(See image description and photo credits in the “Al Jazeera” article below.)
LLAW’s NUCLEAR WORLD NEWS TODAY with the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES of TOMORROW
Trump just can’t leave well enough alone. In one breath he mentions cooperation and in the next he serves up threats — or whatever opposing thoughts are rattling around in his own mind. That means that he can never be trusted to do what he says he will do, or even what he might do. And it’s not just to Iran that he provokes these double standards.
His contradictory statements are everywhere, including issues in the country of his own so-called presidency. The truth is that he is a deranged pathological liar who doesn’t mentally understand facts from fiction so he is continuously contradicting himself, meaning that Trump is —to misquote Shakespeare’s view of life in “Macbeth”— “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” ~llaw
(Read the “Al Jazeera” article in today’s Post to see why Iran is so upset with Trump’s new U.S. presidency and what they intend to do about it . . .)
‘Go forward’: Iran’s Khamenei urges military growth amid Trump threats
Trump has suggested using force to stop Iran’s nuclear programme, in statements condemned by Tehran at UN.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei visits the defence achievements exhibition in Tehran, Iran [Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/West Asia News Agency via Reuters]
Published On 12 Feb 202512 Feb 2025
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has called for the country to further develop its military capabilities after United States President Donald Trump threatened to use force if Tehran does not negotiate on its nuclear programme.
Speaking on Wednesday after visiting an exhibition in the country’s capital showcasing the latest defence sector developments, Khamenei said “progress should not be stopped”.
“We cannot be satisfied,” Khamenei said. “Say that we previously set a limit for the accuracy of our missiles, but we now feel this limit is no longer enough. We have to go forward.”
“Today, our defensive power is well known, our enemies are afraid of this. This is very important for our country,” he said.
The statements come after Iran’s representative to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, condemned what he called Trump’s “reckless and inflammatory statements” and warned that “any act of aggression will have severe consequences”.
In a letter to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Iravani referred to Trump’s recent media interviews, in which the US leader suggested stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons could be achieved either “with bombs or with a written piece of paper”.
“I would much rather do a deal that’s not gonna hurt them,” Trump told Fox News on Monday, adding that “I’d love to make a deal with them without bombing them.”
Tensions have ratcheted since Trump took office in January and reinstated his “maximum pressure” policy against Iran over concerns the country was seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
(Thanks for reading All Things Nuclear! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO LLAW’s ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA
(Please note that the Sunday and Saturday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS are also added below by category, following Monday’s news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
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 humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ 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 Threats
Nuclear War
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story available in today’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s 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 Post’s 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.
If it were powered by nuclear energy, one person would die roughly every 33 years. … What’s the reward system all about? Once you send back your Take …
Postol, T. A.: Possible Fatalities from Superfires Following Nuclear Attack. Medical Implications of Nuclear War, F. Solomon and R. Q. Marston (eds), …
Some of us believed that at the end of the Cold War in 1991 American and Soviet nuclear rockets would be left to rust and rot in their silos. Indeed, …
US President Donald Trump (2L) and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin wait ahead a meeting in Helsinki, on July 16, 2018. (Photo credit ALEXEY NIKOLSKY/AFP via Getty Images)
LLAW’s NUCLEAR WORLD NEWS TODAY with the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES of TOMORROW
This “Breaking Defense” article is another look at Trump and his “Iron Dome for America” (or more of the same) from yesterday’s Post as well as my personal opinion that it won’t work beyond the ridiculous “deterrence” hope of “eternal delay” by keeping up with the Jones’s, which cannot go on forever. And we have proven over and over again that pacts, agreements, etc., aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.
The strictly defensive “Iron Dome for America” is far too late to avoid the possibility of avoiding nuclear war from Russia or any other country and too expensive — I have seen estimates of $3 trillion — as a “nuclear deterrence” defense effort and may even prompt our enemies to attack us sooner rather than later while we are still arguing back and forth whether to build the system, but it would take unavailable years to build anyway.
My question, then, is why are we even talking about this potential “white elephant” as some kind of immediate savior for America when in reality it may never be built and may prove to more likely work as an early invitation to nuclear armed countries to no longer delay an all-out nuclear war.
So, as I see it, there is no solution to the potential of a global nuclear war other than some kind of unknown and unlikely intervention or a change of heart by the very nature of collective humanity about our present depravity of ethnic borders, racial and religious hatred, social and financial inequality, and world peace instead of war — none of which which, in all probably, is likely to happen . ~llaw
“The fundamental point, though, at least in the short term, would be for Trump to send a political message to Russia via allied consultations that American security is indivisible from NATO,” writes Kyle Balzer of AEI in this op-ed.
US President Donald Trump (2L) and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin wait ahead a meeting in Helsinki, on July 16, 2018. (Photo credit ALEXEY NIKOLSKY/AFP via Getty Images)
President Donald Trump enters office at a possible inflection point in the ongoing nuclear competition with China and Russia. Though it is a moment of great peril for the US nuclear modernization program, it is also one of great opportunity — should Trump choose to seize it.
Both China and Russia have exploited America’s glacial effortto modernize its aging nuclear arsenal and atrophied defense-industrial base by rapidly expanding their own. Beijing has grown the world’s largest fleet of nuclear-capable land-based missilelaunchers. And Moscow has locked in a glaring theater nuclear advantage in Europe that helped constrain former President Joe Biden’s support for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. Compounding these developments is the fact that Washington, due to its deficient defense-industrial capacity, cannot reverse these trends in the near term by simply accelerating its troubled nuclear modernization program.
And yet, despite the long-term structural problems with nuclear modernization, Trump still has readily available options at his disposal. Two near-term options, in particular, stand out. Both are political in nature, dealing with the “software” of nuclear alliances and the mechanics of US domestic leadership. And both would generate immediate deterrence payoffs.
First, Trump should move quickly to initiate political consultations within NATO to integrate Poland, in some form, into the alliance’s nuclear mission. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the deployment of Russian short-range nuclear weapons in Belarus, Warsaw has expressedinterest in joining NATO’s nuclear-sharing program — an arrangement in which forward-stationed gravity bombs remain in US custody in peacetime, but are carried by allied aircraft during crises and wartime.
Poland’s fervor to host US nuclear weapons is undoubtedly a reflection of NATO’s failure to adjust to two transformations in the post-Cold War European security environment: the migration of the alliance’s center of gravity from Germany to Poland, and Moscow’s massive theater nuclear buildup that dwarfs the hundred or so American gravity bombs based in countries far from Russia’s border, like Germany.
Integrating Poland into NATO’s nuclear-sharing system would address NATO’s changing geography and Warsaw’s growing fear of Russia’s theater buildup. Washington would not necessarily have to station gravity bombs in Poland, where they would be more vulnerable to preemptive attack. Polish pilots, after all, could always fly dual-capable aircraft based in Germany, as both nation’s pilots will soon be trained on the F-35A.
A larger wrinkle would be to bring Finland into the nuclear fold and field weapons in both Poland and Finland — whether permanently or only for temporary rotations. This alternative might appeal to Helsinki, which has expressed a nascent interest in revising its long-held prohibition of nuclear weapons transiting its territory. It would mean Poland was not the only nuclear-armed NATO member along Russia’s border. And it would have the bonus effect of creating a nuclearized perimeter on Russia’s frontier that would greatly complicate Kremlin planning.
Of course, one can never know what, exactly, will deter Moscow. But Russia has a historic tendency to pick on the “little guy” — and a nuclear-capable NATO frontline is no small matter. The fundamental point, though, at least in the short term, would be for Trump to send a political message to Russia via allied consultations that American security is indivisible from NATO.
To be sure, this option is not a rationale for dramatically scaling back US conventional forces in Europe — which would only weaken the alliance’s overall deterrence. Nor should it be wielded as a bargaining chip in whatever negotiations Trump might pursue regarding the Russia-Ukraine war. Nuclear consultations should be treated on their own terms: as an effort to reinforce NATO via two allies who are already devotingvast resources to their own defense.
The second option readily available to Trump would be for him to get the White House back in the business of explaining to the American people the mounting threats they face — and what this means for their security. Here, Trump has a tremendous opportunity to outshine Biden, who neglected his duty to make the public case for greater defense spending. The simple act of adequately resourcing the military will have a deterrence effect by showing Beijing and Moscow that Washington is serious about defense. But sending this message will be impossible unless Americans hear from their president why they should support a larger defense budget.
Indeed, Trump can rip a page directly out of the Cold War playbook of Ronald Reagan, the last president to make the case for and oversee a military buildup to counter a nuclear-armed peer adversary. Beginning in the mid-1970s, Reagan hammered home the point that the country was on the wrong end of adverse trends in the Soviet-American strategic balance. And he clearly articulated, in speechafterspeech, why the country required modernized missiles and bombers to penetrate improved Soviet air defenses.
In this episode of The Weekly Break Out, space reporter Theresa Hitchens takes a deep dive into her coverage of how President Donald Trump’s “Iron Dome for America” plan is beginning to form. Plus, The Marine Corps makes a surprise shift in its F-35 strategy.
Reagan’s rhetoric and preparations to deploy these new capabilities ultimately had a demoralizing impact on the Soviets and yielded a landmark arms-control agreement on theater nuclear forces. Indeed, the Kremlin, as one Soviet official later recalled, was “already compromising” before the US nuclear buildup even began to pick up steam in the mid-1980s.
Fortunately for President Trump, the measures discussed above don’t require immediate solutions to America’s troubled defense-industrial base. They simply require the will to speak frankly with allies and the American people.
That nuclear modernization is beset with delays, a work-force shortage, and funding gaps is no reason to surrender to despair. President Trump, like Reagan, can achieve peace through strength if he seizes the opportunities before him.
Kyle Balzer is a Jeane Kirkpatrick Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO LLAW’s ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA
(Please note that the Sunday and Saturday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS are also added below by category, following Monday’s news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
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 humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ 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 Threats
Nuclear War
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are three Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in today’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s 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 Post’s 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.
BARBER: Hey, NPR science correspondent Geoff Brumfiel. Why are you darkening my doorstep? BRUMFIEL: To talk about one of my all-time favorite topics, …
President Donald Trump enters office at a possible inflection point in the ongoing nuclear competition with China and Russia. … War European security …
Russian Yars intercontinental ballistic missile launcher takes part in the Victory Day military parade general rehearsal on the Red Square in Moscow, Russia, May 5, 2024. Maxim Shipenkov/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
LLAW’s NUCLEAR WORLD NEWS TODAY with the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES of TOMORROW
This short briefing from “REUTERS” is why I believe nuclear treaties, agreements, pacts, or other hand-shaking agreements mean nothing to preventing nuclear war. Not even disarmament agreements among nations would be honored because one nation or another (or all of them) could or would not be trusted to do what they ‘promised’ to do.
That is why “nuclear deterrence” exists and is likely the only reason that nuclear war has been avoided thus far. But ‘deterrence’ is fast coming to a financial impossibility to sustain for nuclear nations to continue to build more and more powerful nuclear weapons of mass destruction along with their silos, missiles, submarines, and accompanying systems to stave off one or more nuclear armed country from eventually saying, “to hell with this”, and unilaterally launching the 1st and only required attack, spurring in-kind response(s) and the inevitable apocalyptical no-win nuclear WWIII.
We are just buying time with broken agreements and “nuclear deterrence” — avoiding the inevitable — until one depraved and deprived nation goes too far with the verbal threats and begins the physical end. ~llaw
Russia warns outlook for extending last nuclear arms pact with US does not look promising
Item 1 of 3 Russian Yars intercontinental ballistic missile launcher takes part in the Victory Day military parade general rehearsal on the Red Square in Moscow, Russia, May 5, 2024. Maxim Shipenkov/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
[1/3]Russian Yars intercontinental ballistic missile launcher takes part in the Victory Day military parade general rehearsal on the Red Square in Moscow, Russia, May 5, 2024. Maxim Shipenkov/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
Summary
Last nuclear pact due to expire in less than a year
It caps number of warheads Russia and US can deploy
Trump has spoken about talks with Russia and China
Moscow wants Britain and France to be included too
MOSCOW, Feb 10 (Reuters) – Russia warned on Monday that the outlook for extending the last remaining pillar of nuclear arms control between Moscow and Washington, the world’s two biggest nuclear powers, did not look promising and that the situation appeared to be deadlocked.
The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or New START, which caps the number of strategic nuclear warheads that the United States and Russia can deploy, and the deployment of land- and submarine-based missiles and bombers to deliver them, is due to run out in less than a year – on February 5, 2026.
U.S. President Donald Trump, during his first presidential term, withdrew the U.S. from another important treaty – the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty – and the New START agreement is now the only pact remaining.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who oversees U.S. relations and arms control, told a news briefing in Moscow on Monday that the prospects for talks on amending and extending the agreement looked bleak for now.
“As for our dialogue in the field of (nuclear) strategic stability and the post-New START situation, the situation does not look very promising,” said Ryabkov.
“On February 5, 2026, the pact expires and after this it will not exist.”
Trump in January said he wanted to work towards cutting nuclear arms, adding that he thought Russia and China might support reducing their own weapons capabilities.
“We’d like to see denuclearization … and I will tell you President Putin really liked the idea of cutting way back on nuclear. And I think the rest of the world, we would have gotten them to follow, and China would have come along too,” Trump said.
The Kremlin, commenting on Trump’s remarks, said at the time that Russian President Vladimir Putin had made clear he wanted to restart nuclear arms cuts talks as soon as possible.
But Ryabkov said that while the U.S. wanted three-way arms talks – including China – Moscow wanted five-way arms talks.
Russia has said it wants Britain and France – also nuclear powers – to be included in any talks.
“The U.S. is proposing a three-way talks format and we want a five-way format. We are going round in circles,” said Ryabkov.
Ryabkov also linked progress on agreeing a new nuclear treaty to Washington’s wider policy towards Russia at a time when Trump says he is exploring how to end the war in Ukraine as the Russian economy tries to weather the toughest Western sanctions ever.
“As for (renewing) New START, as Putin has said, nothing prevents us from holding talks and we are ready for that. But this depends on whether we’ll see a real shift in Washington’s policy towards Russia,” said Ryabkov.
“But this hasn’t happened yet and it’s therefore premature to talk about this. The clock is running down.”
The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.
Reporting by Dmitry Antonov in Moscow. Writing by Andrew Osborn in London Editing by Guy Faulconbridge
As Russia Chief Political Correspondent, and former Moscow bureau chief, Andrew helps lead coverage of the world’s largest country, whose political, economic and social transformation under President Vladimir Putin he has reported on for much of the last two decades, along with its growing confrontation with the West and wars in Georgia and Ukraine. Andrew was part of a Wall Street Journal reporting team short-listed for a Pulitzer Prize for international reporting. He has also reported from Moscow for two British newspapers, The Telegraph and The Independent.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO LLAW’s ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA
(Please note that the Sunday and Saturday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS are also added below by category, following Monday’s news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
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 humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ 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 Threats
Nuclear War
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are two Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in today’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s 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 Post’s 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.
Everything started with drawings made by hand, but instead of using them to fabricate physical prototypes, they used generative AI technology to come …
Additionally €54 million would be needed for the development of emergency response and technical capabilities. Antti Tooming, deputy secretary-general …
Yellowstone Volcano receives ample attention for being a large, active, caldera-forming volcanic system. Given the massive eruptions over the last 2.1 …
In order to stay abreast of the weekend nuclear news, I will post Saturday and Sunday’s news, but without editorial comment. If a weekend story warrants a critical review, it will show up on Monday’s posts . . .
If you are not familiar with the weekday daily blog post, this is how the nuclear news post works . . . llaw
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’S ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA”:
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 humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ 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 on this weekend’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s 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 Post’s 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.
Consider also Google’s announcement to purchase nuclear energy from small modular reactors (SMRs) owned by Kairos Power. Kairos is currently building …
But neither academicians nor the anti-fossil fuels syndicate have come up with a rational solution for the increasing energy gap needed to satisfy the …
A nuclear power plant generates nuclear waste, while coal produces carbon dioxide emissions. Coal produces 36% of the world’s electricity usage, while …
Key to Nuclear Energy ‘Emergency‘ Declaration Among the energy sectors … nuclear power plants, restarting nuclear power plants, and upgrading existing …
This helps reduce the load on the grid,” the press service noted. The water level in the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant pond is adequate to meet the …
Nuclear threats. Vladimir Putin has threatened to restart nuclear testing throughout his invasion of Ukraine. The two nations opposing the WHO health …
In order to keep abreast of the weekend nuclear news, I will post Saturday and Sunday’s news, but without editorial comment. If a weekend story warrants a critical review, it will show up on Monday’s posts . . .
If you are not familiar with the weekday daily blog post, this is how the nuclear news post works . . . llaw
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’S ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA”:
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 humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ 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 on this weekend’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s 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 Post’s 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.
None of that is true at all,” the energy secretary told CNBC’s Brian Sullivan Friday. But Trump administration officials haven’t been honest with the …
Furthermore, with both China and North Korea developing greater incentives and capabilities for limited nuclear attacks, the risk of a nuclear war in …
Apparently, an earthquake of 1.8 on the Richter Scale had occurred. Earthquakes are common in Big Sky Country thanks to the Yellowstone Caldera, which …
An air defense system in Israel. Photo: Depositphotos
LLAW’s NUCLEAR WORLD NEWS TODAY with the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES of TOMORROW
Or, speaking of speeding up Ukraine peace talks involving Ukraine, Russia, NATO and the U.S., the “iron dome” possible white elephant might cause the opposite reaction as described by “Forbes” and reviewed by this analytical article from European Maiden and authorYevheniia Martyniuk!
The idea that a huge new “nuclear defense system” could delay or even end the Russia/Ukraine war is ridiculous because such a system (at a cost of perhaps $3 trillion) would take years in the making and it would only defend the northern hemisphere of America, and that makes me wonder how such a “defensive” system would prevent nuclear war at all. To me, the whole idea is just a glorified money sink that could possibly do nothing more than continue the “deterrence” game that simply cannot last forever. Logically, the effort to build such an “iron dome” over only America’s heads would only speed up the possibility of global nuclear war rather than slow it down. So why bother . . . ?
More likely, if the U.S. were to embark on such a defense system, doing so could speed-up Russia’s attempt to annex the Ukraine, and that could very well quickly involve the use of Russian nuclear weapons. We forget, also, that any immediate use of nuclear weapons would be referred to as “strategic” nukes directed at Ukraine.
Otherwise we would surely have Word War III breathing down our international necks, although no more than such a minimal “strategic” use of nuclear arms, WWIII could well happen regardless if any nuclear-armed country were to use such “minimal” weapons — which are, in reality, likely to be no less minimal than, say, the atomic bombs used by the U.S. on Japan in 1945 to end WWII.
Any use of any kind of nuclear weapons of mass destruction, large or small, anywhere on planet Earth would likely be the beginning of the end of us and our innocent animal friends . . . ~llaw
Forbes: Trump’s space shield “Iron Dome” could pressure Putin into Ukraine peace talks
As Russia threatens nuclear retaliation against nations backing Ukraine, Trump’s proposed missile defense initiative could reshape strategic dynamics—if it can overcome the immense challenges of implementation.
President Trump’s newly announced space-based missile defense system could serve as leverage against Russian nuclear threats and its ongoing war in Ukraine, defense experts tell Forbes. The initiative, outlined in an executive order titled The Iron Dome for America, comes as Moscow continues to brandish its nuclear capabilities amid its invasion of Ukraine.
At the same time, Trump’s efforts to mediate peace in Ukraine face significant challenges. While his team is reportedly working behind the scenes to arrange talks, no official details of his plan have been made public.
“Russia has been threatening nuclear weapons use and claiming to have developed new weapon types,” Elena Grossfeld, a space arms race expert at King’s College London, tells Forbes in an interview.
She suggests that the countervailing Space Age missile defense project could be aimed at halting Putin’s belligerence or even pressuring him to enter talks on withdrawing his troops from Ukraine.
The proposal’s timing is significant, coming just days after Trump revealed at the World Economic Forum in Davos that he had discussed nuclear arms reductions with Russian President Putin.
“We want to see if we can denuclearize, and I think that’s very possible,” Trump said, adding that “President Putin wanted to do it.”
The initiative mirrors President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which sought to render nuclear weapons obsolete through space-based defenses. However, Victoria Samson, Chief Director of Space Security and Stability at the Secure World Foundation, warns of significant technical hurdles.
“The US would need thousands of interceptors in orbit just to ensure one was in place to hit a launch,” she said, noting that interceptors would have only ‘about 3-5 minutes’ to react to solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists recently set its Doomsday Clock to 89 seconds to midnight, citing heightened nuclear tensions. The organization warns that Russia’s repeated threats to use nuclear weapons against nations supporting Kyiv could lead to catastrophe—whether by a rash decision, accident, or miscalculation.
A space defense analyst interviewed by Forbes adds that sharing this defensive technology with nuclear powers willing to reduce their stockpiles—similar to Reagan’s offer to the Soviet Union—could be crucial to avoiding a new arms race.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO LLAW’s ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA
(Please note that the Sunday and Saturday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS are also added below by category, following Monday’s news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
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 humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ 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 Threats
Nuclear War
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are three Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in today’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s 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 Post’s 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.
Since the 1990s, the United States has used science to verify its nuclear weapons are working properly … All Things Considered · Here & Now · Morning …
Planning inspectors recommended against a Hitachi-built nuclear power plant in Anglesey on the basis that it could dilute the island’s Welsh language …
They make statements about us, express opinions and issue threats.” “If they threaten us, we will threaten them. If they act on those threats, we will …
Cancer care is a global challenge, especially in those parts of the world where the number of cancer patients requiring radiotherapy is outpacing access to this technology. Read more →
Interested contributors have until 31 May 2025 to submit synopses for the IAEA’s first International Conference on Resilience of Nuclear Installations against External Events from a Safety Perspective. Read more →
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi is in Ukraine to assess damage to key electricity infrastructure that is critical to the country’s nuclear safety. Read more →
An IAEA team of experts assessed that Spain showed a strong commitment to nuclear and radiation safety, and confirmed that Spain has successfully enhanced its regulatory framework, fully implementing recommendations made during the Agency’s 2018 mission. Read more →
Through our fast-growing programmes and the Rays of Hope initiative, the IAEA is expanding access to nuclear medicine and cancer treatment in low- and middle-income countries, supporting care to patients around the world with little or no access to treatment. Read more →
LLAW’s NUCLEAR WORLD NEWS TODAY with the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES of TOMORROW
I haven’t seen much about how the military sees the threat of nuclear war other than the huge increase in new and refurbished weapons to keep up with our nuclear armed neighbors called “deterrence”, which is probably the only way to put off nuclear war since there are no meaningful nuclear treaties or agreements, and if there were, it wouldn’t matter because any nuclear agreement would be broken by every country who pledged to avoid nuclear war in the event of a serious nuclear war threat, just as such previous pacts have are already broken promises and tossed into File 13 .
The general (retired) who wrote this article agrees that agreements and deterrence, too, are not going to prevent nuclear war forever, and that is a good thing, but I must question the way the General proposes to solve the problem. The fact is, his concept amounts to simply a “new” kind of “deterrence” — partially borrowed from former president Ronald Reagan — a defensive one with Trump’s “Iron Dome Missile Defense Shield”, which amounts to little more than a more modern (and costly) better missile defense system to hopefully protect the U.S. from strategic nuclear arms should they be launched by our enemies, which probably would not prevent the U.S. from immediately launching our own nuclear arsenal against the enemy.
So I wonder how this “new” strategy would prevent a nuclear World War III even if our incoming defense “shield” actually worked from a defensive point of view. ~llaw.
Nuclear Deterrence and America’s Missile Defense Program: Time for Change
America’s outdated nuclear deterrence policy is hindering the country’s missile defense program, constraining it to a “limited missile defense” strategy. Consequently, essential missile defense initiatives are overshadowed by competing security priorities, gradual improvements, and insufficient funding, leaving the United States vulnerable to advancing conventional and nuclear missile threats. By adhering to inadequate defense strategies and outdated deterrence doctrines, America is impairing its capacity to develop and deploy effective missile defense systems, putting the homeland at risk from escalating modern threats.
Nuclear Deterrence
The foundation of nuclear deterrence is based on mutually assured destruction (MAD). This principle posits that if one superpower were to launch a nuclear attack, it would trigger an overwhelming nuclear counterattack, resulting in the annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. Following World War II and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the strategic purpose of war shifted. It became less about winning conflicts and more about preventing them. As the prominent American nuclear strategist Bernard Brodie stated in 1978, “From now on, [our military forces’] chief purpose must be to avert them [wars]. It can have almost no other useful purpose.”
While MAD has been effective in preventing nuclear war, it has done little to avert conflicts and the conditions that may lead to catastrophic events. Since the establishment of MAD, the world has witnessed numerous conflicts involving nuclear-capable nations, either directly or through proxy wars, paradoxically bringing us closer to a potential doomsday scenario. Indeed, the metaphorical “Doomsday Clock,” created in 1947 by atomic scientists to represent the estimated likelihood of a human-made global catastrophe, was recently set in January 2025 to 89 seconds before midnight—the closest it has ever been.
Complexities in Global Deterrence Dynamics
The diversity of nuclear-capable nations compounds the challenge of nuclear deterrence. How do lesser nuclear powers like France, Great Britain, or China—nations that typically lack the global reach or extinction-level arsenals of the United States or Russia—fit into the equation? Even more troubling are countries like Pakistan, India, Iran, and North Korea, which present destabilizing influences and heightened risks of regional conflict.
The limitations of strategic frameworks like the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) further complicate matters. While the treaty includes five nuclear signatories, nations like India, Pakistan, and North Korea remain outside its framework, intensifying regional tensions and increasing the risk of a nuclear exchange.
Further complicating the issue, non-NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) members continue to expand their nuclear arsenals and enhance their launch capabilities. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s 2024 report, Pakistan now possesses over 170 nuclear warheads. Similarly, India is modernizing its nuclear arsenal, with at least five new weapon systems currently under development. These advancements underscore the critical urgency of addressing the growing threats posed by these developments.
Deterrent Derivatives and Regional Issues
Experts have developed concepts like “minimum credible deterrence,” which focuses on maintaining a limited but adequate retaliatory capacity to address nuclear deterrence among regional powers. This doctrine is often coupled with a “no first use” policy, which pledges not to use nuclear weapons unless first attacked. However, the United States and NATO rejected this policy, maintaining a pre-emptive strike option to counterbalance Russia’s overwhelming conventional capabilities.
The differences in global military strategies led to an arms race that peaked in the 1980s when there were over 40,000 nuclear warheads worldwide. Since then, “arms reduction” efforts have decreased this number to 12,121 today. However, new nuclear powers such as India, Pakistan, and North Korea have emerged, contributing to regional tensions. Additionally, regional antagonizers like Iran continue to pursue nuclear capabilities. The proliferation of nuclear weapons and deterrent derivatives has only heightened the risk of global conflict, underscoring the limitations of MAD as a long-term deterrent.
America’s Limited Missile Defense Strategy
Years of nuclear arms reduction agreements and adherence to a nuclear deterrence doctrine have left America’s missile defense program constrained by a “limited missile defense” strategy. This outdated approach has relied on decades-old missiles, sensors, and kill vehicles. A Heritage Foundation 2020 analysis observed, “Instead of dampening an arms race, the ABM [arms reduction treaty] merely served to restrict the development of a robust U.S. missile defense.” This has left America’s Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system—the nation’s primary defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)—woefully inadequate.
The GMD system’s primary weapon, the Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI), consists of a boost and kill vehicle. Currently, 40 GBIs are deployed at Ft. Greely, Alaska, and four at Vandenberg Space Force Base, California. While the first Trump administration requested 20 additional GBIs, the program was canceled in 2019. Efforts to upgrade the system, such as the Redesigned Kill Vehicle (RKV), were similarly abandoned, delaying essential improvements. The 2022 National Defense Strategy (NDS) reaffirmed this by acknowledging that the GMD is “neither intended nor capable of defeating the missile capabilities of Russia and China.”
This led to the Biden administration’s plans to “meet this commitment by fielding 20 of the in-development Next-Generation Interceptors (NGIs) alongside the older GBIs, placing the first beginning in 2028.” However, unlike the RKV program, the NGI program will also involve developing a new booster or upgrading the current booster, which has not been addressed in any recent DoD budget submissions.
Escalating Threats and a Lack of Priorities
Global adversaries like China and Russia are rapidly advancing their missile capabilities, posing significant challenges to U.S. defense systems. China has deployed 75–100 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), including multi-warhead versions, and developed advanced hypersonic glide vehicles that could outpace current U.S. missile defenses. The 2022 National Defense Strategy (NDS) highlights, “The PRC [People’s Republic of China] has dramatically advanced its development of conventional and nuclear-armed ballistic and hypersonic missile technology and capabilities…”
Likewise, Russia continues modernizing its intercontinental missile systems while developing precision-strike technologies aimed at overwhelming American defenses. The 2022 NDS notes, “Over the last 10 years, Russia has prioritized modernization of its intercontinental range missile systems and is developing, testing, and deploying new, diversified capabilities that pose new challenges to missile warning and defense of the U.S. homeland.” These advancements underscore the urgent need for a comprehensive, modernized missile defense strategy.
Despite escalating threats, the U.S. relies on outdated systems and incremental upgrades. Congressional priorities and funding allocations remain insufficient to field robust missile defense systems. For instance, the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Defense Budget allocates $28.4 billion—just 3% of its $850 billion total—to enhance U.S. missile defense capabilities. This funding level has remained unchanged since 2019. Furthermore, initiatives like the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act fail to mandate significant advancements in missile defense, highlighting a lack of prioritization.
A Path Forward: Revisiting Strategic Defense
In 1983, President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) proposed a comprehensive missile defense shield to make nuclear weapons obsolete. Reagan’s vision highlighted the dangers of relying on enemy rationality for national defense. While the SDI was ultimately unrealized, its principles remain relevant today. Reagan was a security realist and recognized that dependence on an enemy for one’s defense was unwise and left the world forever teetering on an Armageddon event. As Vince Houghton, historian/curator at the International Spy Museum in Washington D.C, states, “Reagan seemed to truly believe that the ballistic missile defense could finally release us from the perpetual, enduring, soul-crushing threat of Armageddon.”
President Trump acknowledges the significance of Reagan’s philosophy. In his first term, during the release of the 2019 Missile Defense Review, he stated, “Our goal is simple: to ensure that we can detect and destroy any missile launched against the United States, anywhere, anytime, anyplace.”
He has strengthened this strategy with a recent executive order directing the Department of Defense to develop an “Iron Dome Missile Defense Shield,” or a next-generation missile defense system for the United States, to defend “against ballistic missiles, hypersonic threats, advanced cruise missiles, and other evolving aerial dangers.”
To achieve this, the United States must, in the short term,
Increase Investment in Current Missile Defense Efforts: Prioritize and increase funding for FY2025/26 for approved GMD improvements and NGIs capable of addressing hypersonic and multi-warhead threats.
Strengthen International Collaboration: Partner with allies to develop and deploy regional missile defense systems that complement U.S. capabilities.
In the long term,
Develop a Missile Defense Shield: Prioritize funding across the future year’s defense program for implementing a next-generation missile defense system for the United States against ballistic, hypersonic, advanced cruise missiles, and other next-generation aerial attacks.
Reevaluate Strategic Doctrine: Move beyond outdated nuclear deterrent policies to embrace proactive defense strategies that reflect emerging nuclear powers and modern threats.
Conclusion
Relying on outdated nuclear deterrence doctrines is insufficient to address the evolving threats posed by advanced missile technologies and the proliferation of nuclear weapons among rogue states and emerging powers. While deterrence has historically prevented large-scale nuclear conflicts, it has not stopped regional wars, dangerous arms races, or the growing risk of localized nuclear events that threaten global stability.
To ensure the safety of the American homeland, the U.S. must prioritize developing and deploying a comprehensive, modern missile defense system. By moving beyond the limitations of deterrence and adopting a forward-looking defense strategy, the United States can better protect its citizens, secure its national interests, and maintain its position as a global leader in security and technological innovation.
Major General Don McGregor (USAF ret.) is a combat veteran and an F-16 fighter pilot. While serving as a General Officer in the Pentagon, he was the National Guard Director of Strategy, Policy, Plans, and International Affairs, advising a four-star Joint Chiefs of Staff member. He was the lead liaison between the Council of Governors and the Secretary of Defense and administered the Department of Defense’s premier international affairs program, with over 80 global partnerships. He has held various operational command and director positions across the National Guard and military commands. Major General McGregor is an expert in defense strategy, policy, planning, and global security and is well-regarded for his expertise in the use of military forces to support federal agencies. He holds a master’s degree in Diplomacy and International Conflict Resolution from Norwich University
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO LLAW’s ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA
(Please note that the Sunday and Saturday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS are also added below by category, following Monday’s news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
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 humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ 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 Threats
Nuclear War
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story available in today’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s 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 Post’s 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.
Are We There Yet? Spotlight · Growing Bolder · The Florida Roundup · Morning Edition · All Things Considered … nuclear bomb? And he said, well, they’ …
Nuclear energy is set for a “renaissance” under U.S. President Donald Trump, according to Tema ETFs’ Yuri Khodjamirian. · The chief investment officer …
During the Cold War, the term strategic forces referred to nuclear weapons deployed on strategic delivery systems: intercontinental ballistic missiles …
LLAW’s NUCLEAR WORLD NEWS TODAY with the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES of TOMORROW
“Proliferation News is a biweekly newsletter from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace highlighting the latest nuclear trends in the nuclear policy community.” You can receive their biweekly newsletter by submitting your email address via the invitation at the end of this “LLAW’s All Things Nuclear” Post.
The multiple summaries of the medias’ stories on nuclear issues and concerns via links to important coverage are succinct, informative, and to the point on all nuclear proliferation concerns. I highly recommend that anyone wanting to understand today’s world nuclear proliferation issues at a glance subscribe to the their email newsletter.
As you may have guessed beforehand, Trump is the major subject and the catalyst of most all concerns of this biweekly post, and his presence on the nuclear world scene is extremely sensitive and may well add friction to and aggravating any chance of helping to create some semblance of a peaceful world. My thoughts, as my more frequent readers might suspect, where Trump’s official acts as the U.S. president on nuclear war , including nuclear power and other nuclear issues, are chiefly negative. ~llaw
Proliferation News 2/4/25
IN THIS ISSUE: Trump Set to Reimpose ‘Maximum Pressure’ on Iran, Aims to Drive Oil Exports to Zero, Iran Is Developing Plans for Faster, Cruder Weapon, U.S. Concludes, Russian Attacks Near Ukrainian Nuclear Infrastructure Heighten Scrutiny of Kyiv’s Preparedness, Russia Condemns Trump Missile Defence Shield Plan, Accuses US of Plotting to militarise Space, Southeast Asia Looks to Nuclear Power to Supercharge its Energy Transition, Trump Wants a Nuclear Deal. Can He Be the Ultimate Negotiator?
U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday plans to restore his “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran in an effort to stop Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and drive its oil exports down to zero, a U.S. official said…Trump will sign a presidential memorandum that, among other things, orders the U.S. Treasury secretary to impose “maximum economic pressure” on Iran, including sanctions and enforcement mechanisms on those violating existing sanctions, the official said. As part of the maximum pressure effort, the Trump administration will implement a campaign “aimed at driving Iran’s oil exports to zero,” the official said.
David E. Sanger and Julian E. Barnes | New York Times
New intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program has convinced American officials that a secret team of the country’s scientists is exploring a faster, if cruder, approach to developing an atomic weapon if Tehran’s leadership decides to race for a bomb, according to current and former American officials. The development comes even amid signals that Iran’s new president is actively seeking a negotiation with the Trump administration.
SAMYA KULLAB and HANNA ARHIROVA | Associated Press
“The switchyards that handle electrical routing from nuclear power plants are a vital component of Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure — powering homes, schools, hospitals, and other critical civilian infrastructure. Given Ukraine’s heavy reliance on nuclear energy, military attacks on these switchyards would be devastating, severely impacting civilian life and undermining the resilience of the energy grid,” said Marcy R. Fowler, head of the office for research and analysis at Open Nuclear Network, a program of the U.S.-based NGO PAX sapiens that focuses on reducing nuclear risk.
Russia on Friday condemned an executive order by U.S. President Donald Trump to build a new missile defence shield, accusing the United States of trying to upset the global nuclear balance and pave the wave for military confrontation in space. Trump on Monday signed an order that “mandated a process to develop an ‘American Iron Dome,’” a next-generation U.S. missile defence shield against ballistic, hypersonic, cruise missile and other forms of aerial attack.
VICTORIA MILKO and ANIRUDDHA GHOSAL | Associated Press
Southeast Asia’s only nuclear power plant, completed four decades ago in Bataan, about 40 miles from the Philippine capital Manila, was built in the 1970s but left idle due to safety concerns and corruption. It has never produced a single watt of energy. Now the Philippines and other countries in fast-growing Southeast Asia are looking to develop nuclear energy in their quest for cleaner and more reliable energy. Nuclear energy is viewed by its proponents as a climate solution since reactors don’t emit the plant-warming greenhouses gases released by burning coal, gas or oil. Advances in technology have helped reduce the risks from radiation, making nuclear plants safer, cheaper to build and smaller.
Jon B. Wolfsthal | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Sadly, President Trump’s track record of actually negotiating nuclear agreements is poor. During his first term, Trump said he wanted to negotiate a nuclear deal with North Korea (he tried and failed), with Iran (he never tried and withdrew from an existing agreement), and with Russia and China at the same time (he failed at both). But this time around, Trump has a chance to prove his negotiating skills—but only if he does it the right way.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
Get more news and analysis from Proliferation News
Proliferation News is a biweekly newsletter highlighting the latest analysis and trends in the nuclear policy community.
subscribe
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO LLAW’s ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA
(Please note that the Sunday and Saturday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS are also added below by category, following Monday’s news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
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 humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ 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 Threats
Nuclear War
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story available in today’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s 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 Post’s 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.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to use nuclear weapons multiple times during an ongoing war in Ukraine that began with its invasion in …
(See the article below for image description and photo credits ~llaw)
LLAW’s NUCLEAR WORLD NEWS TODAY with the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES for TOMORROW
It is a crying shame that the nuclear industry hopes, once again, to sell itself on the idea that nuclear energy is clean, safe, and will end our world-wide problem with carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gasses that are causing climate change and global warming.
The facts are that none of these claims are true — nor is their 4th claim that nuclear power will lower the cost of electricity — all promoted via the nuclear industry, the corporate financial world(s), governmental politics, and the media.
Unsavory nuclear energy products consist of weapons of mass destruction (bombs) and damaged nuclear power plants that create nuclear fallout, consisting of deadly radiation by-products and other harmful nuclear waste, consisting of poisonous radioactive remains such as plutonium — all together perhaps the most “dirty” products, and for sure the most wide-spread and dangerous threats to human and other life on the largest scale known to mankind.
We don’t know what to do with the nuclear waste we already have, yet we are willing to make more of it all the while facing the threat of nuclear war, nuclear power meltdowns, and lethal nuclear waste — not to mention that nuclear power plants have become a huge part of a new kind of war weapons, as proven by their use as weapons against humanity in the current Russia/Ukraine war. It is nuclear insanity. . . . ~llaw
The following article from “The Hill”, written by Cindy Folkers and Amanda M. Nichols explains how Scientists who know the facts about the dangers of radiation are being drowned out by the nuclear industry, politics, and the “gullible” media.
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill
They won’t tell you these truths about nuclear energy
by Cindy Folkers and Amanda M. Nichols, opinion contributors – 02/02/25 7:00 AM ET
Steam rises out of the nuclear plant on Three Mile Island, with the operational plant run by Exelon Generation, in Middletown, Pennsylvania on March 26, 2019. (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images)
Scientists have been arguing about the health risks from radiation since the end of the 19th century, when radioactivity was first discovered. Today, with electricity demand soaring and AI companies clamoring for their own nuclear power plants, from small modular reactor projects to giant new nuclear builds, that century-old argument is ongoing.
But now it’s mostly a battle between scientists on the one hand and the nuclear industry, the politicians it lobbies and gullible media on the other.
It took until this century for the U.S. government to finally admit that radiation had killed workers at nuclear weapons plants. For Congress, compensating them remains politically radioactive: lawmakers failed to reauthorize the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act that expired in 2024. Media coverage increasingly and uncritically repeats the talking points of nuclear industry spokespeople, who preposterously claim you would have to stand next to nuclear waste for a year to get as much radiation as having an X-ray, or that eating a banana gives you as much radiation exposure as living next to a nuclear plant.
This is dangerous disinformation in a long line of dangerous disinformation.
After the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Japan, the director of the Manhattan Project, Gen. Leslie R. Groves, debunked reports of radiation sickness as Japanese “propaganda.” Later, when he had to admit its existence, Groves misled Congress and the public by saying it was “a very pleasant way to die.”
Spreading such lies is bad enough. What is even worse is that the truth of the matter has been actively and deliberately suppressed.
Yet their early scientific findings were largely vindicated. It’s now well established that exposure to ionizing radiation has adverse health impacts, affecting the heart, lungs, thyroid, brain and immune system, causing blood disorders, cataracts, malignant tumors, keloids and other chronic conditions. It wreaks genetic havoc that can result in cancer, organ dysfunction and immune and metabolic disorders. Children and pregnant women are particularly vulnerable.
It’s also proven that ionizing radiation disproportionately impacts women and girls, with the youngest worst affected. Ethnicity and other factors beyond biological sex and age may be contributing or compounding factors. There is also a growing body of evidence that radiation has transgenerational impacts.
Meanwhile, regulators set dose limits for radiation exposure that fly in the face of the evidence. These limits purport to set a “safe” level of radiation exposure, ignoring radiation researchers who have long stressed there is no such thing as a safe level, since any exposure can contribute to adverse health impacts.
In fact, nuclear technologies, including civilian power reactors, have poisoned large swaths of land — and not only the areas around Chernobyl and Fukushima, whose radioactive cesium contaminated Tokyo. The U.S. nuclear industry has left a lasting legacy of radiation in our environment, including in our water and food, which U.S. regulators are hardly able to effectively track, let alone remediate.
Uranium mining and nuclear weapons testing particularly and disproportionately affect Indigenous land and Native Americans, compounding the harms of colonization, exploitation and marginalization on already overburdened communities. Nuclear technologies have done and will continue to do long, slow violence, especially to the poor and marginalized, leaving long-lasting ecological, human-health and genetic impacts.
We seem unable to keep these inconvenient truths in our heads, the more so since well-financed nuclear lobbyists and their government targets have misdirected our attention by reframing nuclear power as key to fighting climate change.
Perhaps the biggest lies about nuclear stem from Eisenhower’s 1953 “Atoms for Peace” speech, a carefully crafted bid to recast nuclear technology as peaceful after the atrocious 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Atoms for Peace promised to make electricity “too cheap to meter” and “make the deserts bloom,” while deliberately concealing the truth that nuclear was utterly uncompetitive and not remotely economically viable as a power source. Civilian nuclear power was misdirection away from the real agenda of building nuclear power plants, which was to help supply the nuclear weapons complex, producing enriched plutonium as feedstocks for nuclear bombs in the burgeoning arms race.
But some are pushing back, like Indigenous nations and public interest advocates in southwest Washington, where Amazon is pushing to build SMRs to power its AI business, heedless of their negative impacts and prohibitive costs.
Of all the dangers of reckless nuclear boosterism, the most insidious is disinformation concealing and denying nuclear’s past, present and future harms while wildly exaggerating its benefits. These are the perennial tactics of the nuclear industry. They litter its history, and they’re again getting traction today.
But they can be countered with sunshine — both the kind that powers real renewables with which nuclear can’t compete, and the kind that exposes its prevarications and lies with scientific evidence and public scrutiny.
Cindy Folkers is the radiation and health hazard specialist at the NGO Beyond Nuclear, and co-author with Ian Fairlie of the new book “The Scientists who Alerted us to the Dangers of Radiation.”Amanda M. Nichols, Ph.D. is a postdoctoral research fellow at University of California Santa Barbara’s Environmental Studies Program, and managing editor of the peer-reviewed Journal of Religion, Nature and Culture.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO LLAW’s ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA
(Please note that the Sunday and Saturday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS are also added below by category, following Monday’s news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
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 humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ 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 Threats
Nuclear War
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are three Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in today’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s 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 Post’s 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.
… threats of using nuclear weapons. … “The rule of law and basic morality will reign in the threat of nuclear war – we need both to reign in this threat …
Just as President Richard Nixon was unable to terminate the war in Vietnam on his terms through use of coercive nuclear threats, Putin must also fail …
LAW’s NUCLEAR WORLD NEWS TODAY with the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES for TOMORROW . . .
Given the constant Russian attacks on Ukraine’s nuclear power plants and the lesser Ukraine attacks on Russia’s nuclear power plants, how is it that we cannot call this ongoing war a nuclear war? It is obvious to me, at least, that nuclear power plants used for advantages in war are nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and are potentially as dangerous over immense land areas that, like nuclear bomb fallout, have no respect for any country’s boundaries.
So let’s be realistic and honest and call the Russia/Ukraine war a nuclear war. And I suspect that in future wars around the globe nuclear power plants will be favorable targets of nuclear bombs (adding to the nuclear radiation and other damage much like Annie Jacobsen’s conceivable description of such a devastating nuclear attack on the California home of PG&E’s Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant near San Luis Obispo — just 12 miles away — in her remarkable and extremely well researched book “Nuclear War – A Scenario”.
Obviously this kind of warfare can no longer be considered conventional, nor is it fiction, but undoubtedly a very real part of any future nuclear warfare. This is why I continue to say unequivocally that disarmament of nuclear weapons must include all nuclear power plants. Also know that the use of nuclear power will never solve the problem of climate change and global warming. ~llaw
Following is a relevant and more currently detailed news article of the situation in Ukraine from “War on the Rocks” by author Theresa Sabonis-Helf
The Electricity Front of Russia’s War Against Ukraine
Russia is close to achieving a decisive edge on the energy front of the Russo–Ukrainian war. Repeated attacks on key infrastructure have recently intensified, leaving Ukraine’s damaged electrical grid 70 percent reliant on three complexes of nuclear reactors. These reactors are increasingly threatened by the instability of the grid itself and could become unsafe to operate, forcing a shutdown and grid collapse. Since Ukraine has submitted to heightened oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the decision to shut down its nuclear plants if the perceived risk becomes too high may not be entirely its own.
Protecting the grid’s key substations is now the single most important priority for the survival of the Ukrainian state. By targeting electricity, Russia has made the current phase of the war an urban battle between darkness and light — and there is a clear scenario whereby darkness could triumph.
And supply seems constantly under threat: There have been over 1,000 attacks on Ukraine’s power grid since the start of the war, with Russia escalating its energy-focused attacks in 2024. A new round of bombardments in August undermined the efforts of Ukrainian authorities to restore the power supply over the summer. By September, the grid was reportedly generating only one-third of its pre-February 2022 level. Due to the repeated bombings of thermal and hydropower plants, the majority of Ukraine’s remaining electricity generation now comes from nine nuclear power plants arranged in three complexes: Rivne (four reactors), South Ukraine (three reactors), and Khmelnitsky (two reactors). Russia has been reluctant to attack these facilities directly due to the risk of releasing radioactive contaminants into the surrounding environments.
Russian Targeting of Ukraine’s Nuclear Power Plants
Russia does not need to attack the three remaining nuclear power plant complexes to collapse Ukraine’s electricity supply. The national grid is connected by 103 substations, which used to integrate electricity from several sources (e.g., nuclear, coal, gas, and hydro) but now rely mostly on nuclear power. This lack of source diversity weakens the grid, increasing the chances of cascading failure.
The substations are a vital part of the entire system. Without them, nuclear power plants can neither supply the grid nor retain the backup supply of power that is essential for reactor safety. Therefore, the loss of offsite power to a nuclear power plant is a serious problem.
To make matters worse, many of Ukraine’s substations are exposed and vulnerable, lacking adequate protection against Russian air attacks. On Nov. 28, attacks against four substations forced a temporary shutdown of one of the four reactors at the Rivne complex. The same series of attacks forced nuclear power plants at all three complexes to reduce electricity output as a precautionary measure since the resulting damage had created dangerous instabilities in the grid.
Forcing a shutdown of a nuclear power plant by attacking the surrounding substations is straight out of the Russian playbook: In September 2022, Russia compelled the closure of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant using similar means. By attacking nearby substations and thereby frequently interrupting the steady flow of power across a period of several weeks, Russia drove the facility to decrease output, then to supply power only to itself, and finally to lose connection to offsite power. This loss of offsite power happened repeatedly during the attacks, raising the perceived risk of an accident enough that the International Atomic Energy Agency intervened, encouraging Ukraine to close the facility, which it did in September 2022. Russia declared that it had taken control of the shuttered plant on Oct. 5, 2022. It remains in Russian hands today.
From that experience, Russia learned how the International Atomic Energy Agency might respond to a situation of heightened danger to a nuclear power plant. In fact, the agency has played a leading role in helping Ukraine manage its nuclear power since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. Thus, the prospect of using the agency as a tool to compel shutdown offers a potentially attractive option to the Kremlin.
The Role of the International Atomic Energy Agency in the Russo–Ukrainian War
In response to the first-ever occurrence of heavy fighting near nuclear power plants, the International Atomic Energy Agency became involved in the war on the second day of the invasion. The Ukrainian government notified the agency on Feb. 25, 2022 that it had lost control of the Chernobyl plant, which had been managed by Ukrainian authorities since its shutdown in 1986. It also invited the agency to take on an enhanced regulatory role during the conflict.
Since that day, the agency has established an important role for itself in the war, reporting on the state of Ukraine’s power supply and working to reduce risks of a nuclear catastrophe. It has supported Ukraine generously, completing 86 deliveries of safety and security equipment worth more than $14 million. In March 2022, the agency established seven “indispensable pillars” for nuclear safety and security amid the conflict, and it has provided regular reports on dangers to these pillars ever since. The presence of “secure off-site power supply from the grid for all nuclear sites” — or pillar four — is among the most often reported. At the invitation of Ukraine, the agency has established monitoring teams at each of Ukraine’s nuclear power plant complexes, including Zaporizhzhia. The agency continues to report on the risks at Zaporizhzhia and regularly emphasizes the fact that closing the plant significantly reduced — but did not eliminate — risk.
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s nuclear safety pillars have subsequently been endorsed by all member states, including Ukraine and Russia. The office of the agency’s director general releases a press statement every time a nuclear-safety-relevant incident occurs. As of Jan. 23, 2025, there had been 271 statements on the situation in Ukraine. The agency has undoubtedly made all of Europe safer by its intervention.
This very intervention, however, suggests a potential lever for the Kremlin. The agency has become the key vehicle for providing European donor assistance to Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. Continuous agency reporting of irregularities and risks can serve to heighten European concern about possible risks to the surrounding areas of an accident or incident. Russia is clearly aware of the concern and seems to be deliberately ratcheting up the fear, including by carrying out a Dec. 10, 2024 drone attack on the vehicle of newly arrived agency observers.
The Acceptable Level of Risk
Ukraine is thus partially dependent both on the agency and on European energy ties. Beginning in 2011, Ukraine joined the European Energy Community, setting itself on a course to be fully compliant with E.U. energy law — and compatible with the massive European grid. This required steadily disengaging from the Russian grid and increasing the transparency of all energy trade with Russia. The European Energy Community, which includes all E.U. members, welcomed Ukraine’s membership, hoping that a new member with surplus nuclear generation capacity could assist with achieving Europe’s ambitious goals to increase electricity generation while continuously decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. Understanding the potential economic windfall involved, Ukraine managed to achieve and implement the difficult but necessary structural energy reforms. From 2011 to 2022, the successive disengagement from Russian energy structures and systems served to further increase tensions with Russia.
By February 2022, Ukraine had only one remaining requirement for gaining membership in the European grid: to demonstrate that it could operate its domestic grid reliably in isolation for a week. This “de-linking” (from Russia, Belarus, and Poland) had been previously scheduled for Feb. 24. Since the full-scale invasion began the same day and Ukraine went ahead with de-linking despite the attack, Ukraine’s grid continued to operate in isolation until it was accepted permanently into the European electricity grid on March 16, 2022. Thereafter, Ukraine became a net exporter, steadily exporting electricity to Europe from March 2022 through August 2022. The revenue and status Ukraine derived from those exports were significant factors in the Russian decision to increase shelling of the substations and power lines associated with the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Since the closure of that facility on Sep. 12, 2022, Ukraine has become a net importer of electricity, regularly petitioning the European grid system for higher import volumes and more infrastructure. According to Ukraine’s energy ministry, Kyiv regards its energy relationship with Europe as a crucial source of imports at present — but as a critical export market in the longer term. Thus, maintaining a reputation for reliability and safe operation of its power generation is essential.
Ukraine is not the only country focused on a nuclear energy future. In fact, nuclear energy is enshrined in European law as a long-term fuel source for the green transition, and 12 E.U. states joined the United States, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine in pledging to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050 as part of U.N. climate commitments. However, history suggests a nuclear accident caused by the war could derail a potential nuclear renaissance. The 2011 Fukushima disaster led to a collapse in the global price of uranium and had a measurable impact on the trajectory of nuclear power globally, as it compelled countries to recalculate unanticipated risks. Experts are already reconsidering the military implications of nuclear power and calling for stronger international oversight to precede new construction.
Due to the fear of an accident with local and international implications, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States are likely to join with the International Atomic Energy Agency in insisting on shutting down any of Ukraine’s nuclear power plant complexes if they — or the grid to which they are connected — fail to meet international safety standards. The E.U.–Ukraine Association Agreement states, in Article 342, that Ukraine must cooperate with International Atomic Energy Agency principles and standards for nuclear safety. With the agency monitoring on the ground and releasing regular press statements, there will be little room for Ukraine to negotiate.
Ukraine’s Energy Security Options
International advisors and Ukrainian energy experts agree that the best measure Ukraine can take to avoid grid collapse is to concentrate air defense systems on protecting the key substations: Defending the grid is as critical as defending the remaining megawatts. Even the International Energy Agency, which typically focuses on the infrastructure and market development of its members, has included “bolster the physical and cyber security of Ukraine’s critical energy infrastructure” first among its priority recommendations for getting Ukraine through the rest of the winter.
Meanwhile, the ability to conduct rapid repairs to the grid and substations is an area in which Ukraine has excelled. Ukraine’s ability to restore power to half a million citizens within 24 hours of the Christmas day attacks was remarkable. According to experts at the Ukraine Energy Security Dialogue in December 2024, the ability to repair transformers rapidly has been dramatically improved (although it still takes 17 days). In addition, Ukraine has sought resilience through building up distributed power: Over 1.5 million power generators have been imported, 200 megawatts of energy storage has been purchased to help increase grid resilience, and some decentralized power systems are in place. Absent sufficient air defense for the grid, however, these measures may not be enough.
If Ukraine is able to make it through the winter, the coming year looks more promising. The International Energy Agency released a recent report arguing for a decentralized electricity system for the country to supplement its nuclear power. Such a system would integrate renewables, batteries, and modular gas turbines, which could significantly improve the resilience of the grid. Distributed energy resource systems are typically more difficult to target, while making it possible to generate power closer to demand centers. If sufficient investment can be found, such a system could be put into place relatively rapidly.
While Ukraine improves its own ability to generate power, it can also increase electricity imports from the European grid system. Current import levels are limited by existing contracts and infrastructure, but Ukraine’s imports expanded significantly in the past year from 1.7 to 2.5 megawatts and could be further increased in the spring. The key barriers to imports are security and cost. Russia has regularly targeted cross-border transmission lines, so increased imports must be coupled with improved air defense in additional strategic locations. Finally, like much of the country, Ukraine’s electricity sector is battling insolvency. After a year of near-constant attacks, the grid operator, Ukrenergo, had to suspend payments in November 2024. Although it is said by the Ukrainian government to be “restructuring,” the operator’s inability to pay for electricity imports serves to dampen enthusiasm for expanding exports.
The Worst Case Scenario
If keeping Ukraine’s electrical grid functioning seemingly requires huge investment, consider the cost of a failure to do so. Ukraine’s ability to keep the lights on is closely tied to both regime survival and European stability. Ukraine is 70 percent urban, with five major cities having over 900,000 residents each. Large urban areas such as these rapidly become ungovernable without electricity. The highly centralized systems in Ukraine mean that a loss of electricity puts water, sewage, and heat at risk as well, increasing the likelihood of large-scale population displacement. An estimated 6.8 million refugees have already left Ukraine, with an additional 4.0 million internally displaced. A catastrophic outmigration would create a refugee crisis across Europe, especially in neighboring states. Poland is already hosting over 900,000 Ukrainian refugees and Germany is hosting over 1.5 million. An additional nine European countries are hosting between 100,000 and 900,000 each. Europe has mostly been welcoming, but a second wave of refugees would strain the resources of even the most generous states. A full-blown winter refugee crisis could reduce Europe’s will to continue supporting Ukraine in its fight and in its negotiation of the terms of peace.
A grid collapse, should it occur, would reflect the ongoing role played by energy in this war. From the 2015 severing of Crimea from Ukraine’s electricity grid, to the 2015–2016 massive cyber attacks on Ukraine’s grid, to the destruction of the Nord Stream II pipeline, energy has factored heavily into the grievances and the ends, ways, and means of the Russo–Ukrainian war from its outset. We now find ourselves in a moment in which a slow war of attrition could come to an abrupt end, resolved by the triumph of cold and darkness. Ukraine’s survival now turns not on megatons, but on megawatts.
Theresa Sabonis-Helf is a professor at Georgetown University, and concentration chair for science, technology, and international affairs in the Masters of Science in Foreign Service program.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO LLAW’s ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA
(Please note that the Sunday and Saturday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS are also added below by category, following Monday’s news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
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 humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ 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 Threats
Nuclear War
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are three Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in today’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s 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 Post’s 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.
However, Kazakhstan had only one Russia-made nuclear power reactor, which operated from 1972 to 1999, generating electricity and desalinating water. A …
But that cross-pollination of expertise will be key to how we manage these threats. The looming threat for most people these days seems to be climate …
Share · How Scientists Track Dangerous Asteroids · Can We Stop an Asteroid? · Should We Be Worried? · Asteroid Extinction Risks vs Other Global Threats.
