a federal storage facility. And, they highlight a provision stating that the 1982 law should not be read to “encourage” or “authorize” private storage facilities away from a reactor.

As the landowner’s legal team writes, allowing the Texas facility to exist would “discourage” creating new storage capacity at reactor sites, the opposite of what the 1982 law was supposed to accomplish.

It’s safe to say that, when Congress wrote the 1982 law, they imagined a world where nuclear waste would be stored either at reactor sites or at a federal facility, and not at a private facility like the one at issue in Texas. But the 1982 law also does not explicitly repeal the 1954 law’s provisions governing the three kinds of nuclear material. So the government has a very strong argument that it can still rely on those provisions to license the facility in Texas.

There is a possibility that the Supreme Court will simply make this case go away

There’s a real possibility that the Supreme Court will get rid of this case on procedural grounds, effectively handing a victory to the government.

Briefly, the federal law that both Texas and the landowner relied upon to bring their case to the Fifth Circuit permits “any party aggrieved by the final order” of the NRC to challenge that decision in a federal appeals court. The government argues that, to qualify as a “party,” Texas or the landowner must have participated “as a litigant” in the NRC’s internal proceeding governing the Andrews County license.

While both the state and the landowner took some steps to make their views known to the NRC during that proceeding, neither ever officially became litigants. Thus, the government argues, they do not count as a “party” to that proceeding which can appeal the NRC’s decision, and the Court should toss the case out. The key thing to know about this legal argument is that it may be enough to prevent the justices from reaching the merits of this particular case.

If the Court does reach the merits, however, it faces a difficult decision. Allowing the Andrews County project to move forward will undoubtedly trigger the same kind of political backlash that has accompanied every other attempt to pick a site to store nuclear waste. But, if this project is not allowed, it’s far from clear where the waste would go.

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Tonnes of nuclear waste to be sent back to Europe

Federica Bedendo, BBC News, North East and Cumbria, 27th Feb 2025,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwddyg7e4do

More than 700 tonnes of nuclear waste is due to be shipped to Europe as part of a project to send back spent fuel to the countries that produced it.

The Sellafield nuclear plant in West Cumbria was tasked with reprocessing the nuclear material used to produce electricity in Germany.

Seven cylindric containers, each carrying up to 110 tonnes of recycled nuclear waste, are due to make the journey to the Isar Federal storage facility by sea on a specialist vessel.

A Sellafield spokesman said the move was a “key component” of the strategy to “repatriate high level waste from the UK”.

This will be the second of three shipments from the UK to the European country.

The first shipment of six containers – known as flasks – to Biblis, was completed in 2020.

Each flask is about 20ft (6m) long, with a 8ft (2.5m) diameter.

The waste will be transported by sea on a specialist vessel to a German port, then onwards by rail to its final destination.

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Germany, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

The Pentagon and Starlink Satellites

it is only the existence of a credible deterrent that tempers Washington’s actions around the world. Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has only attacked relatively defenseless countries. The reason the North Korean government remains in place, but those of Libya, Iraq, Syria, and others do not, is the existence of the former’s large-scale conventional and nuclear forces. Developing an American Iron Dome could upset this delicate balance and usher in a new age of U.S. military dominance.

The stakes are high. If successful, the US could again intimidate the world through nuclear blackmail

Bruce Gagnon, Feb 28, 2025

Donald Trump has announced his intention to build a gigantic anti-ballistic missile system to counter Chinese and Russian nuclear weapons, and he is recruiting Elon Musk to help him. The Pentagon has long dreamed of constructing an American “Iron Dome.” The technology is couched in the defense language – i.e., to make America safe again. But like its Israeli counterpart, it would function as an offensive weapon, giving the United States the ability to launch nuclear attacks anywhere in the world without having to worry about the consequences of a similar response. This power could upend the fragile peace maintained by decades of mutually assured destruction, a doctrine that has underpinned global stability since the 1940s.

A NEW GLOBAL ARMS RACE

Washington’s war planners have long salivated at the thought of winning a nuclear confrontation and have sought the ability to do so for decades. Some believe that they have found a solution and a savior in the South African-born billionaire and his technology.

Neoconservative think tank the Heritage Foundation published a video last year stating that Musk might have “solved the nuclear threat coming from China.” It claimed that Starlink satellites from his SpaceX company could be easily modified to carry weapons that could shoot down incoming rockets. As they explain:

Elon Musk has proven that you can put microsatellites into orbit, for $1 million apiece. Using that same technology, we can put 1,000 microsatellites in continuous orbit around the Earth, that can track, engage and shoot down, using tungsten slugs, missiles that are launched from North Korea, Iran, Russia, and China.”

Although the Heritage Foundation advises using tungsten slugs (i.e., bullets) as interceptors, hypersonic missiles have been opted for instead. To this end, a new organization, the Castelion Company, was established in 2023.

Castelion is a SpaceX cutout; six of the seven members of its leadership team and two of its four senior advisorsare ex-senior SpaceX employees. The other two advisors are former high officials from the Central Intelligence Agency, including Mike Griffin, Musk’s longtime friend, mentor, and partner.

Castelion’s advisors and leadership team are extensively connected to SpaceX and the CIA

Castelion’s mission, in its own words, is to be at the cutting edge of a new global arms race. As the company explains:

Despite the U.S. annual defense budget exceeding those of the next ten biggest spenders combined, there’s irrefutable evidence that authoritarian regimes are taking the lead in key military technologies like hypersonic weapons. Simply put – this cannot be allowed to happen.”

The company has already secured gigantic contracts with the U.S. military, and reports suggest that it has made significant strides toward its hypersonic missile goals.

WAR AND PEACE

Castelion’s slogan is “Peace Through Deterrence.” But in reality, the U.S. achieving a breakthrough in hypersonic missile technology would rupture the fragile nuclear peace that has existed for over 70 years and usher in a new era where Washington would have the ability to use whatever weapons it wished, anywhere in the world at any time, safe in the knowledge that it would be impervious to a nuclear response from any other nation.

In short, the fear of a nuclear retaliation from Russia or China has been one of the few forces moderating U.S. aggression throughout the world. If this is lost, the United States would have free rein to turn entire countries – or even regions of the planet – into vapor. This would, in turn, hand it the power to terrorize the world and impose whatever economic and political system anywhere it wishes.

If this sounds fanciful, this “Nuclear Blackmail” was a more-or-less official policy of successive American administrations in the 1940s and 1950s. The United States remains the only country ever to drop an atomic bomb in anger, doing so twice in 1945 against a Japanese foe that was already defeated and was attempting to surrender.

President Truman ordered the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a show of force, primarily to the Soviet Union. Many in the U.S. government wished to use the atomic bomb on the U.S.S.R. President Truman immediately, however, reasoned that if America nuked Moscow, the Red Army would invade Europe as a response…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

In the end, the Soviet Union was able to successfully develop a nuclear weapon before the U.S. was able to produce hundreds. Thus, the idea of wiping the U.S.S.R. from the face of the Earth was shelved. Incidentally, it is now understood that the effects of dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons simultaneously would likely have sparked vast firestorms across Russia, resulting in the emission of enough smoke to choke the Earth’s atmosphere, block out the sun’s rays for a decade, and end organized human life on the planet.

With the Russian nuclear window closing by 1949, the U.S. turned its nuclear arsenal on the nascent People’s Republic of China.

The U.S. invaded China in 1945, occupying parts of it for four years until Communist forces under Mao Zedong forced both them and their Nationalist KMT allies from the country. During the Korean War, some of the most powerful voices in Washington advocated dropping nuclear weapons on the 12 largest Chinese cities in response to China entering the fray. Indeed, both Truman and his successor, Dwight D. Eisenhower, publicly used the threat of the atomic bomb as a negotiating tactic.

Routed on the mainland, the U.S.-backed KMT fled to Taiwan, establishing a one-party state. In 1958, the U.S. also came close to dropping the bomb on China to protect its ally’s new regime over control of the disputed island – an episode of history that resonates with the present-day conflict over Taiwan.

However, by 1964, China had developed its own nuclear warhead, effectively ending U.S. pretensions and helping to usher in the détente era of good relations between the two powers—an epoch that lasted well into the 21st century.

In short, then, it is only the existence of a credible deterrent that tempers Washington’s actions around the world. Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has only attacked relatively defenseless countries. The reason the North Korean government remains in place, but those of Libya, Iraq, Syria, and others do not, is the existence of the former’s large-scale conventional and nuclear forces. Developing an American Iron Dome could upset this delicate balance and usher in a new age of U.S. military dominance.

NUKING JAPAN? OK. NUKING MARS? EVEN BETTER!

Musk, however, has downplayed both the probability and the consequences of nuclear war. On The Lex Friedman Podcast, he described the likelihood of a terminal confrontation as “quite low.” And while speaking with Trump last year, he claimed that nuclear holocaust is “not as scary as people think,” noting that “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, but now they are full cities again.” President Trump agreed.

According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, there are over 12,000 warheads in the world, the vast majority of them owned by Russia and the United States. While many consider them a blight on humanity and favor their complete eradication, Musk advocates building thousands more, sending them into space, and firing them at Mars.

Few scientists have endorsed this idea. Indeed, Dmitry Rogozin, then-head of Russian state space agency Roscosmos, labeled the theory completely absurd and nothing more than a cover for filling space with American nuclear weapons aimed at Russia, China, and other nations, drawing Washington’s ire.

“We understand that one thing is hidden behind this demagogy: This is a cover for the launch of nuclear weapons into space,” he said. “We see such attempts, we consider them unacceptable, and we will hinder this to the greatest extent possible,” he added.

The first Trump administration’s actions, including withdrawing from multiple international anti-ballistic missile treaties, have made this process more difficult.

ELON AND THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL-COMPLEX……………………………………………………………. more https://brucegagnon177089.substack.com/p/the-pentagon-and-starlink-satellites?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3720343&post_id=158057576&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=c9zhh&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

March 1, 2025 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Letter: Hinkley Point C will be a Sellafield waste dump

By Jo Smoldon,
Burnham & Highbridge Weekly News 25th Feb 2025, https://www.burnhamandhighbridgeweeklynews.co.uk/news/24957412.letter-hinkley-point-c-will-sellafield-waste-dump/

In response to your Hinkley article around all the jobs created at Hinkley Point C, yes, of course it is good that the nuclear industry is training people to understand the nuclear sites and maybe later the nuclear process.

Nuclear, due to its very, very long-term footprint, has to be understood for thousands of years to come when the radioactive waste will need managing at high costs and high risk on this Hinkley location.

Trying to attract young people into a subject that is very antiquated in its science has been something that government and business will have to invest in forever.

Nuclear power for electricity is made by the last century science of steam driving turbines to condense to hot water.

Two-thirds of the energy produced from the reactors is thrown out in the form of hot water to be discharged into the Severn Estuary, hardly a ‘low-carbon energy’ if looked at in real terms!

What hasn’t been mentioned with all this bigging up the Hinkley site is that it will be the big Sellafield waste dump of the south, as after B station waste has been transferred to Sellafield, no more nuclear waste will move from Somerset.

Radioactive waste will remain on the North Somerset coast forever, how does that fit with the predicted sea level rise, extreme coastal events and Somerset’s regular flooding events?

March 1, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

  IAEA Director General Statement on fire Situation in Chernobyl nuclear station

IAEA, 27 Feb 25

Two weeks after it was hit by a drone, Ukrainian firefighters are still trying to extinguish smouldering fires within the large structure built over the reactor destroyed in the 1986 Chornobyl nuclear accident, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said today.

With unrestricted access, the IAEA team based at the site has been closely monitoring the situation following the strike early in the morning on 14 February that pierced a big hole in the New Safe Confinement (NSC), designed to prevent any potential release into the atmosphere of radioactive material from the Shelter Object covering the damaged reactor, and to protect it from external hazards………………………….

Working in shifts, more than 400 emergency response personnel have been participating in the site’s efforts to manage the aftermath of the drone strike.

“The firefighters and other responders are working very hard in difficult circumstances to manage the impact and consequences of the drone strike. It was clearly a serious incident in terms of nuclear safety, even though it could have been much worse. As I have stated repeatedly during this devastating war, attacking a nuclear facility must never happen,” Director General Grossi said……………………………………………………………………. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-278-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine

March 1, 2025 Posted by | Belarus, safety | Leave a comment

Total collapse of vital Atlantic currents unlikely this century, study finds

Damian Carrington, Guardian 26th Feb 2025

Climate scientists caution, however, that even weakened currents would cause profound harm to humanity.

Vital Atlantic Ocean currents are unlikely to completely collapse this century, according to a study, but scientists say a severe weakening remains probable and would still have disastrous impacts on billions of people.

The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (Amoc) is a system of currents that plays a crucial role in the global climate. The climate crisis is weakening the complex system, but determining if and when it will collapse is difficult.

Studies based on ocean measurements indicate that the Amoc is becoming unstable and approaching a tipping point, beyond which a collapse will be unstoppable. They have suggested this would happen this century, but there are only 20 years of direct measurements and data inferred from earlier times bring large uncertainties.

Climate models have indicated that a collapse is not likely before 2100, but they might have been unrealistically stable compared with the actual ocean system………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/26/total-collapse-of-vital-atlantic-currents-unlikely-this-century-study-finds

March 1, 2025 Posted by | climate change, oceans | Leave a comment

‘Fish disco’ row risks fresh delays to Hinkley Point nuclear plant

EDF has been urged by campaigners to stick with plans to install underwater
loudspeakers to deter fish in the Bristol Channel, as the energy company
grapples with delays to construction of its Hinkley Point C nuclear
reactor.

The row over the “fish disco” deterrent, as it is known in
Whitehall circles, marks the latest salvo in the UK’s long-running battle
to balance growth with environmental protections. Mark Lloyd, chief
executive of The Rivers Trust charity, said France’s state-owned energy
company should keep its commitment to the acoustic fish deterrent, as part
of its Hinkley Point C project.

His comments follow warnings that wrangling
over fish protection risks further delaying completion of the Somerset
power plant, which is already several years behind schedule and billions of
pounds over budget. Plans for the deterrent system involve 288 underwater
speakers that would produce underwater noise louder than a jumbo jet all
day, every day for six decades, according to EDF.

Despite previously
agreeing to build an “acoustic fish deterrent”, EDF is now trying to
scrap those plans, saying they would endanger divers, and is instead
proposing salt marshes to shelter fish. But Lloyd argued that, unless the
acoustic deterrent was installed, “there are likely to be local
extinctions and a very significant impact on marine species throughout the
South West and the Irish Sea”. EDF rejects this characterisation,
pointing out that regulators estimate the amount of fish that will be
harmed without the deterrent is 44 tonnes per year, equivalent to an annual
catch of one small fishing vessel.

FT 26th Feb 2025,
https://www.ft.com/content/28c4cade-d477-4df5-a4b4-cf5ea8dfac95

March 1, 2025 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority budget raises Sellafield safety concerns

Wednesday 26 February 2025,
https://www.unitetheunion.org/news-events/news/2025/february/nuclear-decommissioning-authority-budget-raises-sellafield-safety-concerns

Safety could also be impacted at 16 other Nuclear Decommissioning Authority sites

Safety concerns over the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) budget, which includes Sellafield as well as UK-wide services for nuclear waste and restoration, have been raised by Unite, the UK’s leading union.

The NDA group is responsible for decommissioning and cleaning up 17 nuclear sites. The group’s key operating companies include Sellafield, Nuclear Restoration Services (NRS) and Nuclear Waste Services (NWS).

The CEOs of all the operating companies have all stated that their current budgets are not enough to provide full services. 

Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: “Unite is extremely concerned that UK’s workers at Sellafield, NRS and NWS could be put at risk through efforts to cut costs. If the NDA budget isn’t fit for purpose, the government needs to increase it. Unite will not tolerate attacks on our members’ jobs or any changes that could jeopardise their health and safety.”

Unite national officer Simon Coop said: “Sellafield, NRS and NWS must fully consult with Unite before taking any steps that could endanger workers or impact their jobs, pay or conditions. We will not hesitate to defend our members if actions are taken that put them at risk.”

March 1, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Nuclear weapons are ‘one-way road to annihilation’ warns Guterres

By Vibhu Mishra, 24 February 2025, https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/02/1160441

UN Secretary-General António Guterres on Monday warned that the risk of nuclear conflict is rising – as global security arrangements unravel and military spending soars – urging governments to push for total disarmament.

The nuclear option is not an option at all,” he said, addressing the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

It is a one-way road to annihilation. We need to avoid this dead-end at all costs.”

Arms race spreading to space

Mr. Guterres warned delegates of heightened global security concerns, noting that trust between nations is crumbling, international law is being undermined and multilateral treaties are under strain.

The so called “Doomsday Clock” – a metaphorical indicator of how close humanity is to destroying the world – moved one second closer to midnight last month, underscoring the growing peril.

“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,” Mr. Guterres said. 

“And the weaponization of Artificial Intelligence is moving forward at an alarming pace.”

Sign of hope

Despite the grim picture, the Secretary-General highlighted the Pact for the Future adopted by world leaders at the General Assembly last September, as a sign of hope.

It marked the first new international nuclear disarmament agreement in over a decade.

Through the Pact, Member States also committed to revitalizing the role of the United Nations in disarmament,” he continued, calling also for holding accountable anyone who uses chemical or biological weapons.

Alongside, he urged delegates to prevent an arms race in outer space through new negotiations, calling for the UN’s role in disarmament and global security to be strengthened.

Humanity is counting on us to get this right. Let us keep working to deliver the safe, secure and peaceful world that every person needs and deserves,” Mr. Guterres said.

The Conference on Disarmament

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) is the world’s sole multilateral forum for negotiating arms control and disarmament agreements.

Comprising 65 member states, including nuclear and militarily significant nations, the Conference has played a key role in shaping treaties such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Its agenda includes nuclear disarmament, preventing an arms race in outer space, and addressing new weapons of mass destruction. Non-member States also attend its sessions, with 50 joining discussions in 2019, the highest in two decades.

February 28, 2025 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Ontario’s outdated nuclear vision poses serious safety and financial risks

Intervenors also raised safety concerns about OPG’s plans for the BWRX-300 high-level spent fuel waste. Edwards said an above-ground spent fuel pool, unprotected by a containment structure, is vulnerable

there’s nothing there. There’s really nothing. There are no safety systems to speak of.”

rabble,ca, by Ole Hendrickson, February 26, 2025

As Ontario seeks to build a small modular nuclear reactor, the standards and safety of Canada’s nuclear industry leave something to be desired.

In October 2022, the federal infrastructure bank committed $970 million towards Canada’s first small modular nuclear reactor. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has applied to construct a 20-story tall, half underground, BWRX-300 boiling water reactor at the Darlington nuclear site near Toronto.

Independent nuclear experts say the reactor poses significant risks. They brought them to the attention of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) during a five-day public hearing in January 2025.

On January 8, the first day of the hearing, Ontario Premier Doug Ford issued a press release about Fortress Am-Can, his plan for “economic prosperity in Canada and the United States.” Ford said “With our fleet of nuclear power plants and the first small modular nuclear reactors in the G7, Ontario is uniquely positioned to power the future of Fortress Am-Can.”

Independent experts say that nuclear plants are far costlier than a combination of renewables with energy storage systems and conservation measures. They create intractable waste problems. They are slow to deploy, delaying climate action.

Furthermore, the design of Ontario’s “first small modular nuclear reactor” raises major safety concerns.

The BWRX-300 is a slimmed-down, 300-megawatt version of an earlier 1600-megawatt boiling water reactor design from the American company GE-Hitachi. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed the design, but investors never materialized. General Electric (GE) also designed the boiling water reactors that melted down at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan.

At the CNSC hearing, Dr. Gordon Edwards, a leading independent nuclear expert with the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, disputed claims that the BWRX-300 design is “inherently safe.” He noted that the U.S. NRC has not approved the design. A single system, the Isolation Condenser System, would replace multiple safety systems of its larger predecessor. Edwards suggested that “the eagerness of OPG and CNSC staff to proceed with construction before the design is finalized is based on political, technological, and marketing considerations.”

Sarah Eaton, CSNC’s Director General for Advanced Reactor Technologies, responded for CNSC staff. She said staff use a “trust but verify approach.” CNSC Executive Vice President Ramzi Jammal confirmed that Canada differs from the U.S., where the NRC must certify a design before a license is issued.

Another CNSC staffer, Melanie Rickard, said “We’re talking about hundreds of hours, maybe thousands of hours, to be honest, so that we’re certain that this is going to be acceptable. And we are not certain. There is more work to be done.”

Intervenors also raised safety concerns about OPG’s plans for the BWRX-300 high-level spent fuel waste. Edwards said an above-ground spent fuel pool, unprotected by a containment structure, is vulnerable in a conflict. He added, “look at what’s happening in the Ukraine with the Zaporizhzhia plant with the conflict going on there.”

Dr. Sunil Nijhawan, who followed him, warned that an aircraft impact on a pool with a thousand spent fuel assemblies “can create a radiation disaster affecting Lake Ontario and about five million residences and businesses of southern Ontario.”

Nijhawan said “I’ve been in the industry for a long time. The first time I looked at a boiling water reactor design manual was 50 years ago, 1974, and I’ve kept in touch with development of all sorts of reactor designs… Right now what I see

Intervenors also raised safety concerns about OPG’s plans for the BWRX-300 high-level spent fuel waste. Edwards said an above-ground spent fuel pool, unprotected by a containment structure, is vulnerable in a conflict. He added, “look at what’s happening in the Ukraine with the Zaporizhzhia plant with the conflict going on there.”

Dr. Sunil Nijhawan, who followed him, warned that an aircraft impact on a pool with a thousand spent fuel assemblies “can create a radiation disaster affecting Lake Ontario and about five million residences and businesses of southern Ontario.”

Nijhawan said “I’ve been in the industry for a long time. The first time I looked at a boiling water reactor design manual was 50 years ago, 1974, and I’ve kept in touch with development of all sorts of reactor designs… Right now what I see in this design, to me there’s nothing there. There’s really nothing. There are no safety systems to speak of.”

Nijhawan warned about a loss of “safety culture” throughout Canada’s nuclear industry…………………………….. https://rabble.ca/columnists/ontarios-outdated-nuclear-vision-poses-serious-safety-and-financial-risks/

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Canada, safety | Leave a comment

As tensions rise, Canada to lean on U.S. for uranium enrichment

Matthew McClearn, February 24, 2025, Globe and Mail

Even as U.S. President Donald Trump talks of waging a campaign of “economic force” to persuade Canada to join a political union with the United States, Ontario Power Generation is preparing to construct an American reactor at its Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. The reactor’s uranium fuel would be enriched at a facility in New Mexico, a new vulnerability U.S. administrations could exploit.

Canada’s 17 operating reactors are of thehomegrown Candu design, which consume natural uranium. Canada possesses uranium in abundance and has long made its own fuel. But nearly all the reactors promoted for construction now require enriched uranium, which Canada can’t produce.

Proposals by Canadian utilities to build new reactors attracted American vendors, including GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy (which is designing the BWRX-300, planned for deployment at Darlington and in Saskatchewan), Westinghouse Electric Co. and ARC Clean Technology. Until the past few months, the risks of the U.S. government weaponizing nuclear fuel against allies for political purposes seemed distant. Now it’s just one more aspect of Canada-U.S. relations that Mr. Trump has disrupted.

“Developing a dependence on another country for our nuclear fuel has always been a concern and recent events have proven those concerns are justified,” Bob Walker, national director of the Canadian Nuclear Workers’Council, an umbrella organization of unions within Canada’s nuclear industry, said in a written response to questions.

We haven’t done our due diligence in terms of having other partners,” said Akira Tokuhiro, a professor in Ontario Tech University’s nuclear engineering department.

“Canada needs to really invest and make a concerted effort to find and establish the nuclear supply chain without the United States.”………………………………………………………………………………………

Nuclear fuel supply agreements are typically confidential, so it’s unclear what provisions GE-Hitachi and OPG have made to deal with supply disruptions. (Orano’s presence, though, seems to offer OPG a non-American enrichment supplier.) Neither company granted an interview for this article.

“The arrangements are probably as robust as they could be under normal circumstances, but the circumstances are no longer normal,” Mr. Walker said.

“This is a very fluid situation,” OPG spokesperson Neal Kelly wrote in a statement. “We are proactively evaluating potential impacts and will act as the situation arises.”

Tariffs could make nuclear fuel far more costly. One mitigating factor, however, is that fuel represents a relatively small portion of nuclear plant operating costs – typically under 20 per cent. That’s a striking contrast with power plants that burn oil or natural gas.

George Christidis, acting chief executive of the Canadian Nuclear Association, said that if Washington imposed a 25-per-cent tariff on Canadian uranium, that would harm the U.S. enough to force re-evaluation.

“There’s such an interconnection within our industry, on the uranium side right into the American economy and energy system, that in the end, it really would be something that may cause them a lot of distress.”

The U.S. government could also deny Canada access to enriched fuel, for example as part of a broader campaign to undermine Canadian sovereignty, or to reserve it exclusively for American utilities.

“A presidential executive order could force the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to disallow shipments to Canada,” Mr. Walker wrote.

“We don’t know how likely it is but there is a risk it could happen.”

Halting nuclear fuel shipments likely wouldn’t have the immediate impact of, say, ceasing deliveries to Canada on natural gas pipelines. Unlike gas-fired power plants, which require a steady stream of fuel, reactors are only refuelled periodically, affording time to adjust. And the high energy density of nuclear fuel facilitates stockpiling.

Mr. Christidis discounted the idea that the U.S. would disrupt Canada’s ability to acquire low-enriched uranium.

“I think quite strongly that there will be a path forward between the two countries to work together.”

Ms. Hanebach said Canada’s uranium supply would provide leverage in negotiating relationships with new enrichment partners. But the list is short.

“If the U.S. decided to pull enrichment capacity, it would be Russia, then it’s China,” she said. “And then there’s some in France, Netherlands, U.K. and Germany. That’s it.”

Experts told The Globe and Mail that there’s no aspect of the Candu’s fuel cycle that relies on American inputs, making it more resilient to disruption.

AtkinsRéalis Group Inc., which has exclusive licensing rights to Candu technology, regards that as a trump card against U.S. competitors – as it made clear in a survey it published in January. “Candu uses unenriched uranium,” noted the preamble to one question, while another said: “Westinghouse uses enriched uranium imported from countries like Russia.” Informed by such statements, 84 per cent of respondents said they preferred Candus over Westinghouse reactors.

“Candu emerges as the clear favourite,” AtkinsRéalis enthused.

But there’s a problem: The Candu is widely regarded as obsolete. The last one built in Canada was Darlington Unit 4, completed in 1993. Since then a number of new designs have been drawn up, but none were licensed or built. AtkinsRéalis now has a team of 250 employees designing a modernized version dubbed the Monark.

If Canada follows through on plans to build a fleet of light water reactors in Ontario, Saskatchewan and possibly elsewhere, it could elect to build its own enrichment capacity. Energy analyst Juzel Lloyd suggested doing precisely this, in a recent commentary for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

“Recent global events demand that the Canadian government re-evaluate its position on uranium enrichment,” she wrote.

“By initiating enrichment services, Canada can diversify the global nuclear supply chain, reduce reliance on Russian fuel and ensure the energy security of both established and emerging nuclear-powered states.”

The conventional wisdom, though, is that enrichment is so technically challenging and costly that only nuclear weapons states can justify it. (Japan is the noteworthy exception.) Prof. Tokuhiro said acquiring enrichment capacity would cost at least $100-billion and take at least 20 years.

“It’s more money than the Canadian government is willing to commit,” he said.

Ms. Hanebach observed that many legislative and regulatory changes would be required. Canada is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, for example. “We would need to work with the International Atomic Energy Agency on that, and then implement that in domestic legislation,” she said. Canada doesn’t have a regulatory framework for enrichment, either.

Internationally, enrichment capability is tightly controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group to prevent weapons proliferation. Canada’s a member but is not permitted to enrich uranium.

Steve Aplin, of the Canadian Nuclear Workers’ Council, said Canada had sought U.S. support in 2006 before the Group to construct an enrichment facility here in Canada, but the U.S. refused outright.

“It was all very preliminary,” Mr. Aplin wrote. “The Americans refused because they want to control how many ‘enrichers’ there are in the world.”

Furthermore, he said that had the U.S. acquiesced, Russia, which is also a member, would not.

“Russia, like America, likes the fact they possess enrichment capacity and others don’t.” subscription:https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-with-us-tensions-rising-canada-lacks-its-own-uranium-enrichment/

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Uranium | Leave a comment

Starmer drags Britain deeper into war drive

February 25, 2025, Sophie Bolt, CND General Secretary,
 https://cnduk.org/starmer-drags-britain-deeper-into-war-drive/?link_id=2&can_id=0a448bf4278898648e02a8f6dea4650f&source=email-starmer-drags-britain-deeper-into-war-drive&email_referrer=email_2633766&email_subject=starmer-drags-britain-deeper-into-war-drive

Starmer’s announcement to increase military spending to 2.5% by 2027 – an additional £13.4 billion annually – at the expense of overseas aid, reflects a Trump-style of international priorities: driving war and militarism whilst abandoning international obligations to halt global hunger and climate devastation. It represents a much more dangerous and damaging role for Britain in the world.

The spending announcement has clearly been rapidly organised ahead of Starmer’s meeting with Trump on Thursday.  Nailing his colours very firmly to the Trump mast, Starmer reasserted Britain’s special relationship with the US, and pledged to increase military spending to 3% of GDP after the next election. 

These increases are to fund a reckless war drive that risks plunging Europe into decades-long confrontation with Russia, whilst ratcheting up nuclear tensions globally.

Presenting Britain as the European leadership in NATO, Starmer reiterated his so-called peace-keeping operation in a post-settlement Ukraine. In it, 30,000 European troops would be deployed to Ukraine, underwritten by US military might should the ceasefire collapse. The plan has failed to win unity across Europe.

Meanwhile Friedrich Merz, the newly elected Germany Chancellor, has called for France and Britain to share their nuclear weapons to ‘defend’ Europe against Russia. This has also renewed the debate about the use of tactical or ‘battlefield’ nuclear weapons – and whether Britain should develop them on behalf of Europe.

These reckless and terrifying debates around greater nuclear armament for Europe fail to note that Trump has made no statement that US nuclear weapons will be withdrawn from Europe. Or that new ‘battlefield’ nuclear bombs won’t be deployed in Britain.  They also fail to acknowledge that, as Britain is totally dependent on the US for its nuclear weapons system, Starmer would have to get permission from Trump if he were to offer them to Europe.  

But, of course, whether US, French or British, nuclear weapons deployed in Europe are a disaster. Far from offering protection, the weapons are a constant threat – from the risk of nuclear accidents to nuclear confrontation.

This obscene spending spree on weapons of war won’t bring peace to Ukraine.  On the contrary, the £205bn that Europe has pledged to Ukraine since 2022 has contributed to prolonging this terrible conflict, sustaining the huge death toll and pushing the region to the brink of nuclear war. And the impact of the conflict has driven the worsening economic crisis in Britain, across Europe and globally. And if Trump gets his way, the majority of Ukraine’s vast mineral wealth will be siphoned off to the US.

Whilst it is presented as defending Ukraine, this NATO war drive is global. We know that Trump’s ‘America First’ policies are still about maintaining US dominance over the rest of the world. From calls to seize Greenland, Canada and Panama, to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza, Trump has no respect for sovereignty, human rights and international law. His plans to expand the US Missile Defence System, or ‘the Iron Dome for America’, would enable the Trump administration to use its nuclear weapons without fear of a retaliatory strike. British bases already play a central role in this ‘Iron Dome for America’, making us a target in any global confrontation, yet offering no protection.

This is a very chilling prospect.

Instead of vying for Trump’s approval over which NATO state can increase its military spending highest, Britain and Europe should instead be using this opportunity to reshape the region’s security approach, towards one that is genuinely sustainable and secure. This means Britain ending its military and nuclear alliance with the US. A first step in this would be to scrap the replacement of Britain’s nuclear weapons system. With the government’s own watchdog concluding that the replacement is ‘unachievable’, Rachel Reeves should cut her losses and direct the hundreds of billions into rebuilding crumbling public services and investing in sustainable energy sources.

February 28, 2025 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment