HMS Vigilant is the third Vanguard-class submarine of the Royal Navy. Vigilant carries the Trident ballistic missile, the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent …
I have no idea what this argument is all about, why there is a dispute, and why anyone would care so defiantly. We already know the answer, including previous studies, and the answer is โarmageddonโ. The only way to avoid annihilation is to avoid it, so why worry about the effects of a nuclear war?
The whole issue is just self-important politics and panels of scientific โexpertsโ simply chasing their tails. What we should be doing is coming together and living as one unified world (like John Lennon said). But of course that is never going to happen. It seems humanity is dead-set on exterminating ourselves and has been for a long, long, time โ perhaps since our very beginning . . .
It is obvious by our own actions โ the never-ending creating and fighting our fellow man with more and more and bigger and stronger and more powerful and destructive weapons from our caveman wooden club days to our nuclear weapons today โ until we now have a playground-bully style standoff called deterrence, a foolish temporary name-calling match of vain threats which will last up until the day it happens. So it is that we all already know the answer about what nuclear war means, and, yes, it can all happen in a single day โ according to previous studies. ~llaw
HMS Vigilant is the third Vanguard-class submarine of the Royal Navy. Vigilant carries the Trident ballistic missile, the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent …
Non-proliferation groups are urging the UK government to make a late about-turn on plans to vote alongside France, Russia and North Korea against a UN resolution to study the effects of nuclear war.
In a debate on Friday, a UN general assembly committee will discuss a resolution to create an international panel of scientific experts to examine the global impact of different nuclear conflict scenarios.
The resolution, drafted by Ireland and New Zealand, is expected to be overwhelmingly approved by the committee and then later by the full assembly. Diplomats involved in preparations for the vote say the US and China are expected to abstain but that the UK, France, Russia and North Korea had indicated they were likely to vote against.
London and Paris joining forces with Moscow and Pyongyang would not stop the resolution but could have an impact on their reputations when it comes to other nuclear proliferation issues.
The UK and French missions to the UN did not respond to requests for comment and diplomats in New York said final decisions could be left until the last hours before the vote.
Arms control advocates expressed disappointment on Thursday that, with just 24 hours to go before the debate, the UKโs new Labour government had shown no signs of changing course.
โPeople naively thought that, with a Labour government, you would see a shift away from this kind of weird line that the UK has taken on this particular type of thing,โ said Patricia Lewis, the head of the international security programme at the Chatham House thinktank. โMaybe this is the Labour party trying to be more Catholic than the pope when it comes to nuclear weapons, but why not vote with the US, and abstain?โ
The panel proposed in Fridayโs resolution would be the first such UN-mandated study since 1988 and experts say a lot has changed since then, in science and the nuclear threats around the world. For example, Russia and North Korea, countries which have made aggressive nuclear threats, have entered a deepening partnership.
Lewis argued that a no vote by the UK and France would undermine their credibility with other UN member states, especially when London and Paris are trying to rally global support for criticism of Moscow.
โThe UK has been struggling to get countries like South Africa and Brazil onboard over the whole issue of Russiaโs behaviour, so this is an opportunity for the UK to say: โYes, we hear you,โโ Lewis said.
Observers believe the UK position could be the result of a pact with France to fend off criticism of their nuclear arsenals.
โI think this is building bridges with the French,โ said Zia Mian, a physicist and co-director of Princeton Universityโs programme on science and global security. โThe French donโt want to be alone with the Russians and the North Koreans and whatnot in voting no.โ
The UK, France, Russia and North Korea have been on the same side in a UN vote before. In December last year, they were the only four countries to vote against a general assembly resolution aimed at helping radiation victims of nuclear testing and restoring the environment at past test sites.
Some arms control experts were still hoping on Thursday that the British policy had remained unchanged from the previous Tory government through sheer inertia and could still change if the matter gained the attention of the Labour leadership at the 11th hour.
โPeople are working hard in London to make sure that the political level knows that this is whatโs going on, because often this is done on autopilot,โ said Mian, who has argued for a new scientific panel.
The UN panel would be made up of 21 scientific experts and would examine โthe physical effects and societal consequences of a nuclear war on a local, regional and planetary scaleโ.
Scientists say such work is essential as so much has changed in the subject area since 1988, when the last study was done. For example, it was previously thought it would take a full-scale nuclear conflict between superpowers to plunge the world into a โnuclear winterโ; it is now thought that even a limited nuclear exchange between regional adversaries could have such a devastating global effect.
โThey never imagined that the climate system was so sensitive to these kinds of effects,โ Mian said.
In April, the UK Royal Society was part of a joint statement by the national academies of science of the G7 member states, which said: โAmong the roles of the scientific community are to continue to develop and communicate the scientific evidence base that shows the catastrophic effects of nuclear warfare on human populations and on the other species with which we share our planet.โ
While some governments and national scientific institutions have done their own research, supporters of the resolution said a UN panel could establish a global consensus and a scientific โgold standardโ, emulating the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and have an impact on policy.
โStudying the results of nuclear war will flesh out how bad it would be to have one, and maybe add pressure on countries who would otherwise think about using nuclear weapons,โ said Andrey Baklitskiy, a senior researcher at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research. โTheir leaders, their elites would maybe study or read it, or their populations, or partners or allies, who would maybe say we really donโt want this to happen.โ
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
… nuclear weapons during the Cold War … He manages the podcast team that makes In The NoCo, which also airs weekdays in Morning Edition and All Things …
There’s something of a uranium cult out there: the investors and traders who believe that nuclear is the future of energy, and therefore this crucial …
NATO countries are not at war today. All people are alive in NATO countries. And that is why we choose NATO over nuclear weapons.โ On the same day, …
Nuclear Threats Boost Russia’s Military Perception ยท US News & World Report ranked Russia as having the world’s strongest military in its 2024 survey.
A Volcanic Danger Still Looms Over the State of Texas ยท Mexico’s Popocatรฉpetl Volcano gave Texas a very rare volcanic alert on Wednesday, October 30, …
IAEA Weekly News
1 November 2024
Read the top news and updates published on IAEA.org this week.
The IAEA has launched a new app to help frontline officers assess radiation alarms triggered by people at airports, border crossings and other points of entry โ and ease delays. Read more โ
At Ukraineโs Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP), repairs are being conducted in one of its six reactors after a small water leakage was detected from an impulse line โ essentially a small pipe โ connected to the unitโs primary circuit, with the work expected to be completed later this week, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said today. Read more โ
The Director General of the IAEA, Rafael Mariano Grossi, highlighted the IAEAโs vital role in global nuclear non-proliferation, safety and security in a keynote address for a unique nuclear law workshop convened in the United States of America. Read more โ
Following is the most detailed Elon Musk/Starlink story I have read, If you are concerned about Muskโs penchant for launching communications satellites, and creating controversy, you will want to read this story โ not that doing so will allay your concerns in any way. And, then, too, there are other concerns, including environmental issues relating to Muskโs satellite enterprise. But his actions at the time may have helped to at least temporarily delay the beginning of a nuclear war . . .
Musk is a loose cannon and his independence and aggressive actions along with his alliances in high political places reminds me a bit of the old film Dr. Strangelove. (You have to watch the movie to understand, but the Soviet Union with the help of a nuclear bomb is the target there as well. And then there is a Trump-like General Jack Ripper, another interesting character, who personally deploys the bomb in an odd manner.)
If this important Forbes story contributed by Kevin Holden Platt story is nothing else, it is informative and thought-provoking โ and entertaining as well. ~llaw
Russian Threats To Elon Musk And Strikes On SpaceX Dishes Skyrocket
Kevin Holden Platt writes on space defense, SpaceX, ISS, Space War I
Oct 30, 2024,09:35pm EDT
Updated Oct 31, 2024, 01:02pm EDT
Russian nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles parade through Red Square. The Kremlin … [+]AFP via Getty Images
While The Wall Street Journal has been blasting out its bombshell story that Elon Musk has had โsecret conversationsโ with Vladimir Putin for the last two years, this same timeline has been marked by the Kremlinโs unending barrage of threats against SpaceXโs founder, and military assaults on his Starlink satellite terminals crisscrossing Ukraine.
These threats have ranged from dark hints of assassinating Musk – from the same Kremlin cabal that has despatched henchmen armed with radioactive polonium, or the Soviet chemical weapon Novichok, to deal with political enemies – to cascading warnings that Russian missiles could be fired at SpaceX satellites circling the globe.
They started right after Russiaโs blitzkrieg assault on Ukraine in February of 2022, when SpaceXโs founder began airlifting hundreds, then thousands, then tens of thousands of Starlink transceivers to the besieged democracy, even as Russia escalated its missile attacks to wipe out the countryโs internet infrastructure. Activating his rings of satellites above the globe, Musk foiled Moscowโs plan to imprison Ukraine inside a bomb-backed Iron Curtain.
The Kremlinโs rulers were furious.
Their revenge started when the head of the Russian space agency – who also oversaw building Moscowโs intercontinental ballistic missiles – threatened Musk with personal retribution for supplying Ukraineโs โfascist forcesโ with satellite-beamed Web connections.
The SpaceX leader reacted with macabre humor: โIf I die under mysterious circumstances,” Musk posted on Twitter, โitโs been nice knowin ya.โ
The combative deputy defense minister elevated by Putin to reign over Roscosmos had lashed out at the creator of the planetโs greatest constellation of satellites for allowing Ukraineโs armed defenders to link up nationwide via their hyper-tech, ultra-mobile SpaceX Starlink dishes.
A SpaceX rocket launches Starlink satellites from the Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. … [+]Getty Images
โIt turns out that the internet terminals of Elon Muskโs Starlink satellite company were delivered to the militants โฆ by military helicopters,โ Dmitry Rogozin, then Director General of Roscosmos, charged in a fantastical falsehood. โThe delivery of the Starlink equipment was carried out by the Pentagon. Elon Musk, thus, is involved in supplying the fascist forces in Ukraine with military communication equipment. And for this, Elon, you will be held accountable.โ
So started the fusillade of threats against Musk that would explode over the next two years – from Kremlin calls to deploy anti-satellite missiles against his mega-constellation to warning the use of Starlinks to stage attacks on occupied Crimea could impel Russia to detonate a nuclear bomb in Ukraine.
Russia has deployed its advanced Su-34 fighter-bombers to seek out and destroy SpaceX Starlink … [+]AFP via Getty Images
Yet in a story that has ricocheted around the world, The Wall Street Journal reported last week that: โElon Musk, the worldโs richest man and a linchpin of U.S. space efforts, has been in regular contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin since late 2022.โ
In the dramatically titled โElon Muskโs Secret Conversations With Vladimir Putin,โ the five WSJ reporters who penned the article didnโt identify any of their sources by name or even government title, rather citing โseveral current and former U.S., European and Russian officials.โ
โKnowledge of Muskโs Kremlin contacts appears to be a closely held secret in government,โ they reported. โSeveral White House officials said they werenโt aware of them.โ
โOne person aware of the conversations,โ they wrote, conceded that โno alerts have been raised by the administration over possible security breaches by Musk.โ
As a whirlwind of press reports based on the WSJ article swept across the continents, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida issued a statement criticizing Muskโs trial by media: โAnybody who has contracts with the U.S. government undergoes a constant review for security background and clearances.โ
โI will tell you that without SpaceX, I don’t know how we’re going to rescue our astronauts that are stuck in space,โ Senator Rubio stated. โAll that said, I can’t opine on whether Musk called Putin or not, because I don’t know, and he’s a private citizen. If that imperils his clearance, there’s a process for all of that. Itโs not through the media โฆ.โ
One reporter probably has closer insights than anyone else on Muskโs attempts to shield himself and SpaceX from the bombardment of Kremlin threats while balancing his dealings with the major players in the life and death struggle over the Ukraine invasion: Walter Isaacson, Muskโs hand-picked biographer, became embedded in the SpaceX inner circle for two years as he crafted his blockbuster book Elon Musk, even as Russian tanks and missile brigades began crashing across the border to spearhead their invasion.
Isaacson, whoโs scripted a series of bestselling bios on world-changing figures like Albert Einstein and Steve Jobs, reveals in the memoir that late one evening in September of 2022, Musk frantically contacted him to tell him about Russiaโs just-issued threat to explode a nuclear warhead in Ukraine – in revenge for a planned attack using submarine drones, guided by Starlink technology, against the Russian fleet stationed in occupied Crimea.
In an excerpt from the book, โThe untold story of Elon Muskโs support for Ukraine,โ published in the Washington Post, Isaacson disclosed that Russiaโs ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Antonov, had just warned Musk the Kremlin would use the most powerful weapons in its arsenal if the drone subs hit its navy.
โThe ambassador had explicitly told him [Musk] that a Ukrainian attack on Crimea would lead to a nuclear response,โ Isaacson recounted.
Musk, in turn, refused Ukrainian appeals to extend the coverage of the Starlink system to reach Crimeaโs port, the headquarters of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, to carry out the planned Pearl Harbor-style assault.
While engaging in backstage diplomacy with the Russian envoy to forestall a nuclear strike, Musk also shot off an urgent message – via Twitter – to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky:โTrying to retake Crimea will cause massive death, probably fail & risk nuclear war.โ
The SpaceX leader also rushed to brief White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and General Mark Milley, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the looming crisis, Isaacson reported.
At that time, President Joe Biden and his security team projected that the likelihood of Russia unleashing a nuclear bomb in Ukraine had risen sharply, according to reporting by The New York Times.
โPresident Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has repeatedly threatened the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine, including during a crisis in October 2022, when Mr. Biden and his aides, looking at intercepts of conversations between senior Russian commanders, feared the likelihood of nuclear use might rise to 50 percent or even higher,โ the Times reported.
Elon Musk raced to brief White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and General Mark … [+]Getty Images
Could Muskโs moves to deescalate the conflict, via his backchannel talks with Ambassador Antonov and limits on the use of Starlinks by Ukraineโs democratic resistance, have been one factor in tipping the balance in favor of Russia freezing its plan to deploy tactical nuclear weapons?
Musk came under fire in the U.S. for placing limits on Ukraineโs weaponization of Starlink navigation and guidance technology, but it remains a puzzle whether that helped prevent a Russian nuclear strike.
His placing territorial restrictions on the use of SpaceX Starlink technology by Ukraineโs resistance paralleled the White House ban on using American weapons to hit targets inside Russia, says Ron Gurantz, an associate professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.
Professor Gurantz, an expert on space power and security, states in a paper for the U.S. Armyโs Strategic Studies Institute that Musk โdecided not to activate Starlink because he worried such an attack could cause escalation, or perhaps even nuclear war, between Russia and the United States.โ
โWould the US government have made the same decision?โ
The U.S. had similarly held back on supplying Ukraine with weapons that could reach Crimea, Professor Gurantz reported in his fascinating, just-released study, โSatellites in the Russia-Ukraine War.โ
โMoreover, recent reports suggest the Biden-Harris administration was extremely worried at the time about a scenario in which a Ukrainian offensive against Crimea could provoke Russia to use nuclear weapons.โ
โThe decision to limit Starlink,โ Gurantz concluded, โmay not have been different if government officials had been involved.โ
Kevin Holden Platt covers world-leading breakthroughs in science and hyper-technology.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
In response, international nuclear agencies and governments adopted stringent standards for reactor design, operator training, and emergency protocols …
… nuclear war. โWhether people support or oppose nuclear weapons, they deserve to know what the consequences of nuclear use are. An independent fact …
These insights are essential not only for informed nuclear policy and decision-making but also to educate citizens around the world about the risks of …
I love the opening paragraph in this article from โNPRโ . . . It echoes my own thoughts and concerns exactly. And then there is the 2nd article I have added on to this one today that makes one wonder if โBig Techโ and their โAIโ want to power-up the new style SMRs (Small Modular Reactors), not with the limited typical 5% nuclear fuel of the past, but with up to 20% nuclear fuel, or, in other words, nuclear bomb power potential. Apparently technical data corporations have lost control of their sanity, or AI has already taken over . . . ~llaw
Article 1: (from the Article: Why does this sound like the plot to some end of the world movie where AI and nuclear power get together?
Tech companies look to renewable energy to power AI
By Dara Kerr,
A Martรญnez
Published October 29, 2024 at 3:28 AM MDT
A MARTรNEZ, HOST:
There is an arms race for artificial intelligence. Every major tech company is working on it. The downside? Well, AI uses a lot of energy, far more than your typical web search. Now some companies are planning to bring back a surprising source of energy – nuclear power. NPR tech reporter Dara Kerr is here to talk about it. Dara, why does this sound like the plot to some end of the world movie where AI and nuclear power get together?
DARA KERR, BYLINE: Yes, this is about AI’s energy usage, and all the companies are working on AI right now, and it just eats up power. For example, a ChatGPT query uses about 10 times as much energy as a Google search. And that energy mostly comes from traditional power plants, which, as we know, are highly polluting. And they release greenhouse gases into the air. So the tech companies are looking at alternative power sources to help fuel their AI. Earlier this month, Amazon and Google both announced they’re investing in small nuclear reactors. And another big tech company, Microsoft, says it’s planning to revive Three Mile Island. You remember Three Mile Island, right? It’s that power plant in Pennsylvania that infamously had a partial meltdown in the ’70s.
MARTรNEZ: I do remember Three Mile Island. Wow. So why are they doing this?
KERR: All of the tech companies say they’re doing this to help meet their climate goals. All of the top five tech companies have the ambitious goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2030. That includes Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook parent Meta. So nuclear energy doesn’t release greenhouse gases. It also doesn’t burn fossil fuels like coal and gas, and fossil fuels are the primary driver of climate change. And unlike other renewable energies such as wind and solar, nuclear delivers a lot of energy all of the time. And that’s important to these companies who need huge amounts of power 24/7 to feed their AI.
MARTรNEZ: So it sounds like a good thing for addressing climate change. I mean, how long will all this take?
KERR: That’s the thing, A. It’s expected to take at least a decade or even more. Building nuclear reactors or reviving old ones like Three Mile Island is expensive and time-consuming. They’re heavily regulated to ensure safety, and that means everything takes a while. And these small, modular power plants that Amazon and Google are looking at are really a different kind of technology. We don’t have any operating in the U.S. yet. I spoke to Ivy Main, who’s been researching the energy usage of data centers for years. She says she’s skeptical of these companies’ plans.
IVY MAIN: One of the problems here is that the demand is now. And these small, modular reactors, assuming they pan out, are 10 years from now. So this is a situation of, I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.
KERR: Main says a fix for AI energy consumption needs to come now, not in several years.
MARTรNEZ: I love the Wimpy reference from the Popeye cartoons. Now, you know, in the meantime, are tech companies looking at other types of renewable energy?
KERR: Yes. So all of the major tech companies use solar and wind power in at least some of their data centers, but solar and wind aren’t reliable 24/7. They’re also looking at other types of renewables. Google, for example, is working with a startup in Nevada that uses geothermal heat as an energy source. But a lot of these companies’ climate change commitments came before the AI boom. Both Google and Microsoft say their emissions have skyrocketed over the last couple of years, and they attribute that specifically to AI. And that’s the tension, A. These data centers that fuel AI are creating a lot of pollution right now, and the proposed solutions are years on the horizon.
MARTรNEZ: That’s NPR’s Dara Kerr. Thank you very much.
KERR: Thank you.
(SOUNDBITE OF THE AMERICAN ANALOG SET “(THEME FROM) EVERYTHING ENDS”) Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPRโs programming is the audio record.
Dara Kerr
Dara Kerr is a tech reporter for NPR. She examines the choices tech companies make and the influence they wield over our lives and society.
A Martรญnez
A Martรญnez is one of the hosts of Morning Edition and Up First. He came to NPR in 2021 and is based out of NPR West.
Article 2: (Whoever said nuclear fuel is โcleanโ doesnโt have a clue. It is the most dirty and dangerous fuel on planet Earth. It is the stuff of nuclear bombs . . . llaw)
Oklo CEO wants to make clean nuclear energy more accessible
Energy and power grid constraints look to be the biggest hurdles for Big Tech to overcome in the industry’s wider buildout of AI data center infrastructure. Tech players have begun investing in nuclear energy developers to find the clean energy output needed to power these expansions.
Oklo Co-Founder and CEO Jake DeWitte joins Julie Hyman and Josh Lipton on Market Domination to talk about the long-term investments in small modular reactors (SMR) and the intricacies of these systems; Oklo doesn’t expect to finish building its first SMR and producing power from it until 2027.
“When you split an atom, you get almost 50 million-times more energy than when you combust like a molecule of natural gas or so. It’s incredible,” DeWitte tells Yahoo Finance. “What that means, then, is there’s a lot of energy in nuclear fuel. And actually in almost all reactors, you only use about 5% of the fuel in one pass through the reactor. And there’s reasons why long story short, is you could put more fuel in, it could run for longer. But that comes at increased cost for the added systems you would need to manage all that.”
US Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm told Yahoo Finance that her department’s focus will be on ensuring these AI data centers are powered by clean energy, while understanding the challenge in widespread SMR adoption: “Nobody wants to be the one to buy the first one.”
Oklo has already inked energy partnerships with date center providersw Equinix (EQIX) and Wyoming Hyperscale. DeWitte describes the regular business model for nuclear systems as “clunky.”
“One of the things that we set out to do in the beginning was, was make it easier to buy what people really want from nuclear systems, in other words, make it easier to buy nuclear power because the clean, reliable, affordable power, that’s the stuff people really want,” DeWitte explains.
“We’re unique because we actually make that easy โ we design, we own, we operate the plants, we contract someone to build them, and then we just sell the power out to the customers through off-take agreements. That makes it easy for them to buy what they want.”
For more coverage on Big Tech’s adoption of nuclear energy, catch Yahoo Finance’s respective interviews with X-energy CEO Clay Sell about Amazon’s (AMZN) investment into the nuclear reactor designer and Kairos Power Co-Founder and CEO Mike Laufer’s input on the nuclear startup’s partnership with Alphabet’s Google (GOOG, GOOGL).
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
More than 1,000 troops had been deployed to the province to help with the emergency response, the Military Emergencies … nuclear power plant ยท Explore …
โGiven the growing geopolitical tensions and the emergence of new external threats and risks, it is important to have modern and constantly ready-to- …
… nuclear response to an enemy first strike. Advertisement. โGiven the growing geopolitical tensions and the emergence of new external threats and risks
A NEST AgustaWestland 139 helicopter equipped with special radiation monitoring equipment on display during the team’s 50th anniversary celebration at Joint Base Andrews. The helicopters, which measure radiation by flying low and slowly, are deliberately painted with a civilian color scheme to avoid the “black helicopter” stereotype.
In addition to the following article on secret nuclear health and safety investigations, there is another story in todayโs blog that will emphasize that this job will become an international effort of great importance if SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) are eventually spread around the world, especially dealing with the control of nuclear terrorism, that I discussed in my recent post #792 on on Saturday, October 26th, concerning tyrannical and terrorist elements as well as avoiding a โblack marketโ for nuclear fuel, all of which goes far beyond health and safety, and which is already more than enough danger to humanity. ~llaw
The related story, which offers the potential โbright sideโ of SMR nuclear energy without considering the more-than-obvious โdark sideโ, link is available in the Nuclear Power section of TODAYโS NUCLEAR WORLDโS NEWS, Tuesday, (10/29/2024), from You Tube titled,Small modular reactors could give developing countries access to nuclear energy
Meet America’s secret team of nuclear first responders
Members of the Nuclear Emergency Support Team training for a radiological contamination scenario. For 50 years, the secretive team has been the first line of defense against nuclear emergencies.
NNSA
In an aircraft hangar at Joint Base Andrews, just outside of Washington, DC, one of the governmentโs most secretive groups gathered recently to celebrate its 50th anniversary.
Though there were drinks, cake and speeches, right from the start, it was clear this was not an ordinary birthday party.
โPlease note that this is an unclassified event, so please understand that there is a lot that our people are not going to be able to discuss,โ Rick Christensen, the director of the National Nuclear Security Administrationโs office of nuclear incident response told the small crowd sitting in folding chairs.
The group is known as the Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST). Itโs made primarily of people who work elsewhere in the governmentโscientists, federal law enforcement personnel, and regulatorsโwho all take time out of their day jobs to prepare for a nuclear incident. Think of it as a volunteer fire department โ except the volunteers have high-level security clearances and they respond to nuclear threats.
NEST has always kept a low profile because almost everything it does related to nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism is classified, and because it doesnโt want to alarm people.
But in an era when the Pentagon says the world is facing new nuclear threats and challenges, the group is trying to be slightly more open about its mission.
โWe are always ready, 24-7, and always prepared to deploy,โ says Wendin Smith, the Deputy Under Secretary for Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation at the Department of Energy, which runs NEST. She hopes talking more openly about the mission might help people feel more assured, as well as deter adversaries who may be out to cause nuclear mayhem.
It all began in 1974, when a person going by the name โCaptain Midnightโ threatened to set off a nuclear bomb somewhere in Boston unless they were paid $200,000.
Government scientists from the nationโs nuclear weapons laboratories rushed to an airbase near Boston, but missed flights and problems with their equipment meant they never actually entered the city. The crisis ended when the FBI left a bag containing phony bills at the ransom spot, but nobody came. The incident was deemed a hoax, according to the 2009 book Defusing Armageddon, which details the history of the NEST group.
Then-president Gerald Ford was appalled, and six months later the government created NEST to aid in the response to, โlost or stolen nuclear weapons and special nuclear materials, nuclear bomb threats, and radiation dispersal threats,โ according to the secret memorandum that set up the team.
It quickly found work. In 1978, NEST deployed in Canadaโs remote Northwest Territories to recover debris from a crashed Soviet reconnaissance satellite that was powered by uranium. A year later, NEST helicopters circled over the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, after one of the plantโs reactors partially melted down. At the time, little was known about how much radiation had leaked from the plant, and it was NEST who helped collect the necessary data to guide evacuation orders.
In 2011, NEST experts and equipment flew to Fukushima, Japan, after a nuclear power plant there melted down and spewed a plume of radioactivity across the countryside.
The mission was โto help the Japanese government understand what is being released from the damaged reactors, and where is that plume going, where is it deposited on the ground,โ says Jay Tilden, the DOEโs head of intelligence and counterintelligence who until recently ran NEST.
NEST does more than survey areas for radioactivity. Teams also train to search for and disarm nuclear weapons that are lost or damaged. And they learn how to evaluate other terrorist threatsโfor example, using nuclear material to make a so-called โdirty bomb.โ
Thereโs less that can be openly discussed about those missions, but, Tilden says, NEST doesnโt want to be seen as a shadowy government agency flying around in black helicopters. In fact, when the group purchased new helicopters a few years ago, he explicitly avoided the color.
A NEST AgustaWestland 139 helicopter equipped with special radiation monitoring equipment on display during the team’s 50th anniversary celebration at Joint Base Andrews. The helicopters, which measure radiation by flying low and slowly, are deliberately painted with a civilian color scheme to avoid the “black helicopter” stereotype.
NNSA
โWe didnโt even want them dark gray because they look military,โ he says. โWe wanted to be very distinct. Weโre a civil agency and when those aircraft are flying theyโre flying largely for a public health and safety mission.โ
The aircraft have a two-toned, blue-and-gray color scheme, and the government agents who fly them around arenโt exactly men in black either. They are folks like Jacqueline Brandon, a physical chemist who works as a mission manager for NEST.
โWhen I found out as a scientist I get to fly in a helicopter and do real national security missions, I was like, ‘sign me up right away!’ โ Brandon recalls.
Her job is to sit in the back of the helicopter scanning for signs of radioactivity as the helicopter flies low to the ground.
โTo me itโs like a rollercoaster ride, I love it,โ she says.
Constantly watching
Sheโs airborne a lot. This year alone, NEST aircraft have flown above the Super Bowl, the Boston Marathon and both Democratic and Republican National Conventions. Part of their job is to monitor large events like these even when thereโs no specific threat.
And then thereโs the calls they havenโt planned for.
โThey happen periodically,โ she says. When they do, โweโll pack up all of our gear and be up and be in the air in four hours and flying over whatever weโre trying to fly over.โ
Brandon didnโt want to get into too many specifics about what might spur a NEST team into action, but Smith, the current head of NEST, was willing to talk in broad strokes.
NEST scientist Jacqueline Brandon displays radiation detection equipment inside one of NEST’s helicopters. “When I found out as a scientist I get to fly in a helicopter and do real national security missions, I was like sign me up right away,” she says.
G. Brumfiel/NPR
โWe donโt provide the details but I would say on a weekly basis thereโs either an unknown event that triggers the deployment of a NEST team or a question from a local responder,โ she says.
Smith says nuclear materials are more a part of daily life than most people may realize. Theyโre used in oil and gas drilling, and in a lot of medical applications. Sometimes people are even injected with radioactive dye to aid with medical imaging.
In fact, somebody with radioactive dye in their body caused a recent NEST response. A team was called out after local police found a radioactive puddle in a fast food parking lot somewhere in America.
Smith says they quickly identified the source. โIf somebody doesnโt use a public restroom and happens to alleviate their need in a parking lot, then that can cause a troubled signature if there is indeed an isotope, a medical isotope involved,โ she says.
Of course NEST prepares for far worse. Smith is less open about those dark scenarios, but she says, โthe fact that people understand that NEST exists…is important to help people sleep at night.”
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
Reactor operators and shift supervisors, including Shift Engineer Simon Thomas, complete this startup sequence routinely to achieve criticality. Read …
The caldera is relatively small by Yellowstone standards and is nested within the much larger 75x 45 km (47 x 29 miles), 631,000-year-old Yellowstone …
During the two years that Iโve been constantly railing about the inevitability of nuclear power plants โmagicallyโ becoming nuclear war weapons of mass destruction, this is the first responsible public article (other than reports from the IAEA) to my knowledge to echo my fears.
This extremely critically dangerous situation that the greater news media and the entire nuclear world remains oblivious to, or perhaps fiscally unwilling to report on, the nuclear war associated-implications. Instead they simply stick to the nuclear โaccidentโ excuses. Anyone who knows anything about nuclear power plants clearly understands, whether they will admit it or not, that nuclear power plants are sitting ducks waiting to be used as weapons of mass destruction in nuclear war . . .
These well-voiced concerns come from Australia, historically one of the most anti-nuclear countries on the planet along with its territorial neighbor, New Zealand. These countries have always had their common sense about โall things nuclearโ in high gear, and I hope they keep it forefront in their minds as Australia considers the idea of allowing commercial nuclear power plants in their country. ~llaw
War risks from nuclear power plants? Just look at Zaporizhzhia
Proposals for nuclear power in Australia will have to take national security risks into account.
As evidenced in an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report released in September, Russiaโs occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine continues to create high risk of a nuclear disaster. In considering future conflicts, no one can safely assume that an enemy will avoid targeting nuclear power stations.
Russian President Vladimir Putinโs repeated threats to use nuclear weapons and new nuclear doctrine are alarming. But, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky warned at the United Nations on 25 September, the immediate nuclear risk is at Zaporizhzhia.
The Zaporizhzhia plant has been on or near the frontline since the Russian invasion in February 2022, exposed to nearby combat and, since Russian seizure in March 2022, dangerous mismanagement. There is significant risk of an accidental or intentional nuclear incident at the plant.
It is no longer tenable to argue that nuclear power plants are protected in conflicts by taboo. This must be considered as the Australian Liberal-National opposition proposes building seven major nuclear power plants and two small modular reactors in Australia.
The IAEA, the global nuclear watchdog, has been clear on the risks associated with the Zaporizhzhia plant. As established in the most recent and earlier reports, Russiaโs actions during the conflict have either partially or fully compromised all seven of the IAEAโs โindispensable pillarsโ of nuclear security. Notably, this framework was developed only in response to the invasion of Ukraine and Russiaโs unprecedented wartime targeting and occupation of nuclear facilities.
Physical integrity (Pillar 1) and safety and security systems (Pillar 2) have been compromised by damage to the plant from direct attacks and nearby combat. The plant was first shelled in March 2022 when Russia seized control. More recently, on 27 June, an external radiation monitoring system 16km away was destroyed by shellingโwhich also compromised radiation monitoring and emergency preparedness (Pillar 6).
Drone strikes targeted the plant in April and July, and IAEA monitoring teams at the plant reported nearby explosions as recently as September. In August, fires at the plant coincided with the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk, with large amounts of smoke billowing from a cooling tower.
In 2023, Russia conducted unauthorised structural changes and Russian forces even stored explosives in proximity to a nuclear reactor. Additionally, anti-personnel mines were also laid between the plantโs inner and outer fences in 2022, and more mines were laid in January 2024.
The capacity of operating staff, (Pillar 3) has been affected by the treatment of Ukrainian employees at the plant, including physical violence and torture, some fatal, by occupying Russian military and security forces. Workers have also been denied access to critical security systems and exposed to high stress. The chain of command has become unclear, resulting in conflicting messages to workers.
Shelling and other damage to the nearby city of Enerhodar has left workers and their families in poor living conditions, intermittently without power or fresh water supply. By early 2024, Ukrainian employees were reportedly no longer permitted at the facility. It is now operating with a personnel shortage: the plant has about 5000 workers, down from the pre-war peak of 11,000. In May, remaining staff were reporting severe psychological stress.
Russia has also weakened the facilityโs necessary off-site power supply (Pillar 4). Since Russia tried to connect it to the Russian energy grid, the plant has lost three 750kV power lines and five of its 330kV backup power lines. It now operates with one of each and has suffered eight complete losses of off-site power. External power supply is essential to secure operation of the plant and continued operation of safety systems. In early 2024, the plant went 23 consecutive days without a backup connection.
As for Pillar 5 (an uninterrupted supply chain), the IAEA has reported the plantโs fragile logistics for spare or replacement parts and safety equipment. This is in part due to reliance on equipment from Western suppliers. Pillar 7, the requirement for reliable communications, has been compromised by the limitations on communication between the plant and the Ukrainian energy grid operator.
Additional threats have come from the destruction of the Kakhovka dam in June 2023, an event that is widely attributed to Russia. This reduced water supply to the Zaporizhzhia plant for cooling reactors and spent fuel.
Russia has targeted other Ukrainian nuclear facilities, too. The Institute of Physics and Technology in Kharkiv, which housed a small experimental reactor, was destroyed from the air in March 2022. Moscow has also continually spread disinformation and stoked nuclear fears, most recently regarding the security of the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant after the Ukrainian advance into the region.
This is a lesson on the vulnerability of nuclear infrastructure during a conflict. Political leaders and policymakers must pay attention to it as they consider domestic energy policy.
Author
Henry Campbell is the strategic engagement and program manager of ASPIโs Northern Australian Strategic Policy Centre (NASPC), Strategic Policing and Law Enforcement Program and Counterterrorism Program.
Image of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant during an IAEA visit in 2023: IAEA Imagebank/Flickr.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are no Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
Building a 21st-century media company: The traditional media industry continues to be disrupted by everything from new streaming networks to creators …
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also reviewed the capabilities of nuclear plant operators to recognize, classify and communicate simulated emergency …
An interesting โ and more than valid today โ point of view from โModern Diplomacyโ and author Prof. Louis Renรฉ Beres from a comment made in reference to the the use of the 1st atomic bombs used against Japan from physicist, Leo Szilard, who was a team member of the United Statesโ Manhattan Project.
May I just say, today, โThe โhiveโ is much larger these days.โ ~llaw
Survival Limits of Military Nuclear Power: Israel and โThe Sting of the Beeโ
Even while Israel remains the only regional atomic power, a nuclear war with the Islamic Republic remains possible.
In a now classic 1965 article on nuclear weapons,[1] physicist Leo Szilard offered a clarifying metaphor on different types of national nuclear capability. For some situations, the Manhattan Project physicist explained, belligerent use of nuclear ordnance could become self-annihilating. Recalling that one type of honey bee dies after it has stung, Szilard proceeded to identify certain โweakerโ nuclear states as those with โsting of the beeโ survival limits.
Such imaginative characterizations remain relevant to world politics. Were he writing today about possible Russian or North Korean interventions on behalf of Iran, Szilard would likely caution Israel that even its most powerful nuclear weapons could be immobilized by such surrogate foes. In essence, Szilard would warn Israel against ever being reduced to โbee stingโ nuclear status. Following Israelโs October 26 self-defense retaliations against Iranian aggression โ lawful counter-attacks against an enemy displaying continuously criminal intent or mens rea โ this would be an appropriate warning.
For Israelโs senior military planners, issues of Iranian nuclearization are already dense and soon-to-be opaque. Even while Israel remains the only regional atomic power, a nuclear war with the Islamic Republic remains possible. More precisely, even a pre-nuclear Iran could bring Israel to the point where Jerusalemโs only strategic options would be intolerable capitulations or nuclear escalations. In effect, the second option would represent an โasymmetrical nuclear war.โ
Would Israel allow itself to reach such an โall-or-nothingโ decisional precipice? Though there are several persuasive answers, all that really matters is that Jerusalem consider this chilling prospect with attention to force-multiplying intersections and โsynergies.โ Accordingly, a one-sided nuclear war scenario should come to mind in which Iran would target Israelโs Dimona nuclear reactor and/or employ radiation dispersal weapons against the Jewish State. Unique escalations could also follow in the wake of an Iranian resort to biological or electromagnetic pulse (EMP) ordnance. In a next-to-worst-case scenario, Israel would be prevented from striking preemptively against designated Iranian targets by Russian and/or North Korean nuclear threats. The worst-case scenario would be a โbolt-from-the-blue nuclear attack launched by Russia or North Korea (or both together).
Where does Jerusalem actually stand on such existential challenges? Looking toward its steadily-expanding conflict with Iran, any โone-offโ preemption against Iranian weapons and infrastructures (an act of โanticipatory self-defenseโ under international law) would be problematic. At this late stage, any such defensive action would need to be undertaken in increments and during an ongoing war. In 2003, when this writerโs Project Daniel Group[2] presented its early report on Iranian nuclearization to then-Israeli PM Ariel Sharon, Iranian targets had already become more daunting than had been Iraqโs Osiraq reactor on June 7, 1981 (โOperation Operaโ).
What next? There is a revealing strategic dialectic. During any expanding war against Iran, Israel could calculate that it has no choice but to launch multiple and mutually-reinforcing preemptive strikes against specific enemy targets.
At the same time, Russian and/or North Korean threats of support for Iran could lay the groundwork for a multi-state nuclear war, one that could come to involve the United States and/or China. While it might be tempting to claim such jaw-dropping interventions as โspeculativeโ or โunlikely,โ there is no science-based way to estimate the probabilities of any unique event. True probabilities can never be determined ex nihilo, or โout of nothing.โ
There would be variously important qualifications. To the extent that they might still be usefully estimated, the risks of an Israel-Iran nuclear war will depend on whether such a conflict would be intentional, unintentional, or accidental. Apart from applying this critical three-part distinction, there could be no adequate reason to expect operationally-gainful strategic assessments of any such war. Ensuring existential protections from openly declared Iranian aggressions, Jerusalem should always bear in mind that even the Jewish Stateโs physical survival can never be โguaranteed.โ At some point, even a nuclear weapons state could be left with only โthe sting of the bee.โ
There are further nuances. An unintentional or inadvertent nuclear war between Jerusalem and Teheran could take place not only as the result of misunderstandings or miscalculations between rational leaders, but also as the unintended consequence of mechanical, electrical, or computer malfunction. This should bring to analyzing Israeli minds a further distinction between an unintentional/inadvertent nuclear war and an accidental nuclear war. Though all accidental nuclear wars must be unintentional, not every unintentional nuclear war would need to occur by accident. On one occasion or another, an unintentional or inadvertent nuclear war could be the result of fundamental human misjudgments about enemy intentions. This catastrophic result could be both irremediable and irreversible.
History matters. An authentic nuclear war has never been fought. There are no genuine experts on โconductingโ or โwinningโ a nuclear war. Reciprocally, Jerusalem ought always to disavow strategic counsel drawn from โcommon sense.โ Complicated strategic problems can never be solved by โseat-of-the-pantsโ judgments or glaringly empty witticisms, For Israel, nothing could prove more important than to understand this imperative and to reserve complex nuclear calculations to small cadres of โhigh thinkers.โ We are speaking here of the caliber of Szilard, Fermi, Oppenheimer, Einstein, Bohr and assorted others, not to make another โgadget,โ but to plan for nuclear deterrent success via calculated non-use. All such urgent planning should be initiated on a theoretical level; it is not a task for conceptually unfortified operational designs.
There is more. Providing for Israeli national security amid a still-nuclearizing Iran ought never to become an ad-hoc โgameโ of chance. Without a suitably long-term, systematic and theory-based plan in place, Israel would render itself unprepared for an Iranian nuclear conflict that is deliberate, unintentional or accidental. At every stage of its lethal competition with Tehran, Jerusalem should never lose sight of the only sensible rationale for maintaining its national nuclear weapons and doctrine. That justification is (1) stable war management at all identifiable levels; and (2) reliable nuclear deterrence.
More than anything else, Israelโs strategic plans should include a prompt policy shift from โdeliberate nuclear ambiguityโ to โselective nuclear disclosure.โ The core logic of this shift would not be to simply reframe the obvious (i.e., that Israel is already a nuclear power), but to remind would-be aggressors that Jerusalemโs nuclear weapons are operationally usable at all imaginable levels of warfare. Nonetheless, even with optimal prudential planning, Russian and/or North Korean threats to Israel could sometime become overwhelming. Ipso facto, Jerusalem will need to remain prepared for all plausibly related scenarios.
Reduced to its essentials, an authentically worst case scenario for Israel would commence with progressively explicit threats from Moscow about Israeli preemption costs. Israel, aware that it could not reasonably expect to coexist indefinitely with a nuclear Iran, would proceed with its planned preemptions in spite of the dire Russian warnings. In subsequent response, Russian military forces would begin to act directly against Israel, thereby seeking to persuade Jerusalem that Moscow is in a patently superior position to dominate all conceivable escalations. Alternatively, Putin could delegate such military responsibilities to North Korea, an Iranian ally that is presently preparing (within Russia) to augment Russian military forces against Ukraine.
For Vladimir Putin, such persuasive effort would not be a โhard sell.โ Unless the United States were willing to enter the already-chaotic situation with unambiguously support for Israel, Moscow should have no foreseeable difficulties in establishing โescalation dominance.โ In this connection, well-intentioned supporters of Israel could over-estimate the Jewish Stateโs relative nuclear capabilities and options. Significantly, there is no clear way in which the capabilities and options of a state smaller than Americaโs Lake Michigan could actually โwinโ at competitive risk-taking vis-ร -vis Russia or North Korea. For Israel, in such unprecedented matters, self-deflating candor would be much safer than self-deluding bravado. As a strategic objective, Israelโs avoidance of โbee stingโ nuclear capacity would be indispensable.
What about the United States? Would an American president accept an alliance commitment that could place millions of Americans in positons of grievous vulnerability? For those most part, the answer would lie with the character and inclinations of the American leader. It this president would visibly assume the long-term benefits of honoring US security guarantees, the world could be looking at another Cuban Missile Crisis or some similar confrontation. If, however, this president would take the openly-stated position of candidate Donald Trump concerning Russiaโs aggression against Ukraine (โLet Putin do whatever the hell he wantsโ),[3] Jerusalem could have no choice but to accept a nuclear Iran. After all, a military confrontation with Russia would be one in which Israel could not reasonably expect to prevail.
There are additionally important issuers of nuclear doctrine. In his continuing war of aggression and genocide against Ukraine, Vladimir Putin has been recycling provocative elements of Soviet-era strategic thinking. One critical element concerns the absence of any apparent โfirebreakโ between conventional and tactical nuclear force engagements. Now, much as it was during the โclassicalโ era of US-Soviet nuclear deterrence, Moscow identifies the determinative escalatory threshold with a first-use of high-yield, long-range strategic nuclear weapons, not a first use of tactical (theater) nuclear weapons.
But this perilous nuclear escalation doctrine is not shared by Israelโs United States ally, and could erode any once-stabilizing barriers of intra-war deterrence between the original superpowers. Whether sudden or incremental, any such erosion could impact the plausibility of both a deliberate and inadvertent nuclear war. As Israel could need to depend on firm US support in countering Russian nuclear threats, Vladimir Putin should be granted a prominent place in Israelโs threat assessments of Iranian nuclear progress. In principle, at least, this place ought even to be preeminent.
For Israel, the bottom-line of such dialectical analysis is an invariant obligation to analyze still-pertinent preemptionโoptions as an intellectual task. Among other things, reaching rational judgments on defensive first strikes against a still pre-nuclear Iran will require fact-based anticipations of (1) Russian and/or North Korean intentions; and (2) United States willingness to stand by Israel in extremis. Prime facie, Israelโs growing nuclear war hazards include variously tangible scenarios of Russian or North Korean interventions on behalf of Iran. Remembering Leo Szilardโs elucidating metaphor, Jerusalem should consider in its strategic calculations that even with conspicuously refined nuclear weapons and doctrine, Israel could end up with โthe sting of a bee.โ
For the imperiled Jewish State, no such end could be survivable.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are no Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
All Things Considered. Next Up: 6:30 PM Marketplace. 0:00. 0:00. All Things … There has been worry leading up to this that Israel might try to strike …
The No. 2 unit at Tohoku Electric Power’s Onagawa nuclear power … Some emergency power generators at the plant stopped functioning due to damage from …
At the same time, Russian and/or North Korean threats of support for Iran could lay the groundwork for a multi-state nuclear war, one that could come …
… threats by the Biden administration about weapons transfers if the … First, Jerusalem had more legitimacy to attack the nuclear program than at any …
All you have to do to understand the efficacy of this article is to simply read these two sentences in the article below: โTrumpโs position is also vague. In an interview with Elon Musk in August 2024, Trump confused nuclear power with nuclear weapons.โ
The rest is boilerplate information about nuclear power โ what it is, how itโs regulated, how it functions, and know and understand that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has an important duty to prevent and protect the American population from killing off itself with nuclear radiation from nuclear power generation. Unfortunately there is nothing the NRC can do about nuclear war.
Nuclear war is not the issue in this article, of course, but there is also valid reason to recognize and consider that nuclear power plants in both Russia and Ukraine are seriously involved as potential nuclear weapons in the war between the two countries. There is also the caution, or even fear of, creating an exclusive hoard of new nuclear power proliferation with dozens or hundreds of dangerous AI (Artificial Intelligence) by and of itself, poorly regulated and controlled SMRโs (Small Modular Reactors), and other new nuclear power facilities that dramatically increase the possibility of serious lethal nuclear accidents.
But beyond nuclear accidents, there is also a serious security issue connected, not only with accidents, including the HALEU or nuclear fuel, for these projected new power stations, including theft for the โblack-marketโ selling of enriched uranium for building nuclear weapons to be used for threats of terrorism, authoritarianism, autocratic control, despotism, or coercive tyranny, or even terrorism itself. ~llaw
Will the Next President Get Nuclear Right?
The next administrationโs energy challenge may be catching up with the homework assigned by the current one
Oct 25, 2024
Nuclear energy doesnโt usually figure prominently in Presidential elections. It doesnโt rank high on the list of concerns for most votersโlike inflation, reproductive rights, or managing the Mexican borderโand a candidate who promises to get more reactors built wonโt necessarily win a lot of extra votes. On the other hand, there are votes to be lost, among the โweโre-all-gonna-dieโ anti-nuclear crowd that still turns out at demonstrations now and then.
The nuts and bolts of implementing laws on the books that would help nuclear energyโthat is, the administrationโs actual business of administeringโmay be a more important issue.
Neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump has said a lot about nuclear energy. In 2020, the Washington Post attempted to list the position of each candidate in the Democratic primaries on nuclear energy. It put Harris in the category of โUnclear/no response.โ As a Senator, Harris voted against the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act in committee, citing safety concerns about the San Onofre reactors. More recently, at a September 25th campaign event in Pittsburgh, Harris listed nuclear among other clean energy technologies.
Trumpโs position is also vague. In an interview with Elon Musk in August 2024, Trump confused nuclear power with nuclear weapons. His campaign website states:
President Trump will support nuclear energy production, which reached a record high during his administration, by modernizing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, working to keep existing power plants open, and investing in innovative small modular reactors.
It also calls for domestic uranium mining. But carbon dioxide emissions are not a factor; Trump often says that human-caused climate change is a โhoax.โ
There are reasons that each candidate should like nuclear. Harris may like it as part of a climate program, and Trump as part of a nationalistic drive towards energy independence, although the United States has largely achieved this with fracking.
Senator J.D. Vance, Trumpโs running mate, has acknowledged โall these crazy weather patterns,โ and said, โif you really want to make the environment cleaner, you’ve got to invest in more energy production. We haven’t built a nuclear facility, I think one, in the past 40 years.โ Governor Tim Walz, Harrisโs running mate, favored lifting Minnesotaโs moratorium on new reactors.
But effective government is different from attempts at public persuasion. The administration of government programs, especially government contracting for procurement programs and subsidy programs, is governed by a welter of laws and procedures. There are opportunities for both expediting and slow-walking the process. Only time will tell if the next administration is up to the task of modernizing the U.S. nuclear sector for the 21st century.
Once Upon a Time, on the Campaign Trail
But there is not much indication that either candidate is enthusiastic about nuclear.
The last time that nuclear energy figured prominently into a presidential campaign was in 2008, when Senator Barack Obama of Illinois promised Nevada Democrats that he would kill the Yucca Mountain waste repository in exchange for support in his race against Hillary Clinton. He won and he did.
Congress is a different case, and candidates often have something to say about nuclear energy in the areas in which they are running. As the Huffington Post recently pointed out, Democrats running for U.S. Senate in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, and Texas have spoken favorably of nuclear energy, something that is more often heard from Republicans.
But a president doesnโt always have a strong influence over nuclear energy. In the late 1980s, when the Long Island Lighting Company finished the Shoreham nuclear reactor, local governments said it was impossible to meet evacuation requirements and they wanted it shut down. President Reagan, a former paid spokesman for General Electric, which had designed the reactor, worked hard to assure it would open. That didnโt work. The plant operated for a few days of start-up tests and then was decommissioned. New York consumers are still paying the more than $5 billion bill for the project.
There are some policy questions on the horizon. One is the future of the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, which received $2.5 billion under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The program was created to pay half the cost of two advanced reactors, and smaller sums for reactors not as close to commercialization. But since that time, the cost of steel, concrete and labor have all gone up. So too has the cost of borrowing money. The industry is hoping that the Energy Department will โre-baselineโ the amount that the government will match and that Congress will appropriate more.
There are some other presidential decisions ahead. An executive order by Biden, now in force, requires that the Federal governmentโs operations run on clean electricity by 2035, which would create a market for new nuclear. Trump, if elected, seems likely to rescind that order.
But the administration, aside from urging Congress to pass or kill legislation, does more; it also administers the laws that Congress has already passed. And in the last few years, Congress has passed many laws that now require the Department of Energy to issue contracts or write checks to assist nuclear projects, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to reform its operation.
Among the initiatives:
HALEU
Most advanced reactors are designed to run on fuel enriched to nearly 20 percent, in contrast to the 5 percent enrichment that is commonly used now. The fuel is known as High Assay Low-Enriched Uranium, or HALEU. But fuel producers have been reluctant to invest in making that fuel because they are not sure that the advanced reactors will be built. So, Congress told the Energy Department to buy the higher-enriched uranium in an intermediate form suitable for various kinds of reactors to get the ball rolling and then sell it to the owners of advanced reactors.
In January, the Department of Energy announced that it wanted proposals for $2.7 billion in uranium enrichment services. It recently issued a list of four qualified contractors. This is a meaningful step forward, but it has yet to award contracts, negotiate terms, and take delivery. The next administration could slow-walk these steps or speed them up. The pace at which the Energy Department issues requests for proposals, evaluates submissions and makes decisions can be highly variable.
Gen 3+ and SMR:
Almost all contemporary reactors are known as Generation 3, but there are more advanced models that still use low-enriched uranium and ordinary water but are designed to rely more heavily for safety on natural forces like gravity and heat dissipation instead of pumps and valves. Those are known as Gen 3+. Some of these designs are Small Modular Reactors, known as SMRs.
The Energy Department recently announced that it would accept applications until January 17, 2025 to share in $900 million available for 50/50 matching grants to support such projects. It will have to analyze the submissions, choose among them, possibly defend against lawsuits from disappointed applicants, and negotiate terms. The grants will be milestone-based, meaning that the recipients will have to demonstrate, to the Energy Department staffโs satisfaction, that they have met interim goals.
Money for this program has been authorized but not funded. Congress would have to vote to supply the money, which would be easier with support from the White House. Neither candidate has specifically addressed this question.
NRC Modernization
The ADVANCE Act (Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy) prompts the NRC to speed up the licensing of new reactors, including those with technologies that it is not as familiar with. The act also requires the NRC to develop a regulatory framework for fusion, issue guidance on licensing micro-reactors, and increase staff.
The NRC is an independent agency and the changes do not appear to require complicated bidding and contracting, as Energy Department mandates do. But it is notoriously slow to modernize. The commission would probably do better at modernizing if the White House rides herd on the commissioners, pushing, for example, for a workable licensing framework for advanced reactors.
And, with one of the five commission seats becoming vacant every June 30th, the next President will have to decide which nominees to back. Currently, there is one vacancy. The party that holds the White House designates the chair, and usually has dibs over three of the five seats.
With one exceptionโa rogue chairmanโthe White House has historically left the NRC to manage its own affairs. It isnโt clear that a Harris administration would break that pattern. And what Trump would do is even harder to predict.
Who Will Do the Work?
Laws are sometimes harder to implement than to pass. For one thing, it takes an agency that is fully staffed with competent bureaucratsโa real challenge.
Although Trump is proposing to move large numbers of civil servants into a category where he could dismiss them easily, a less obvious problem is filling top jobs that are already in the Presidentโs purview. The Partnership for Public Service and the Washington Post track 817 important jobs that are filled by the President, with Senate confirmation. By their count, in Bidenโs first six months, he nominated 304; Obama nominated 348 and Bush nominated 308. Trump, in contrast, nominated 213.
Anecdotal evidence is that lower-level jobs, many not subject to Senate confirmation, were filled more slowly in the Trump administration than in those of the presidents who preceded him or followed him.
Trump has already opted out of the governmentโs usual transition process, in which both major party candidates send over personnel who get security clearances and are briefed by incumbent officials on major issues. Some of the Department of Energyโs civilian nuclear energy work involves classified information.
But Democratic administrations have trouble getting things done too, and the obstacles to getting money out the door arenโt confined to nuclear. Congress voted massive stimulus bills in 2020 to keep the United States out of recession as the Covid pandemic set in with the CARES act. But two years later, more than $100 billion hadnโt been spent yet. By April of 2024, nearly $92 billion still hadnโt been spent. This was more than a year after President Biden declared that the Covid emergency was over.
It is also true that some of the demand for nuclear energy, current or future, doesnโt come directly from Washington. The electricity industry predicted a nuclear renaissance around 2008, not because of Congress, but because the price of natural gas had risen to $12 per million BTU. Many plants were proposed, but only two, Vogtle 3 & 4, made it across the finish line, partly because the price of natural gas fell to $2 per million BTU with the commercialization of fracking in shale.
That technique, which has changed the shape of the grid, is based on technologies nurtured by the Department of Energy for years, including supercomputing, directional drilling and 3d-seismic, but this certainly wasnโt a policy decision.
Now, the country is facing sharply higher estimates of load growth. Some of that is from policy initiatives, like subsidizing building owners to switch their heating systems to electric-driven heat pumps from natural gas, oil or propane, or programs to encourage electric vehicles. Some of it comes from the growth of data centers, which is a commercial trend, not a government program.
And tech giants including Amazon, Google and Microsoft have all announced that they plan to put money into nuclear energy. So has Dow, the chemical company.
The commercial and policy ducks are in a row; an important task for the next president is to get the administrative ducks to line up too.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are no Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
โNuclear weapons are political weapons. They’re instruments of threat and of coercion, and they require political will to restrain. โ David Hoffman.
… threats, while the State of Israel used this time to develop counter-missile capabilities and other protection measures. Although any full-scale war ..
In early- to mid-October, thousands of North Korean soldiers have been spotted traveling through Vladivostok, Russiaโs largest Pacific port, and being split across several military training sites in eastern Russia. It is still not clear why they are in Russia. (Credit: Photo by Bumble-Dee / depositphotos.com)
There seems to have recently been a warming of relations between Russia and North Korea, or more precisely, Vladimir Putin and Kim. Jong Un. Visits back and forth between the two have been frequent and now we see that North Korean soldiers are being trained in Russia to possibly be sent to Ukraine to fight alongside Russian troops.
The reasons? Like the headline to the related article by the โBulletin of the Atomic Scientistsโ says, The reason(s) are โleft to be seenโ ~llaw
North Korea sent troops to Russia. The reason(s) are โleft to be seenโ
In early- to mid-October, thousands of North Korean soldiers have been spotted traveling through Vladivostok, Russiaโs largest Pacific port, and being split across several military training sites in eastern Russia. It is still not clear why they are in Russia. (Credit: Photo by Bumble-Dee / depositphotos.com)
US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin confirmed Wednesday that North Korean troops were in Russia conducting military exercises, following a claim last week by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that his government had received intelligence information that 10,000 North Korean soldiers were being prepared to fight alongside Russian forces in Ukraine.
Zelensky did not provide details during his visit to NATO headquarters to discuss his โvictory planโ to end the war with Russia. US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell would not confirm the claim either, saying only that the United States and its allies were โalarmedโ by North Koreaโs increasing military support for Russiaโs war in Ukraine.
But details soon emerged of North Korean troops being spotted in Russia.
Troop buildup with an unclear mission. On Wednesday, national security spokesperson John Kirby said that, in early- to mid-October, more than 3,000 North Korean soldiers had traveled through Vladivostok, Russiaโs largest Pacific port, and were split across several military training sites in eastern Russia. The same day, South Korean intelligence services said that another contingent of 1,500 North Korean troops had entered Russia, and Ukrainian officials claimed that overall more than 12,000 North Koreans had already arrived in the far east of Russia.
Both North Korea and Russia denied the movements, even as several videofootage reportedly showed North Korean military personnel arriving at a Russian military base in the village of Sergiivka in the Primorsky Krai, about 200 kilometers from the border with North Korea, and others receiving uniforms and equipment at a Russian training base in Sergeevka, near Russiaโs border with China.
Austin said the United States does not know whether the North Korean troops would join the war in Ukraine alongside the Russian military. โWhat exactly theyโre doingโleft to be seen,โ he told reporters on Wednesday. Kirby added that this is โcertainly a highly concerning probability.โ Visibly alarmed, Austin said: โIt will have impacts not only in Europeโit will also impact things in the Indo-Pacific as well.โ
It did not take long for South Korea to react, threatening to supply weapons to Ukraine if North Koreaโs troops were sent to fight for Moscow. On Monday, South Korean and Ukrainian media reported that Seoul was considering sending intelligence officers and tactical experts to Ukraine in response to North Koreaโs actions.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said that if North Korean soldiers went to Ukraine, it would mark a โsignificant escalationโ in the war there.
Ramifications in the Korean Peninsula. The revelation comes amid heightened cross-border tensions between North Korea and South Korea.
In January, two experts on North Korea, Robert Carlin and Sig Hecker, co-authored a controversial article suggesting that North Koreaโs leader Kim Jong-un may be preparing for war. Washington and Seoul are so blindly convinced that their โironcladโ deterrence will keep Kim in check that โPyongyang could be planning to move in ways that completely defy our calculations,โ they wrote. However, โthe literature on surprise attacks should make us wary of the comfortable assumptions that resonate in Washingtonโs echo chamber but might not have purchase in Pyongyang.โ Carlin and Hecker are not alone in suggesting that current US policy makes North Korea more likely to use nuclear weapons first.
Earlier this month, North Korea reportedly blew up parts of unused road and rail routes that once connected it with South Korea. News reports qualified it as a โsymbolic display of angerโ over the South Korean conservative governmentโs stronger stance toward the North. But analysts dismissed the possibility that this could be in preparation for an imminent preemptive, large-scale attack on South Korea, pointing to the risk of an almost certain massive retaliation by superior US and South Korean forces.
According to Carlin and Hecker, if left with no good options to keep his nuclear arsenal, Kim may find himself in a โuse-it-or-lose-itโ situation in which launching a surprise nuclear attack on South Korea in the hope of staving off a possible massive disarming strike could appear as worth the risk. Destroying cross-border roads and railwaysโeven if currently unusedโcould delay or alter the capacity of the United States and South Korea to retaliate with conventional forces. On Thursday, South Korean sources reportedly saw North Korean forces constructing several unidentified structures on the eastern inter-Korean road they had blown up earlier, with South Korean officials saying the structures resemble concrete barriers or bunkers, and South Koreaโs Unification Ministry confirmed on Friday new blockades were being built along inter-Korean railways to fortify the border areas.*
Top South Korean officials said in a statement that the presence of North Korean troops in Russia is โa grave security threatโ to South Korea and pledged to take proportionate countermeasures. Officials worry that Russia may offer North Korea advanced weapons technologies to boost nuclear and missile programs that are geared toward South Korea.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are no Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
… Power Plant stacks are shown in the distance from the Amherstburg … The pills are intended to ensure residents are prepared โin the unlikely event of …
Ukraineโs Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) lost the connection to its only remaining 330 kilovolt (kV) back-up power line for a second time this month, once again leaving the facility dependent on one single source of the external electricity it needs for reactor cooling and other key nuclear safety and security functions, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said today. Read more โ
The IAEA Marine Environment Laboratories and the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation have signed a new partnership on ocean acidification and ocean-based solutions to climate change. Read more โ
Global efforts to converge different types of small modular reactor technologies as well as their regulatory approaches are continuing to make strong progress, according to the latest meeting of the IAEAโs Nuclear Harmonization and Standardization Initiative. Read more โ
The IAEA, jointly with the FAO, helps countries use nuclear and related techniques to trace food origin, check its authenticity and test for contaminants. Read more โ
Guatemala is setting new priorities for cancer control following a thorough review of its cancer care capacities and needs during an imPACT Review mission to the country. Read more โ
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky visits the town of Bucha in Ukraine on April 4, 2022, after the retreat of Russian troops. (Credit: Photo by dmytro.larin.gmail.com / depositphotos.com)
The โBulletin of the Atomic Scientistsโ in this detailed in-depth coverage of the present Russia/Ukraine war carefully explains the โifsโ, old and new, behind the extremely tense situation that has been allowed to fester and grow all the way to consideration of nuclear weapons, including the seriously overlooked nuclear power plants in both countries. I read today that Russian troops have now taken over complete control of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, which apparently has been operated by Russian technicians since before the war began.
The ultimate situation all boils down to the possibility of Russia and/or NATO (including the U.S.) using nuclear weapons. Such a stand-off situation is grave and the U.S. still remains trapped beneath that rock and a hard place about the ultimate decision that NATO would make to cause Russia to attempt to end the war with a nuclear attack on Ukraine. Doing so would, according to the level-headed of us, automatically cause retaliation and that would automatically cause the reality of World War III, which would automatically be the last war on planet Earth. I hope we humans are not that stupid . . . ~llaw
How the fog of war in Ukraine increases the risk of escalation
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky visits the town of Bucha in Ukraine on April 4, 2022, after the retreat of Russian troops. (Credit: Photo by dmytro.larin.gmail.com / depositphotos.com)
Discussions of escalation in the war between Ukraine and Russia have become more frequent in recent months. One such discussion occurred in September during Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyโs latest visit to Washington, when some government officials and analysts emphasized the risk of nuclear war between NATO and Russia.
The possibility of nuclear war growing out of this conflict is a serious concern. But an all-out nuclear war is not necessarily the only, or most likely, means by which this war could expand and escalate up to nuclear use. The controversy surrounding Ukrainian demands for permission to use NATO long-range missiles for attacks deeper into Russia poses a major risk of escalation. Likewise, changes to Russiaโs nuclear doctrine as the war continuesโand its interpretation by Western alliesโcould make a nuclear first use more likely. Finally, non-nuclear forms of expansion of the warโwhether they have already occurred or notโcould pose significant challenges in moving toward de-escalation and an eventual peace agreement.
As the war drags on and pivots to a war of attrition, non-nuclear forms of expansionโbe they horizontal, informational, technological, or moralโincrease the likelihood of inadvertent use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.
Muddling with Western long-range missiles. In September, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy came to Kyiv to show support for Ukraine. When they arrived, the two officials were handed an open letter signed by 17 former British and American officials and other experts calling for urgent changes to the policy concerning US and UK missiles provided to Ukraine for use against Russia.
The specific issue was that the United States and the United Kingdom, which made available to Ukraine ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) and Storm Shadow long-range missiles, placed restrictions on the use of these missiles against targets deep into Russian territory and that these restrictions allegedly reduce the effectiveness of these missiles at a critical time in the war for Ukraine.[1]
These experts and diplomats are not alone in criticizing the United States and its NATO allies for mistakenly softening their level of commitment to support Ukraine in its war against Russia. According to Anastasia Edel, a Russian-born American writer and social historian, Putin has victory within reach because of insufficient US and allied commitment to a winning strategy. โBy first casting its lot with Ukraine and then failing to follow through, America has lost its place as the bulwark of the West that can guarantee protection and peace to its allies,โ Edel wrote.[2]
For his part, Russian President Vladimir Putin again warned in early September that allowing Ukraine to use long-range missiles provided by NATO to attack targets deeper into Russia would redefine the political character of the war. According to Putin, allowing Ukraine to fire Western weapons deep into Russia would mean nothing short of direct involvement:
โThis will mean that NATO countriesโthe United States and European countriesโare at war with Russia. And if this is the case, then, bearing in mind the change in the essence of the conflict, we will make appropriate decisions in response to the threats that will be posed to us.โ[3]
Putin offered two reasons for his contention. First, NATO member states would have to provide Ukraine with the targeting data on Russia from NATO satellites. Second, NATO specialists would have to enter the targeting data into missile targeting systems because Ukrainians cannot do it themselves. On the other hand, since 2023, Ukraine has been using UK Storm Shadows and French-made Scalps against parts of Ukraine controlled by Russian forces and/or places Russia claims as its territory, such as Crimea.
Putinโs concern, therefore, might be that the capabilities of the most advanced versions of Storm Shadow and similar missiles would enable more devastating attacks against Russian air bases and command facilities as well as critical infrastructure deeper into Russiaโs mainland. According to Simon Saradzhyan, the founding director of the Russian Matters Project at Harvard University:
โIt is the damage that Storm Shadows and Scalps could cause to Russiaโs military-political infrastructure, as well as to the Kremlinโs efforts to make sure the war stays in the background of most Russiansโ lives so that they remain content with his rule, that may cross Putinโs red line, triggering his โappropriateโ response to NATO countries.โ[4]
As Saradzhyan points out, a Russian response might take the form of an attack against transit facilities for these missiles in a NATO European country, such as an air base in Poland. Such an attack could activate NATOโs Article 5, effectively expanding the conflict to a war between Russia and NATO.[5]
Russia could also move military assets, including depots and air bases, even deeper into its territory as a passive instead of active response to longer-range missile attacks.
Changes to Russiaโs nuclear doctrine. Putinโs comments are a reminder of the numerous threats from the Kremlin since the beginning of Russiaโs attack on Ukraine, especially over the possibility of a nuclear first use. For example, in a September 1 interview, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov noted that Russia is in the process of revising its doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons and accused the West of fueling an โescalationโ of the war in Ukraine.[6]
However, some US experts, including generals and diplomats, dismissed the possibility of Russian nuclear first use as lacking in credibility, arguing that:
โAfter more than 900 days of war, we can safely assert that Russian President Vladimir Putinโs repeated threats are nothing less than an attempt to deter Ukraineโs partners from properly arming her. Easing the restrictions on Western weapons will not cause Moscow to escalate. We know this because Ukraine is already striking territory Russia considers its ownโincluding Crimea and Kurskโwith these weapons and Moscowโs response remains unchanged.โ[7]
To restore deterrence credibility, Russia might adjust its military doctrine concerning justifications for nuclear first use to include Ukrainian attacks on critical military and civil infrastructure targets with long-range conventional weapons.
Russiaโs nuclear doctrine on โBasic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrenceโ was adopted in 2020. The document provided for two main scenarios under which Russia can use nuclear weapons: first, in response to an attack on the Russian Federation and/or its allies with nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction; or, second, in response to an attack with conventional weapons when the very survival of the Russian state is at risk.[8]
In a meeting with the Russian Federation Security Council standing conference on nuclear deterrence on September 25, Putin proposed several updates to Russiaโs nuclear doctrine. First, he suggested that nuclear strategy should treat โaggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state, but with the participation and support of a nuclear state,โ as a joint attack that could motivate Russia to cross the nuclear threshold. He then added that, after having received reliable information about any โmassiveโ missile attack against Russia or its ally, Belarus, Russia would also consider resorting to a nuclear option.[9]
Russian academic and nuclear policy expert Alexei Arbatov has argued that prolonging the war in Ukraine has led to a widespread misconception about escalation, both in the West and in Russia.[10] The first mistaken assumption deals with the view of experts and officials in Western allies that there is no upper limit to NATO-supported Ukrainian attacks into Russian territory with conventional weapons without producing a nuclear response from Russia. In short, Russia has no red line. The second erroneous assumption, widely held among an โactive political and expert lobby of fans of nuclear weaponsโ in Russia, Arbatov suggests, is that a very selective use of nuclear weapons by Russia will not be followed by a major war with NATO. The West will be sufficiently scared and back down.
But for Arbatov, what would follow even a limited Russian nuclear first use may be very different from what Russian leaders have in mind:
โNATO will openly enter the war and carry out at least a massive strike with conventional high-precision long-range weapons on both new and old territories of the Russian Federation. This will be followed by group nuclear strikes from the Russian side on NATO countries. In response, there will be a massive nuclear and conventional strike on Russia. We will not even be able to determine what is flying at us, and we will not have time to call the White Houseโcontrary to the scenarios of Russian enthusiasts of a limited nuclear strike. It will be impossible to control the course of events.โ[11]
Of course, much of this speculation is scenario-dependent.
Russian military expert and deterrence theorist Dmitri Adamsky analyzes Russian threats of nuclear escalation as part of a cross-domain โcoercion cocktailโ that accompanies conventional war-fighting without necessarily committing the Kremlin to any specific future action. According to Adamsky, a Russian slide from nuclear rhetoric into the reality of nuclear first use would not necessarily be abrupt. It might go through several phases of demonstrative โmuscle flexingโ and โstrategic gesturesโ designed to signal preparedness for escalation, if necessary, but in gradual, and potentially reversible, stepsโif favorable indications come from the other side. In this view, the West would need to take notice of these measures, process that information, and act accordinglyโthat is, as desired by Russiaโto de-escalate the situation.[12]
Other forms of war expansion. The prevailing assumption in many discussions about the expansion of the war in Ukraine is that it would necessarily be a vertical escalation, that is, an increase in the level of destruction imposed on one sideโs military or other assets by another. But this assumption is too restrictive concerning military or other options available to NATO and Russia.
First, either side might resort to horizontal escalation. Horizontal escalation occurs when one or both parties to a war extend military actions or capacity for coercive bargaining and deterrence into another country or territory. Russia has already done this once by deploying some of its military forces into Belarus, including nuclear-capable tactical launch systems. From Russiaโs standpoint, NATOโs extension of its membership, which now includes Sweden and Finland, might be considered a form of horizontal escalation, especially given Finlandโs elongated border with Russia.
Russiaโs increasing military and diplomatic ties with China provide another possible example of horizontal escalation. Although China has no intention to get involved in direct military action in Ukraine or elsewhere in Europe, it supports Russiaโs efforts to push back against the rule-based international order dominated by the United States. According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, China has become an even more critical economic partner for Russia since February 2022, providing Russia with a variety of economic support mechanisms to mitigate the impact of Western sanctions and export controls. In addition, China is probably supplying Russia with key technology and dual-use equipment for the war in Ukraine.[13] Russia has also received significant military assistance from North Korea and Iran.
The war could also expand through other forms, including disinformation. Both Russia and Ukraine have extensive networks of information warfare at their disposal, and their governments, allies, and other supporters blanket the internet with reports favorable to their respective sides. A war of memes, trolls, bots, and other artifacts of the information age has become intertwined with the kinetic war of infantry, armor, artillery, and air strikesโback and forth.
Sometimes military tactics appear to have been dictated by the information war, as was the case of Ukraineโs sudden strike into Kursk oblast with the objectives of shaking the Kremlinโs self-confidence and preparing an improved bargaining position in possible peace negotiations. For its part, Russian information warfare seeks to undermine the confidence of the American population in Ukraine and even in the US democratic political system, especially during a presidential election year.
Technological competition also constitutes a form of possible war expansion in Ukraine. Russia and Ukraine are competing in making extensive use of drones in three-dimensional land, sea, and air warfare.[14] In addition, both sides show increased sophistication in anti-drone jamming and other countermeasures to surveillance and strikes by autonomous vehicles. Ukraine has set a new standard in its ability to generate large numbers of reliable drones on short notice for both battlefield use and deep strikes into Russian territory. Russia, however, has had to import drones from Iran to sustain its drone war. In addition to drones, Ukraine (with NATO support) and Russia have competed to field the necessary so-called C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) systems to manage combined arms battles.
Prolonging and maintaining the intensity of the war to exhaust the resources or patience of the other side or their allies is yet another form of expansion, through attrition.[15] Russian political leaders and commandersโeven after having been thwarted in their efforts to remove the Zelensky government in a rapid coup de main in February 2022โhave remained optimistic that Russiaโs larger population and resource base will eventually overwhelm Ukraine.
Ukraine has indeed been challenged to meet the demands of this war for manpower in the face of high attrition and draft resistance. Ukrainian political leaders and front fighters have also complained that the flow of weapons and ammunition from NATO allies has been insufficient in speed and size to compensate for Russiaโs larger ability to push weapons and personnel into the theater of operations. On the other hand, Russia has strained to meet its recruitment goals in the face of Putinโs unwillingness to order another large mobilization of reserves. Instead, large bonuses are being paid to first-time enlistees, and Russian leaders maintain that manpower recruitment goals can be met for as long as the fighting continues. Such a strategy of attrition, in which Ukraine is supported by accelerated NATO weapons deliveries and technology innovation and Russia doubles down on troop numbers and war-supporting resources, will continue to impose high costs on each countryโs fighting power and civilian infrastructure.
Finally, the expansion of the war could take a moral-ethical form over right and wrong, and the symbolism attached to statesโ behavior as consistent or inconsistent with international law and human decency. The ugliness of war touches all sides, but Russia has consistently been outperformed by Ukraine in messaging the international community about the appropriateness of military operations and political strategy. Russiaโs indiscriminate destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure, including schools and hospitals, and Putinโs claims that Ukraine is not a real country or a distinct civilization, have conceded the high ground of human rights to Ukraine and Zelensky.
Investigative journalists also contend that the Kremlin is conducting a global operation targeting Russian exiles abroad for surveillance, kidnapping, or worse.[16] From the viewpoint of international opinion, Russia has already suffered a strategic defeat, even if it outlasts Ukraine on the battlefield and enters into an armistice or peace agreement that seems asymmetrically unfavorable to Kyiv. This moral and ethical asymmetry may not bother Vladimir Putin now, but it is likely to haunt his successors. These will need to reframe Russiaโs position in Europe as something resembling a normal state instead of an outlaw regime.
Seeing through the fog. There are several ways in which the war in Ukraine can be expanded. The threat of nuclear first use (and its repercussions) is obviously in a class by itself. But it is not the onlyโeven less, most probableโway in which the war can become more complicated, confusing, and ultimately dangerous. What is urgently needed then are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. The longer, broader, and more intense the fighting in Ukraine becomes, the more the combatants will continue to waste blood and treasure in an ugly military stalemate and a human rights disaster on both sides. Continued fighting already raises the significance and costs of horizontal, informational, technological, temporal, and/or moral-ethical expansion. It also increases the likelihood of inadvertent nuclear disaster, such as damage to nuclear facilities, all the while the possible use of weapons of mass destruction other than nuclear cannot be ruled out.
[4] Simon Saradzhyan, โDoes Western Help With Missile Targeting Cross Putinโs Red Line in War Against Ukraine?,โ Russia Matters, September 18, 2024, in Johnsonโs Russia List 2024 โ #201 โ September 19, 2024, davidjohnson@starpower.net
[9] โKremlin reveals who nuclear doctrine change is aimed at,โ www.rt.com, September 26, 2024, in Johnsonโs Russia List 2024 โ #206 โ September 26, 2024, davidjohnson@starpower.net. See also: โPutin lowers threshold of nuclear response as he issues new warnings to the West over Ukraine,โ Associated Press, September 24, 2024, in Johnsonโs Russia List 2024 โ #206 โ September 26, 2024, davidjohnson@starpower.net.
[10] Alexei Arbatov, interviewed by Yuri Paniev, in Nezavisimaya Gazeta, September 15, 2024, in Johnsonโs Russia List 2024 โ #199 โ September 17, 2024, davidjohnson@starpower.net
[12] Dmitry Adamsky, The Russian Way of Deterrence: Strategic Culture, Coercion, and War (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2024), esp. pp. 106-107.
[13] Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Support Provided by the Peopleโs Republic of China to Russia, July 2023 (Washington, D.C.: ODNI),
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
We didn’t want other countries to get nuclear weapons, but the next best thing is if nobody knew about it. … Michel Martin is the weekend host of All …
Russia’s nuclear doctrine on โBasic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrenceโ was adopted in 2020. The document …
Changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine. Putin’s comments are a reminder of the numerous threats from the Kremlin since the beginning of Russia’s attack …
The basin has been called by some travelers the vast crater of an ancient volcanoโฆIndeed the geysers and hot springs of this region, at the present …
In this aerial view, the shuttered Three Mile Island nuclear power plant stands in the middle of the Susquehanna River near Middletown, Pennsylvania, on Oct. 10, 2024. Chip Somodevilla | Getty Images
Theyโre calling it the โAI Revolutionโ. Does that mean the same thing as the usual definition of โRevolutionโ? Coupled with โan ever increasing amount of energy?โ
If so, we should be rebelling immediately, fighting desperately against AI, as well as the other โAll Things Nuclearโ, just as the repressed are known to do in any revolution. This whole AI concept, tied at the hip now to nuclear power, cannot be something that humanity should want to have any part of!
The last few days of taking a harder look at โAIโ are telling me I may be needing an accommodating like-minded sponsor or two and/or subscribers. But either way, you can rest assured that I will soon be adding an 8th media Category to โLLAWโs All Things Nuclearโs โTODAYโS NUCLEAR WORLDโS NEWSโ tentatively called โArtificial Intelligenceโ. ~llaw
Big Tech is driving a nuclear power revival, energy guru Dan Yergin says
Nuclear power appears to be making a comeback in the U.S. after years of setbacks โ and big tech is the driving force.
As tech giants like Microsoft, Amazon and Google compete to take the lead in the AI revolution, the data centers needed to power the burgeoning technology consume an ever-increasing amount of energy.
Long-time energy market veteran Dan Yergin described the turnaround as nothing short of extraordinary.
In this aerial view, the shuttered Three Mile Island nuclear power plant stands in the middle of the Susquehanna River near Middletown, Pennsylvania, on Oct. 10, 2024.
Chip Somodevilla | Getty Images
Nuclear power may be making a comeback in the U.S. after years of setbacks โ and big tech is the driving force.
In the last two months, those three companies have penned deals to generate more nuclear power โ perhaps most notably, Microsoft struck a 20-year agreement with Constellation Energy to restart a reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, the site of the most serious nuclear meltdown in U.S. history in 1979. The reopening is planned for 2028.
Speaking to CNBC at the annual International Monetary Fund meetings in Washington, long-time energy market veteran Dan Yergin described the turnaround as nothing short of extraordinary.
โItโs amazing, the change. The nuclear industry was in the doldrums,โ Yergin told CNBCโs Karen Tso on Tuesday, describing the reopening of the Three Mile Island power plant as โsymbolic.โ
โBig Tech is saying, โWe need reliable 24 hour electricity. We canโt get it just from wind and solarโ,โ he said.
Yergin, who has written several books on energy including โThe Prizeโ and โThe New Map,โ pointed to the booming funding going into the sector. He cited $7 billion in venture capital going into nuclear fusion alone โ which does not include financing for nuclear fission, a different energy-generating process.
โThis is a really big change, and it reflects in this country, in the United States, a sense that โ weโve had for, really, a generation of flat demand [for] electricity,โ Yergin said. โNow itโs going to grow, and thereโs real anxiety about, how do you grow it? And nuclear [energy] is back in form, and people are talking about small nuclear reactors. And, of course, you have big tech actually seeking to contract for the output of the electricity from existing nuclear power plants. Itโs an amazing change.โ
watch now
VIDEO06:02
The energy markets are โschizophrenicโ right now: S&P Global vice chairman
Electricity demand is surging after staying largely flat for some 15 years, fueled by new data centers, factories, electric vehicles, and hotter and longer summers. A recent Energy Department memo cited in numerous press reports projected that U.S. power grids could see as much as 25 gigawatts of new data center demand by 2030.
Recently, the U.S. Department of Energy announced it had closed a $1.5 billion loan for the revival of the Holtec Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan in late 2025, which would make it the first American nuclear plant to be restarted. Google in mid-October said it would purchase power from Kairos Power, a developer of small modular reactors, to help โdeliver on the progress of AI.โ
Global electricity consumption from data centers, artificial intelligence and the cryptocurrency sector is expected to double from an estimated 460 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2022 to more than 1,000 TWh in 2026, according to a research report from the International Energy Agency.
โ CNBCโs Ryan Browne contributed to this report.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are no Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
All Things Considered ยท Fresh Air ยท Up First. Featured. The NPR Politics … NPR’s Michel Martin speaks with Victor Gilinsky, a former commissioner of …
Michel Martin is the weekend host of All Things Considered, where she draws on her deep reporting and interviewing experience to dig in to the week’s …
… nuclear reactors. And, of course, you have big tech actually seeking to contract for the output of the electricity from existing nuclear power plants.
In the exercise scenario, it is 2032 and a war over Taiwan has been raging for 45 days. China uses โtheatre” nuclear weaponsโwith a shorter range and …
