Continuing on with the latest on Russia/Ukraine war, courtesy of Reuters: This kind of demented reasoning, irritational as it is, as opposed to nuclear missiles attacking Ukraine, at least for now, though cruel, cowardly, and inhumane, makes far more sense than a nuclear war with nuclear bombs that could easily grow from Russia/Ukraine and part of Europe to the entire world in a matter of days if not hours.
Still, if true, this kind of nuclear use would be an extremely hideous and dangerous attack, but somewhat localized to Ukraine and Europe via drifting radioactive nuclear fallout from an assault that would destroy Ukraine’s three nuclear power plants and their multiple reactors, which also supplies about half of Ukraine’s electricity with winter not far ahead. Such an attack, no matter what else Russia decides to do to avoid losing an already lost war demonstrates the inhumanity of man toward life, human or otherwise, on our beautiful and generous life-offering planet Earth. She deserves better . . . ~llaw
Ukraine says Russia is planning strikes on nuclear facilities
By Reuters
September 21, 20247:18 AM PDTUpdated a day ago
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha attends a joint press conference with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and British Foreign Secretary David Lammy (both not pictured), amid Russia’s attack on Ukraine, in Kyiv, Ukraine, September 11, 2024. REUTERS/Alina Smutko/file Photo
KYIV, Sept 21 (Reuters) – Ukraine’s foreign minister said on Saturday that Russia is planning strikes on Ukrainian nuclear facilities before the winter, and urged the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog and Ukraine’s allies to establish permanent monitoring missions at the country’s nuclear plants.
“According to Ukrainian intelligence, (the) Kremlin is preparing strikes on Ukrainian nuclear energy critical objects ahead of winter,” Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha wrote on X.
“In particular, it concerns open distribution devices at (nuclear power plants and) transmission substations, critical for the safe operation of nuclear energy.”
Sybiha did not elaborate on why Kyiv believed such strikes were being prepared.
There was no immediate comment from Moscow.
The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Ukrainian president’s chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, called for a swift global response to the purported threat of a strike on a nuclear facility.
“This is preparation for a possible nuclear disaster scenario. Russia is a terrorist,” he wrote on Telegram.
“They must be stopped here and now. The countries of the West and the Global South must react harshly to preparations for terror.”
Russia has been waging an aerial bombardment campaign on Ukraine’s power grid since autumn 2022 after invading the country earlier that year.
It has damaged or destroyed most of Ukraine’s thermal power generating capacity and has sometimes hit dams, but has not yet struck any Ukrainian-controlled nuclear facilities.
Ukraine has previously accused Russia of nuclear blackmail after Russian forces occupied the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, Europe’s largest, in March 2022, early on in the invasion.
Moscow denies that allegation.
Both sides have regularly accused each other of shelling areas next to the plant, which has on several occasions cut power lines to the plant, increasing the chance of a blackout that could cause a nuclear accident.
IAEA head Rafael Grossi has visited Ukraine and Russia several times throughout the war and has urged the sides not to engage each other near nuclear facilities.
“I think it is always a risk when there is a possibility of an attack on a nuclear power plant,” he said on a visit to Kyiv at the beginning of September.
Subscribed
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 in this evening’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.
There was no immediate comment from Moscow. The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), did not immediately respond to …
Although the big news today (and yesterday) is about the possibility of the long shut-down Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident that caused a partial meltdown of one of the nuclear reactors and possibly providing nuclear power to Microsoft.
The clean-up work at that reactor (TMI – 2) is still ongoing since the accident back in 1979 — which caused me to rethink my future and exit the nuclear business soon thereafter — and clean-up/demolition is not expected to be completed until 2052. Unit 1 is being considered to possibly be re-born to service Microsoft’s AI power demands in the not-too-distant future, although the total demolishing of both Units has long been scheduled for 2079.
But the more immediate and important news concerns the Russia/Ukraine war that could soon boil over into the use of missile driven nuclear weapons in addition to the nuclear power plants in both countries that are playing important extremely dangerous nuclear war roles such that those plants are essentially doubling as stationary nuclear-weapons themselves. And with the United States, a NATO member, now re-united and reinforced by the rest of NATO, including, of course, Ukraine, seem unsure of how to proceed in a strategic war that would win the war. Russia, however, is tempted and threatening to deploy nuclear weapons to defend themselves against possible conventional missiles provided by America.
That is why I have been saying for consecutive days now that the USA is increasingly being crushed between a ‘rock and a hard place’. This war has been mishandled by both NATO and the U.S. and setting the revised strategy is going to be extremely dangerous and difficult. Following is the latest from ”Common Dreams” . . . ~llaw
Ukrainian rescuers of the State Emergency Service and firefighters continue to extinguish the forest fire after a Russian bomb explosion in Kharkiv Oblast, Ukraine on September 17, 2024.
(Photo by Stringer/Anadolu via Getty Images)
A Nuclear War in Ukraine Is a Distinct Possibility
An interview with Norwegian political scientist Glenn Diesen.
The war in Ukraine has been going on for 2.5 years with no end on sight. Not only that, but we are now close to a nuclear war, according to the Norwegian scholar Glenn Diesen who predicted in November 2021 that “war was becoming increasingly unavoidable” as NATO was escalating tensions with Russia by strengthening its ties with Ukraine. Indeed, as Diesen argues in the interview that follows, NATO provoked Russia and sabotaged all peace negotiations, using Ukraine as a proxy to a geopolitical chessboard. Diesen is professor of political science at the University of South-Eastern Norway and author of scores of academic articles and books, including, most recently, The Ukraine War & the Eurasian World Order(2024).
C. J. Polychroniou: On February 22, 2022, in a move that few had anticipated, Russia invaded Ukraine by launching a simultaneous ground and air attack on several fronts. The war hasn’t gone at all as Moscow had intended and it rages on as neither side is seriously considering an end to the fighting. Yet, the invasion is in many ways a continuation of a territorial conflict between Russia and Ukraine that goes back to 2014. What lies behind the Russia-Ukraine conflict? How did we arrive at this dangerous juncture that is now dragging NATO into the conflict?
Glenn Diesen: I predicted the war in an article in November 2021, in which I argued war was becoming “unavoidable” as NATO continued to escalate while rejecting any peaceful settlement. This should have been evident to everyone if we had an honest discussion about what had been happening.
NATO was always part of this conflict, and it did not start as a territorial conflict. The conflict began with the Western-backed coup in Ukraine in February 2014, which was seen as a precursor to NATO expansion and the eventual eviction of Russia from its Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol. As the New York Times has confirmed, on the first day after the coup, the new Ukrainian government hand-picked by Washington established a partnership with the CIA and MI6 for a covert war against Russia. It is important to remember that Russia had not laid any claims to Crimea before seizing it in the referendum in March 2014. This is not a commentary on legality or legitimacy, merely the fact that Russia’s actions were a reaction to the coup.
We are very close to a nuclear war, and we are deluding ourselves by suggesting we are merely helping Ukraine defend itself.
A proxy war broke out in which NATO backed the government it installed in Kiev and Russia backed the Donbas rebels who refused to recognize the legitimacy of the coup and resisted the de-russification and purge of the language, political opposition, culture, and the church. The Minsk-2 peace agreement of 2015 laid the foundation for resolving the conflict, but this was merely treated as a deception to buy time and build a large Ukrainian army as confirmed by the Germans, French and authorities in Kiev. After 7 years of Ukraine refusing to implement the Minsk agreement and NATO’s refusing to give Russia any security guarantees for NATO’s military infrastructure that moved into Ukraine—Russia invaded in February 2022.
It is correct that the war has not gone as Moscow expected. Russia thought it could impose a peace but was taken by surprise when the U.S. and U.K. preferred war. When Russia sent in its military, the small size and conduct of the invading forces indicated that the purpose was merely to pressure Ukraine to accept a peace agreement on Russian terms. Ukraine and Russia were close to an agreement in Istanbul, although it was sabotaged by the U.S. and U.K. as they saw an opportunity to fight Russia with Ukrainians.
The nature of the war changed fundamentally as it became a war of attrition. Russia withdrew to more defensible front lines, began mobilizing its troops and sourcing the required weapons for a long-term war to defeat the NATO-built army in Ukraine. After 2.5 years of war, this has become a territorial conflict that makes it impossible to resolve in a manner that would be acceptable to all sides. As NATO refuses to accept losing its decade-long proxy war in Ukraine, it must continue to escalate and thus get more directly involved in the war. We are now at the brink of a direct NATO-Russia War.
Did NATO provoke Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? Even if so, didn’t Moscow have any other options other than to resort to the use of military force?
NATO provoked the invasion and sabotaged all paths to peace. The NATO countries affirmed on several occasions that the UN-approved Minsk agreement was the only path to a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Ukraine, yet then admitted that it was merely a ruse to militarize Ukraine. This convinced the Russians that NATO was pursuing a military solution to the conflict in Ukraine that would also involve an invasion of Crimea. As argued by a top advisor to former French president Sarkozy, the U.S.-Ukrainian strategic agreement of November 2021 convinced Russia it had to attack or be attacked.
Russia considered NATO in Ukraine to be an existential threat, and NATO refused to give Russia any security guarantees to mitigate these security concerns. The former U.S. ambassador to NATO, Kurt Volker, argued during the Biden-Putin discussions that no agreements should be made with Russia as “success is confrontation.” This war is a great tragedy as it has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians and Russians, made Europe weaker and more dependent, and taken the world to the brink of nuclear war. By failing to admit NATO’s central role in provoking this war, we also prevent ourselves from recognizing possible political solutions.
Russia and Ukraine were close to war-ending agreements in April of 2022, but apparently certain western leaders convinced Ukrainian president Zelensky to back down from such a deal. Is Ukraine a US pawn on a geo-political chessboard?
Zelensky confirmed on the first day after the Russian invasion that Moscow had contacted Kiev to discuss a peace agreement based on restoring Ukraine’s neutrality. On the third day after the invasion, Russia and Ukraine agreed to start negotiations. Yet, the American spokesperson suggested the US could not support such negotiations. When the negotiations nonetheless began, Boris Johnson was sent to Kiev to sabotage them. Johnson later wrote an op-ed warning against a bad peace. The Ukrainian negotiators and the Israeli and Turkish mediators all confirmed that Russia was willing to pull back its troops and compromise on almost everything if Ukraine would restore its neutrality to end NATO expansionism. The mediators also confirmed that the US and UK saw an opportunity to bleed Russia and thus weaken a strategic rival by fighting with Ukrainians. The US and UK told Ukraine they would not support a peace agreement based on neutrality, but NATO would supply all the weapons Ukraine would need if Ukraine pulled out of the negotiations and chose war instead. Interviews with American and British leaders made it clear that the only acceptable outcome for the war was regime change in Moscow, while other political leaders began to speak about breaking up Russia into many smaller countries.
Yes, I believe that Ukraine is a pawn on the geopolitical chessboard. Why do we not listen to all the American political and military leaders who describe this as a good war and an opportunity to weaken Russia without using American soldiers?
What does Russia want from Ukraine? Russia demands peace based on the Istanbul+ formula. The Istanbul agreement of early 2022 involved Russia retreating from the territory it seized since February 2022 in return for Ukraine restoring its neutrality. However, after 2.5 years of fighting, the war has also evolved into a territorial conflict. Russia therefore demands that Ukraine also recognizes Russian sovereignty over the territories it annexed.
Russia will not accept a ceasefire that merely freezes the front lines, because this could become another Minsk agreement that merely buys time for NATO to re-arm Ukraine to fight Russia another day. Moscow therefore demands a political settlement to the conflict based on neutrality and territorial concessions. In the absence of such an agreement and continued threats by NATO to expand after the war is over, Russia will likely also annex Kharkov, Dnipro, Nikolaev, and Odessa to prevent these historical Russian regions from falling under the control of NATO.
Ukraine has become increasingly a de facto NATO member. What are the chances that Russia might introduce tactical nuclear weapons in the battlefield to achieve its aims?
Russia permits the use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack or if its existence is threatened. NATO becoming directly involved in the war is considered an existential threat by Russia, and Russia has warned that NATO would become directly involved by supplying long-range precision missiles. Such missiles will need to be operated by American and British soldiers and navigated by their satellites, thus this represents a NATO attack on Russia. We are very close to a nuclear war, and we are deluding ourselves by suggesting we are merely helping Ukraine defend itself.
Can you briefly discuss the implications for world order if the West defeats Russia? And what would the international system look like if Russia wins the war in Ukraine?
The West would like to defeat Russia to restore a unipolar order. As many military and political leaders in the US argue, once Russia has been defeated then the US can focus its resources on defeating China. It is worth remarking that few Western political leaders have clearly defined what “victory” over the world’s largest nuclear power would look like. Russia considers this war to be an existential threat to its survival, and I am therefore convinced that Russia would launch a nuclear attack long before NATO troops get to march through Crimea.
A Russian victory will leave Ukraine a dysfunctional state with much less territory, while NATO will have lost much of its credibility as this was bet on a victory. The war has intensified a transition to a multipolar world, and this likely increase at a much higher pace if NATO loses the war in Ukraine.
NATO expansion that cancelled inclusive pan-European security agreements with Russia was the main manifestation of America’s hegemonic ambitions after the Cold War, thus the entire world order will be greatly influenced by the outcome of this war. This also explains why NATO will be prepared to attack Russia with long-range precision missiles and risk a nuclear exchange.
Subscribed
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 in this evening’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.
View all programs · 1A · All Things Considered · Destination Out · Fresh Air · Here and Now · Homespun · Juke Joint · Morning Edition · On Point · The …
All Classical HD 3 Music Programs · All Things Acoustic · Bama Bluegrass · Classical Music with David Duff · Getting Sentimental Over You · Something …
The only reason I have posted this short Forbes story is to point out that the whole concept of nuclear proliferation and “deterrence” is a terrible waste of all human resources including our future, and to quote Forbes on the financial part of it, which anyone with the slightest amount of common sense ought to clearly understand that ‘all things nuclear’ are a dead-end for all life on planet Earth: The quote: “A nuclear war could end humanity, but even without one, the costs are staggering. Last year, nuclear-armed nations spent $91.4 billion on their arsenals — a 34% increase from the year before. That’s $3,000 every second, or $173,000 a minute, wasted on weapons that threaten life instead of saving it.”
This is the existing ‘threat’ to all life — that we should instead be protecting and preserving; yet we continue to do the exact opposite of what we ought to be doing for life to continue to survive . . . ~llaw
Call For Disarmament And Solidarity As Trump Raises Nuclear Threats
From Donald Trump to Putin, nuclear weapons are back in the headlines. Yet, times of crisis often … [+]Getty Images
Nuclear weapons are back in focus. Donald Trump Jr. and RFK Jr. recently penned a joint article, warning that “the world is at greater risk of nuclear conflagration than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis.” North Korea shows no signs of scaling back its nuclear ambitions, while Iran blames the U.S. for walking away from its deal with world powers, pushing it to explore nuclear development. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin hints at resuming nuclear tests, breaking a 30-year taboo. Donald Trump, whose administration abandoned the nuclear agreement with Iran, has even claimed—perhaps bizarrely—that nuclear war poses the biggest threat to American autoworkers.
Agree with Trump or not, one thing is clear: the nuclear threat is once again front and center. Experts, including the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, say the risk of nuclear Armageddon is higher today than ever before. With nuclear-armed states locked in hot and cold wars, disarmament seems like a distant dream. But history has shown that it’s often in moments of heightened danger that diplomacy can produce breakthroughs.
Some say nuclear weapons are an even bigger threat than climate chaos — and they certainly make it worse. A nuclear war could end humanity, but even without one, the costs are staggering. Last year, nuclear-armed nations spent $91.4 billion on their arsenals — a 34% increase from the year before. That’s $3,000 every second, or $173,000 a minute, wasted on weapons that threaten life instead of saving it. Imagine the impact if that money went towards clean energy — enough to power 12 million homes with wind or plant 1 million trees every minute.
Subscribed
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 two Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this evening’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.
Ukraine downed 61 drones during Russia’s overnight attack. Ukraine’s forces destroyed 61 out of 70 Russian attack drones and one out of four missiles …
That represents a big change in the way the military has historically talked about the possibility of nuclear war. It used to be that intelligence or …
List and interactive map of current and past earthquakes near Yellowstone volcano. Android App · Android App · Volcanoes & Earthquakes Upgrade the …
IAEA Weekly News
20 September 2024
Read the top news and insights from this week’s 68th IAEA General Conference. For more in-depth coverage, check out our conference blog or visit IAEA.org.
The 68th annual IAEA General Conference is coming to a close, with final discussions around possible resolutions likely to last into the evening. Read more →
Eleven countries have been newly elected to serve on the 35-member IAEA Board of Governors for the 2024–2025 period. The election took place on Thursday, 19 September, at the plenary session of the 68th IAEA General Conference. Read more →
The IAEA Scientific Forum 2024, themed Atoms4Food: Better Agriculture for a Better Life, opened alongside the 68th IAEA General Conference, focusing on how nuclear technology can help tackle global food insecurity. Read more →
From welcoming the IAEA’s newest Member States to learning about all aspects of the IAEA’s work, find out what happened on the first day of the IAEA’s 68th General Conference. Read more →
Although I don’t agree with some of the thoughts and resulting considerations and conclusions in this article, as presented by the typical political and military standards of war, the contents of the the evaluations are probably more right than wrong. It shows, once again, how the United States is caught between a ‘rock and a hard place’ over what to give Ukraine for weapons as well as restricting the use of them.
No doubt the conservatively strategized support to Ukraine over the last two-and-a-half years has been an attempt to avoid the use of nuclear weapons by Russia while at the same time depriving any opportunity for Ukraine to win the war by minimizing the military aid and conventional war equipment and limiting the permission to use our help, but with their own military strategies. This has been patently unfair to Ukraine, and I’m sure Russia knows that . . . and therefore has not found it necessary to consider nuclear weapons. But, as the article points out, such tactics only pile up with no chance of a mutually agreed upon conclusion to the war by either side. Putin wants Ukraine and Kiev back, and Ukraine doesn’t want to give it back. And so the war goes on . . . (And, I will add, this war is already using nuclear power plants as nuclear weapons as physical threats in a direct and dangerous way.)
And now we have a third participant, NATO, that has ideas of its own well-considered strategies, making that US ‘rock and a hard place’ a narrower tightening turn of the vice the free world is in. This is partly why the article’s author, Philips P. O’Brien makes his conclusion as he does. He also understands the scales and balances of those ‘Strategists’ who for better or worse contrive the progress of wars, of which I have no clue.
So, to the point Mr. O’Brian makes about the possibility or probability of the military form of nuclear weapons of mass destruction entering the war makes a lot of sense even if I don’t agree, because to me, the whole concept of war is humanitarianly ridiculous. ~llaw
The new red line: Why a prolonged conflict in Ukraine makes a nuclear attack more likely
President Vladimir Putin talks with the governor of Kursk on the situation regarding the Ukrainian invasion of the south of the oblast. Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
There should have been a nuclear war by now—at least if the wargames and academic models of state behavior are to be believed. For the last two-and-a-half years, Ukraine, in its fight to protect its land and people, has repeatedly and in an escalatory fashion continued to flout the warnings of nuclear-armed Russia. In doing so, the Ukrainians have steadily done things that were confidently claimed to be clear triggers for Russian nuclear weapons use.
First, the Ukrainians began and have steadily waged an increased-range weapons campaign against Crimea, part of Ukraine that Russia had illegally annexed and claimed for its own. Starting with sea drones, and then expanding to a range of missiles and unpiloted aerial vehicles (UAVs), Ukraine has attacked countless targets on and around the peninsula, destroying Russian military equipment, command and control facilities, and even sinking major warships and attempting to blow up the Kerch Bridge, which Russia built after the annexation to connect the two countries.
Crimea has been only the start of Ukraine’s increasing attacks against Russia. The Ukrainians have for over a year now waged a long-range campaign against Russian military and economic infrastructure throughout Russia itself—which some thought would prompt a Russian nuclear weapons attack.
The Ukrainians have attacked air bases hundreds of miles from the Ukrainian border, sent UAVs against targets in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and waged an increasingly effective campaign against Russian oil and gas infrastructure—targeting refineries and storage areas. On September 1st, the Ukrainians launched what might be their largest ever UAV attack on Russian infrastructure, hitting power plants in the Moscow area. These are vital links in Vladimir Putin’s economic system of control, and yet the Ukrainians have gone after them whenever possible.
Finally, the Ukrainians invaded Russia itself. A secretly prepared force of experienced Ukrainian troops laid out a clever plan to attack where the Russians were weakest, and in a few days struck deep into Russian sovereign territory in Kursk Oblast and Belgorod Oblast. Initially thought to be a raid, it now seems that the Ukrainians intend to stay. There are even signs that the Ukrainians are planning on digging in and setting up a fortified zone—inside Russia itself. Moreover, the Ukrainians are regularly using weapons supplied by the United States and major western European states inside Russia itself: blowing up bridges, attacking Russian reinforcements, and inflicting a great deal of military loss.
To summarize, more than two-and-a-half years after nuclear-armed Russia invaded Ukraine, the Ukrainians have invaded and seized a large swathe of Russian land—the first invasion of Russia since World War II. And what remains to be seen? Not only has Russia declined to use nuclear weapons to strike back against the Ukrainian invaders; the Russians have not taken any step to even prepare nuclear weapons for use.
This lack of concrete steps to prepare any kind of nuclear action is fascinating and flies in the face of what was expected in the upper echelons of the US government and other circles, who have clearly been looking for signs of Russian nuclear escalation. “Scores” of wargames played out in the US government for years have culminated in the use of nuclear weapons long before reaching a Ukrainian invasion of Russia itself. Certainly, Biden administration officials in both the White House and Department of Defense have acted consistently as if they believe that US actions could trigger a nuclear response by Russia. There has been reporting that details how some in the Biden administration misinterpreted intelligence, concluding Russia might be preparing to strike—but no evidence shows that any steps were actually taken. The Carnegie Endowment’s Christopher Chivvis warned in March 2022 that nuclear weapons use was one of two of the most likely results of the war—based on “scores” of war games in which they had been deployed.
And yet, the conflict has remained nuclear-weapons-free. On the one hand, this could be something to celebrate. Events long thought to lead to nuclear weapons use have not.
On the other hand, this failure to understand when and how nuclear weapons might be used should actually lead to a wholesale reevaluation of predominant preconceptions about the weapons’ role in international relations, how to deter them, and when not to defer to them. The scary reality might be that prevailing assumptions of how nations could reach the threshold of nuclear weapons usage were overwrought, but the way those assumptions have shaped policy has made a nuclear conflict far more likely.
Flawed assumptions. One of the basic flaws in experts’ views of how and when nuclear weapons might be used involves process; this decision has often been seen as being a rational endpoint to a conventional series of military escalation steps. Herman Kahn’s extremely over-wrought but well-known escalation ladder has an impressive 44 steps to move from crisis to calamity. In such an ordered world, the use of conventional weapons in any given war gets considerably more offensive and all encompassing, until eventually it reaches the top of an escalation ladder and nuclear weapons are used.
However, the use of nuclear weapons might only have the most tangential and illogical connection to the use of conventional weapons. The Russo-Ukraine war has shown that there are huge disincentives to the use of nuclear weapons, that there can be significant escalation on the conventional side without risking a nuclear attack—even when only one side possesses nuclear weapons.
Indeed, the disincentives have proven considerable. One of the foundational countervailing forces relates to other nuclear powers, which will exert massive pressure against a nuclear armed state to prevent it from attacking a non-nuclear state with nuclear weapons. For example, during this war, India and, particularly, China have played a massive role in deterring Russia from using nuclear weapons.
What may have previously been misunderstood is that if a nuclear weapon is ever used, it will effectively destroy the nuclear non-proliferation argument that nuclear powers love to use to convince non-nuclear powers to remain non-nuclear. For instance, China must fear that a Russian nuclear attack as part of an expansionist war against a non-nuclear neighboring state would prompt others to prepare for such an attack. China’s regional neighbors, such as Japan, South Korea, and even Taiwan—all of which could make nuclear weapons quite easily—would quickly go nuclear for their own protection. South Korea is even openly discussing such a possibility.
China has even publicly humiliated Russia by forcing Putin, in the midst of all his nuclear saber-rattling, to agree a joint communique with Chinese President Xi Jingping in which Putin disavowed the use of nuclear weapons. The official Chinese communique was clear that Putin had agreed that “nuclear war cannot be won and must not be fought.” It was a stunning Chinese power play in the midst of all the fanfare, one that has not received the prominence it deserves.
It’s not just Russia’s most important international friends putting on the pressure. The United States has reportedly let the Russians know that if they ever used a nuclear weapon against Ukraine, the response would be conventional and overwhelming.
Indeed, if Russia did use a nuclear weapon, it would destroy the one foundation that makes Russia a significant power: It has nuclear weapons, and most other states don’t. Russia has been shown to be a seriously overrated military power, with a relatively small economy that is now almost entirely dependent on China to remain functional. Its nuclear arsenal is the only buttress to its claim as a global player. However, if it uses a nuclear weapon in a war of expansion, it will almost certainly set off a major chain-reaction of nuclear proliferation that will greatly diminish its own influence.
A hollow threat. As it has resulted in a Ukrainian invasion of Russia, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown how unlikely nuclear weapons usage ever was. All the war games that end up in a nuclear exchange say more about the uselessness of war games in correctly estimating nuclear risk than anything else.
The creation of an intellectual world in which decision-making is based on restraining conventional escalation because it could lead to nuclear weapons usage might be deemed acceptable, as restraining weapons usage is positive. But this might be the greatest fallacy of the current focus on escalation dynamics and nuclear weapons use.
By deferring to Putin’s nuclear threats in the way that the United States has in this war, two very dangerous precedents have been set that, if anything, could make nuclear weapons usage more likely in the future.
First, the United States has provided massive battlefield advantages to Russia throughout the war by overreacting to Russia’s nuclear threats. Ukraine has been consistently limited in what it can receive from the US conventional arsenal, and the United States has even limited what Ukraine can do with what it has been given. The deliveries of HIMARS, or Abrams tanks, F-16s, or ATACMS ammunition (all rather old systems by US standards) have been far slower than they needed to be. Furthermore, the geographic and political limits the United States has tried to impose on Ukraine—discouraging it from attacking Crimea and Russian military units just over the border in Russia that were poised to attack Ukraine, and now forbidding Ukraine from attacking Russian air bases being used to bombard Ukrainian cities—have provided Russia with a major asymmetrical advantage in this war.
Even now, as the US and Britain appear ready to approve Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles, the delay has allowed Russia to move its glide bombers outside the range of those weapons. Once again, in its desire to limit escalation, what the US has done is lengthened the war—making it longer and more destructive.
In other words, the United States is deliberately incentivizing the spread of nuclear weapons. Any power looking logically at the Russo-Ukraine war has to calculate that having nuclear weapons, even if they will never be used, provides a massive advantage in a conventional war. By overreacting to the possible use of nuclear weapons, the United States is incentivizing their spread.
Second, the US policies that try to limit Ukraine from going up a (probably mythical) escalation ladder have lengthened this war a great deal. If Ukraine had been properly armed in depth in 2022, it could have devastated the Russian army when it was at its weakest—particularly in the second half of the year. However, because Ukraine had been so poorly armed by the United States, Ukraine only had the partial victories at Kharkiv and Kherson.
This pattern repeated in 2023. Instead of allowing Ukraine to strike Russia in depth, the United States prepared the Ukrainians for a frontal assault against prepared Russian defensive positions within Ukraine. The result was small gains and heavy losses, as the Russians were able to fight knowing that their rear areas were protected, thanks to the United States.
A counterintuitive outcome. The United States has lengthened the war and made it far bloodier and indecisive than it needed to be. Oddly enough, this probably makes it more likely that Putin will use a nuke. The longer a war goes on, the more politically intense and brutal it gets. People start contemplating doing things they would not have contemplated at the start. In other words, the real escalation is not one of weapons; it’s the one that happens in leaders’ minds.
A shorter, sharp war is almost certainly less likely to lead to nuclear weapons usage than a longer, unstable, and embittered one.
After two-and-a-half years of full-scale conventional war, many of the assumptions underlying the use of nuclear weapons lie in tatters. Strategists need to rethink and reframe this debate entirely. And it’s important to start soon. The old policies that counselled against escalation because it could lead to nuclear weapons usage might prove to have entirely the opposite effect.
Subscribed
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 in this evening’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.
… things that were confidently claimed to be clear triggers for Russian nuclear weapons use. … All the war games that end up in a nuclear exchange say …
“As long as people want to build data centers and Bitcoin and all the other things that are going on with this new technology like AI, there’s gonna ..
Donald Trump has made the astonishing claim that “nuclear weapons” are the biggest threat to the car manufacturing industry. His statement tells us how deranged Trump is because nuclear war has absolutely nothing to do with ‘car manufacturing’ or any other kind of manufacturing or other corporate industry. All industries will fail if nuclear war becomes a reality. Here is what he said, and why he said such a thing in one short paragraph:
“We have countries that are hostile to us. They don’t have to be. I got along great with Vladimir Putin, President Xi and Kim Jong Un,” he said. “It’s the single biggest threat to the world. You won’t care about making cars if that stuff starts happening.”
He thinks he is one of them — a powerful buddy to the two most dangerous nuclear 1st strike threats on the planet, excluding Xi, whose country, China, has a “No First Use” (NFU), but the United State has refused to adopt a “no-1st use” policy. Trump could and probably would, without a second thought, start a nuclear war all by himself, and he has said so publicly several times to leaders of other countries, which of course means the United States including you and me — especially if Trump wins the presidency.
There is a wise old saying about “never fraternizing with the enemy” that Trump has no doubt never heard about, or if he has, he is intentionally ignoring it. Henry Kissinger pointed it out in an astute way, implying that the battle was between the sexes, which in a fraternal world is essentially the same thing: “No one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there’s too much fraternizing with the enemy.” Trump believes Putin, Kim Jong un, and even Xi are his bosom buddies. Either Trump is dead wrong or he is a traitor to our country. ~llaw
Struggling Donald Trump bizarrely claims nuclear war is biggest threat to car industry
Donald Trump rambled at a town hall in Flint, Michigan, alongside Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and was asked what the biggest threat to the car industry was
Donald Trump started rambling at his town hall with Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Image: RSBN)
Donald Trump has made the astonishing claim that “nuclear weapons” are the biggest threat to the car manufacturing industry. The former president was back on the campaign trail in Flint, Michigan, alongside Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, following a poll showing Kamala Harris making significant strides.
After struggling through a painful interview about cryptocurrency on Monday in which he kept trying to change the topic, the 78-year-old last night also showed no signs of having any fresh ideas for the automobile industry. When asked by a supporter what he saw as the biggest threat to Michigan’s car manufacturing future, Trump said: “We have one major threat…nuclear weapons.”
He then launched into an odd tirade about his relationships with world leaders, the Biden administration and climate change, the Express US reports.
“We have countries that are hostile to us. They don’t have to be. I got along great with Vladimir Putin, President Xi and Kim Jong Un,” he said. “It’s the single biggest threat to the world. You won’t care about making cars if that stuff starts happening.”
Trump also revealed that Kamala Harris “could not have been nicer” when she called him after his second failed assassination attempt.
He concluded: “The fact is we have to have people who are respected by the opponent. Even Pakistan has nuclear weapons. It’s the single biggest threat to civilisation by far and no one is talking about it.”
After a lengthy tirade on climate change and allegations that Mexico is “stealing jobs,” Trump ultimately circled back to the auto industry, vowing he would “turn it all around by taxation and tariffs in 24 hours.”
The internet erupted in bewilderment as social media users expressed their astonishment at Trump’s tangent taking. On platform X, one individual posted: “This guy at Trump’s town hall asks ‘what do you think is a major threat to the autoworkers in Michigan? ‘ AND BRO STARTS RAMBLING ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS”.
Echoing the sentiment, another added: “Trump’s response to a question about what he sees as the major threats to manufacturing in Michigan: NUCLEAR WAR. Keep in mind, his last rambling response was about how he doesn’t ramble in his answers.”
Donald Trump and Sarah Huckabee Sanders hold town hall (Image: Getty)
A third voice chimed in agreement stating, “Trump was asked what he thought was the biggest threat to the auto industry. His answer: nuclear war and proceeded to ramble about dictators and war for ten minutes.”
The bewildering town hall discussion took place just 24 hours following Trump’s convoluted dialogue on cryptocurrency with Farokh Sarmad, a social media influencer and entrepreneur.
Speaking from Mar-A-Lago during an X Spaces interview, the ex-president discussed overhauling the ‘old’ financial framework and embracing cryptocurrency.
Posed with the question of why it’s crucial for America to be at the forefront of crypto adoption, he responded: “It’s so important. It’s crypto. It’s AI. It’s so many other things.”
“AI needs tremendous electricity capabilities beyond anything I ever heard.”
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
SUBSCRIBE
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our Privacy Policy
Trump vowed to transform the United States into the “crypto capital of the planet” but struggled with the concept, confessing he needed to be educated by his 18 year old son Barron, who was scheduled to speak but was nowhere to be found.
“Barron knows so much about this,” Trump declared. “Barron is a young guy. He’s got four wallets or something.”
“I’m saying ‘explain this to me.’ He knows it so well. And Eric and Don. I have a lot of respect for them.”
Subscribed
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 in this evening’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.
American media suddenly spawned a series of publications on the need to avoid nuclear escalation by all means. … things, stresses the inadmissibility …
This article, an extension to the possible escalation of the Russia/Ukraine war news, adding NATO and the United States to the mix, that I have been posting daily for about a week now tells us how bleak the idea of preventing nuclear war has become.
My answer to the opening question in the article asking, “Can there be a World War III without the use of nuclear weapons?” My answer as well as Albert Einstein’s (many years ago) was, of course, “No!”. Einstein insinuated his own “no” in a more colorful way, saying “After World War III the next war will be fought with sticks and stones.”
Only 5 nations, including the United Kingdom and France, had nuclear weapons during the Cold War, and only the United States, Russia, and perhaps China were considered to be legitimate threats of nuclear war. Today there are 9, and you can add the newcomers of North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, and India. The nation that makes the 1st nuclear strike will cause the instant defensive retaliation of at least the original 5, but there is also the more localized war in Gaza to consider.
With power-mongering leaders like Putin, Kim Jong Un, Netanyahu, and the possible return of the loose-cannon war-threatening Donald Trump, any one of whom is a likely possibility to press the “nuclear button” with his individual control of the ‘nuclear football’, and it only takes one of them to force one or more of the the others to retaliate, bringing the entire nuclear-war world down upon humanity and all other life on planet Earth. ~llaw
Are the World’s Ongoing Conflicts in Danger of Going Nuclear?
Are decades of arms control treaties being threatened? Credit: International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)
by Thalif Deen (united nations)
Tuesday, September 17, 2024
Inter Press Service
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 17 (IPS) – The constant drumbeat of nuclear threats seems never ending—emanating primarily from the Russians, Israeli right-wing politicians and North Koreans.
The threats also prompt one lingering question: Can there be a World War III without the use of nuclear weapons?
In a report August 27, Reuters quoted a senior Russian official as saying the West was playing with fire by considering allowing Ukraine to strike deep into Russia with Western missiles—and cautioned the United States that World War III would not be confined to Europe.
Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s longstanding foreign minister and former UN ambassador, said the West was seeking to escalate the Ukraine war and was “asking for trouble” by considering Ukrainian requests to loosen curbs on using foreign-supplied weapons.
Putting it in the right context, the Washington-based Arms Control Association (ACA) pointed out last week, “the global nuclear security environment could hardly be more precarious.”
Carol Giacomo, chief editor of Arms Control Today, the ACA’s flagship publication, said that weeks before the US elects a new president, the global nuclear security environment could hardly be more precarious.
“Russia continues to raise the specter of escalating its war on Ukraine to nuclear use; Iran and North Korea persist in advancing their nuclear programs; China is moving to steadily expand its nuclear arsenal; the United States and Russia have costly modernization programs underway; and the war in Gaza threatens to explode into a region-wide catastrophe entangling Iran and nuclear-armed Israel, among other countries,” she pointed out.
Meanwhile, Russia and China are refusing to enter arms control talks with the United States, new countries are raising the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons and decades of arms control treaties are unraveling.
The situation has also prompted Rafael Mariano Grossi, director-general of the International Atomic Agency (IAEA), to warn, in an interview with The Financial Times on August 26, that the global nonproliferation regime is under greater pressure than at any time since the end of the Cold War.
The U.S. presidential election campaign has not engaged publicly on most of these issues in any serious way despite the fact that whichever candidate wins will, once inaugurated, immediately inherit the sole authority to launch U.S. nuclear weapons, wrote Giacomo, a former member of The New York Times editorial board (2007-2020).
Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, Graduate Program Director, MPPGA at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS the dangers posed by nuclear arms, and the very powerful institutions and governments that possess these weapons of mass destruction, have never been greater.
“In the last 16 months, we have seen government officials from Russia (Dmitry Medvedev) and Israel (Amihai Eliyahu) threatening to use, or calling for the use of, nuclear weapons against Ukraine and Gaza respectively” he noted.
The rulers of these countries have already shown the willingness to kill tens of thousands of civilians. “Going further back, we can remember U.S. President Donald Trump threatening to “totally destroy” North Korea. Coming from a person like Trump and a country like the United States that is the only one to use nuclear weapons in war, there is good reason to take such a threat with utmost seriousness”.
Such great dangers, he argued, can be ameliorated only with great visions, by people demanding that no one should be killed in their name, especially using nuclear weapons but not only using nuclear weapons.
This would require people to make common cause with people all over the world, and refuse to be divided by the “narrow nationalisms” that Albert Einstein identified as an “outmoded concept,” as far back as 1947.
Norman Solomon, executive director, Institute for Public Accuracy and national director, RootsAction.org told IPS the momentum of the nuclear arms race is moving almost entirely in the wrong direction. The world and humanity as a whole are increasingly in dire circumstances, made even more dire by the refusal of the leaders of nuclear states to acknowledge the heightened jeopardy of thermonuclear annihilation for nearly all of the Earth’s inhabitants.
As the nuclear superpowers, the United States and Russia, he said, have propelled the drive to keep developing nuclear weaponry. There are always rationalizations, but the result is proliferation of nuclear weapons.
“Nations with smaller nuclear arsenals and those with nuclear-arms aspirations are keenly aware of what the most powerful nuclear states are doing. Preaching about nonproliferation while proliferating is hardly a convincing role model to halt the spread of nuclear weapons to more and more countries,” Solomon pointed out.
“Notably, amid the vast amount of media coverage and diplomatic verbiage about Israel, rarely do we read or hear mention of the fact that Israel — uniquely in the Middle East — possesses nuclear weapons. Given Israel’s impunity to attack other countries in the region, it would be a mistake to have any confidence in Israeli self-restraint with military matters.”
The return of a cold war between the U.S. and Russia, said Solomon, is fueling the nuclear arms race to a dangerous extreme. Arms control has become a thing of the past, as one treaty after another in this century has been abrogated by the U.S. government. The Open Skies and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaties were canceled by President Trump.
Earlier, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty was canceled by President George W. Bush. The absence of those pacts makes a nuclear war with Russia more likely. But President Biden has not tried to revive those agreements snuffed out by his Republican predecessors, he argued.
“If sanity is going to prevail, a drastic change in attitudes and policies will be needed. The current course is headed toward unfathomable catastrophe for the human race”, said Solomon, author, “War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine.”
Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, told IPS: “Looking around today’s world, we see a growing mob of nationalist authoritarian governments and leaders—including in nuclear-armed Russia, Israel, India, China, North Korea and increasingly, the United States. All of them are busily preparing for war in the name of peace.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. Reflecting the urgency of this moment, in June, the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM), the official nonpartisan association of more than 1,400 American cities with populations over 30,000, adopted a sweeping resolution, titled “The Imperative of Dialogue in a Time of Acute Nuclear Dangers.”
The resolution rightly “condemns Russia’s illegal war of aggression on Ukraine and its repeated nuclear threats and calls on the Russian government to withdraw all forces from Ukraine.” But it also calls on the President and Congress “to maximize diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine as soon as possible.”
The resolution, Cabasso said, “calls on the U.S. government to work to re-establish high-level U.S.-Russian risk reduction and arms control talks to rebuild trust and work toward replacement of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the only remaining bilateral nuclear arms control treaty, set to expire in 2026.”
Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.
Subscribed
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 in this evening’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.
Nuclear power has the competitive advantage of being the only baseload power source that can accommodate the desired expansion of a clean electricity .
The threats also prompt one lingering question: Can there be a World War III without the use of nuclear weapons? In a report August 27, Reuters quoted …
This article concludes, however, that the components of this longstanding order are durable. They have proven robust to Russian nuclear threats, just …
I am pleased to finally see that a significant news outlet has at last realized the danger involving nuclear power plants in a war or a terrorist situation. And I am also pleased to see that the messenger is the “Bulletin of Atomic Scientists”, a publication that I subscribe to. No doubt other news agencies have noticed this risk for the future world — and in this case, the immediate potential of a world war that could be created by the ongoing territorial present war between Russia and Ukraine.
So I am gratified to the extent that I am no longer alone concerning the role of nuclear power plants as potential weapons of mass destruction, as is the case even now, as well as even moreso on our continual errant path toward building and operating more and more nuclear power facilities, large or small, in the USA and around the world.
We must stop in our tracks now, turn around, and promptly end the idea of expanded nuclear energy and get rid of what exists now and dispose of nuclear weapons and all uranium nuclear fuel and nuclear waste in the same major project that, as I have mentioned over recent years as well as in yesterday’s blog. Such an endeavor will take many unified long but politically tenuous years of compromise and cooperation among all nations in order for life, including human, to continue on this generous life-giving blue-green planet Earth — the essence of all life as we know it. ~llaw
Nuclear power: future energy solution or potential war target?
Ukraine’s president posted a video of a fire at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant on social media on August 11, 2024. Credit: Ukrainian Presidency
Innovative small modular reactors, floating nuclear plants, and microreactors offer potential routes to decarbonization that many countries are embracing. However, these emerging technologies elevate concerns that wartime attacks could expose warfighters and civilians to nuclear fallout. The risk of such exposure could enable states or non-state actors to threaten nuclear consequences without violating the taboo against using nuclear weapons—weakening international resolve to intervene in conflicts.
Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant has already set a dangerous precedent that could sway the course of future wars. More recently, Russia’s Kursk nuclear power plant also came under threat when Ukrainian forces advanced across the border.
The threat to these nuclear facilities underscores how both Russia and Ukraine view nuclear power plants as strategic assets that could bolster their negotiating positions in potential cease-fire discussions. Nuclear power plants could increasingly become strategic targets in war, and the emergence of advanced nuclear technology is likely to spread that danger to new regions of the world.
Caught in the crossfire. Shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, fighting broke out around Zaporizhzhia, the largest nuclear power plant in Europe. Direct attacks resulted in a temporary loss of electrical power for cooling, leading many observers in Ukraine and across the world to fear a nuclear disaster.
The Russian military continues to occupy the Zaporizhzhia plant, despite demands from the international community that Russia withdraw from the plant. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi has visited Zaporizhzhia five times—most recently on September 5—in an effort to assess the safety and security of the plant and avert a disaster. On September 9, Grossi stated that Zaporizhzhia still suffers from regular explosions, drone attacks, and gunfire—increasing the risk of an accident. Zaporizhzhia’s six reactors currently remain in cold shutdown, and the IAEA has advised that no reactor should be restarted while the conflict continues.
Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi toured Russia’s Kursk nuclear power plant with staff members from the International Atomic Energy Agency and Russian officials on August 27, 2024. Credit: IAEA via Flickr
A few weeks before Grossi last visited Zaporizhzhia, Ukrainian forces crossed the Russian border and entered the Kursk region in a significant escalation of the conflict. As the Ukrainians gained territory, international concern grew regarding the safety of the Kursk nuclear power plant, one of the three largest in Russia. The IAEA issued statements expressing alarm over the plant’s security, particularly in light of reports that Russian forces were digging trenches around the facility in anticipation of Ukrainian advances.
Grossi visited the Kursk plant on August 27 and warned of the risk of a serious nuclear accident. Shortly before Grossi’s visit, Putin accused Ukraine of trying to attack the facility but provided no details or evidence. Amid the advances on Kursk, a fire erupted in one of Zaporizhzhia’s cooling towers, with both Russia and Ukraine pointing fingers at each other.
Nuclear power plants are designed to withstand terrorist attacks, but in the future will also have to be prepared for the possibility of an attack by another state.
Solution to the climate crisis? Climate change and international efforts to reduce carbon emissions have accelerated the ongoing debate about building new nuclear power plants. These debates persist not only in existing nuclear states but increasingly across developing states that have expressed sincere interest in nuclear power. There are about 30 countries that are considering, planning, or starting nuclear power programs around the world, with the majority looking to build small modular reactors.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are often advertised as the solution to the climate crisis. Proponents argue that SMRs will be more affordable, safer, and better equipped to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons due to their sealed designs; however, this claim has yet to be substantiated. The IAEA highlights that there are currently over 80 SMR designs under development in 18 different countries.
The emergence of this new technology is happening at a time when nuclear power plants have become strategic targets in Russia’s war on Ukraine. This has renewed interest in, and international debate about, the need to establish a new convention to protect nuclear power plants during military conflicts.
Some voices insist that the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions adopted in the 1970s are sufficient to protect civil nuclear power plants. Despite these protocols, however, Russia has set a dangerous precedent that an occupying army can use a nuclear power plant to shield itself from an adversary’s attacks. The nuclear power plant then becomes a valuable strategic asset, because the risk of a nuclear accident deters the defender from trying to liberate the plant.
Rising risks. The promise of SMRs will likely increase the number of nuclear power plants worldwide from the current 416 reactors in 32 countries. Many states in the Middle East and Africa have expressed interest in SMRs and are in volatile areas that face a heightened risk of armed conflict. It is imperative to establish an international initiative to prevent nuclear power plants from becoming wartime targets, while ensuring that the effort does not hinder the growth of nuclear energy, particularly in developing countries.
Russia is the world leader in nuclear technology exports and is currently building nuclear reactors in China, India, Iran, Egypt, and Turkey—and constantly looking for new markets. Russia also uses its state-owned-and-operated nuclear corporation Rosatom as a diplomatic tool to counter the influence of the West in many conflict-prone regions. For example, in 2023 Rosatom signed nuclear cooperation agreements with Mali and Burkina Faso, two unstable countries in Africa that have suffered from multiple coups d’etats and terrorism in the Sahel region. These countries have the right to establish nuclear power, but their history of instability makes the acquisition of nuclear technology risky. Given that Russia is the leading exporter of nuclear technology while also being directly involved in conflicts near nuclear power plants, the international community faces a delicate challenge in establishing standards for protecting these plants during times of conflict.
The risks associated with nuclear energy during wartime are not solely heightened by commercial nuclear power. The US Defense Department’s Project Pele intends to provide the military with a transportable power source for a variety of operational needs such as disaster response and power generation at remote locations. Mobile microreactors would provide the military with a clean alternative to fossil fuels, but they should not be deployed to a war zone or unstable region, as they could become attractive targets for an adversary.
The US military is not alone. China has plans to deploy mobile floating nuclear power plants, similar to Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov, in support of its sovereignty claims in the South China Sea. In the event of a major conflict in the region over Taiwan, these floating nuclear power plants would become vulnerable targets for potential nuclear accidents, thus posing a significant risk.
New agreement needed. Warfighting around the Zaporizhzhia and Kursk nuclear power plants represents a dangerous paradigm shift. The safety and security concerns of nuclear power plants has escalated from terrorist threats to major powers occupying and attacking nuclear power plants. If the appetite for nuclear energy grows, the international community must establish an agreement to protect nuclear power plants during conflicts.
The risk of a nuclear catastrophe has the power to profoundly alter the future dynamics of both warfare and energy. Time is running out to establish a cooperative international environment for negotiating a new agreement.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC, the US Energy Department, the National Nuclear Security Administration, or the United States government, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. The LLNL document release number: LLNL-MI-869196.
Subscribed
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 in this evening’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.
Nuclear power currently accounts for about 10% of all electricity generation globally, with operational nuclear power plants in 31 countries worldwide …
He also revealed that Riyadh will host International Conference on Nuclear Emergencies by the end of 2025. Addressing the 68th Session of the General …
… nuclear plant, Saudi nuclear power plant, nuclear energy … This conference will focus on preparedness for nuclear emergencies and will build on the …
Prince Abdulaziz announced that Saudi Arabia will host an international conference on nuclear emergencies at the end of 2025 in Riyadh, as part of the …
Putin has repeatedly made statements about nuclear weapons amid the war, and according to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICANW) …
As I wrote yesterday in my previous blog #750, expanding the US’s participation in the Russia/Ukraine war beyond limited and localized use of military weapons and other hardware has put the United States between a rock and a hard place. The following ‘Politico’ article helps to more clearly explain why. The overall situation is murkily scary and obviously dangerous.
But as I’ve said many times before, ‘deterrence’ alone cannot and will not avoid nuclear war forever, and the tense situation involving, in particular, the United States, Britain, Ukraine, other NATO countries, and Russia with their allies, may be moving beyond the much ballyhooed “deterrence” stage, which is based on fear of one another’s nuclear powers, including nuclear weapons of mass destruction and, now, nuclear power plants, which are obviously important participants in a real nuclear war. This situation alone, whether settled amicably or not, should convince all of us around the world that no new nuclear power plants should ever be built anywhere, and the older ones shut down and permanently dismantled and all existing nuclear arms together with all uranium fuel and radioactive nuclear waste buried deep in impenetrable ground where future access to it can never be accomplished by any nation for any reason.
Failing to do this now (and it will take many years of cooperative effort among global nations) may well mean the beginning of the end of sentient life on our wonderful planet Earth ~llaw
As Biden deliberates, Ukraine’s nuclear plants are increasingly at risk
The risk of Ukraine losing the war this winter has pushed Washington and London to reconsider how Kyiv uses Western-supplied long-range missiles, but the U.S. remains fearful of escalation.
Last year, Russia tried to isolate these nuclear power plants, focusing on degrading Ukraine’s energy transmission. | Genya Savilov/AFP via Getty Images
Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor at POLITICO Europe.
KYIV — As the U.S. ponders loosening some of the restrictions on Ukraine’s use of Western-supplied long-range missiles to allow for the targeting of airfields and missile launch sites deeper inside Russia, Ukraine remains on tenterhooks.
As it stands, Washington doesn’t appear ready to take the gloves off entirely and allow Ukraine to target Russia’s airfields with long-range U.S. missiles quite yet — though it may withdraw restrictions on the U.K.’s Storm Shadows, which use U.S. technology.
“I would like to see a more forthright position coming from the Biden administration that says there’s no reason why Ukraine shouldn’t be fighting back,” former U.S. envoy to NATO Kurt Volker told POLITICO. “Russia’s the one attacking Ukraine from all these facilities across Russia. There’s no reason for there to be a sanctuary. But I don’t think we’re going to see Biden authorizing the use of U.S. missiles to strike at Russian airfields, although the British might be allowed to proceed without U.S. objection,” he added. “That won’t be enough.”
And if that’s really the outcome of these weeks-long intense negotiations, Ukraine’s energy officials will be among those most alarmed.
They fear this coming winter may prove to be a breaking point for Ukraine in the energy war. And that’s largely because Russian commanders are adapting their airstrike tactics, having learned from their previous failed bombing campaign to collapse the country’s energy system — and the recent shipments of Iran’s Fath-360 close-range ballistic missiles to Russia will help them do so.
Ukrainian officials expect Russia will use these missiles, which have a range limit of 120 kilometers, to complement their glide bombs in targeting logistics and communications hubs and ammunition depots in the rear of Ukraine’s front lines. That, in turn, will free Russia up to concentrate its own longer-range missiles on civilian infrastructure — particularly the energy system in a bid to break it.
Stuck in the crosshairs are key substations feeding high voltage electricity to Ukraine’s still functioning nuclear power stations in Rivne, Khmelnytskyi and Yuzhnoukrainsk in southern Ukraine. Take these substations out and the reactors have to be shut down rapidly, or else it could provoke a “nuclear incident,” energy expert Mykhailo Gonchar told POLITICO. And “that’s what the Russians are aiming to do — hit the key substations.”
Last year, Russia tried to isolate these nuclear power plants, focusing on degrading Ukraine’s energy transmission. It targeted distribution to consumers and businesses but was met with characteristic Ukrainian ingenuity and confounded by improvised repairs and rerouting.
Paralyze the three nuclear power stations, though, and it’s game over for Ukraine in the energy war , diminishing its war-fighting capacity, crashing the economy and weakening its position if peace negotiations do ever commence.
And according to officials in Kyiv, it’s the fear of this happening that’s been one of the factors driving the Biden administration to reconsider the restrictions, including on U.S. ATACMS and British Storm Shadows. Washington sat up when Russian airstrikes started targeting the main substations feeding operational electricity to the nuclear power plants in late August. “That concentrated minds,” said one Ukrainian official who asked not to be identified in order to speak freely.
Currently, 55 percent of Ukraine’s energy is generated by its three operating nuclear power stations. | Sergei Supinsky/AFP via Getty Images
Based on a study by Gonchar’s Center for Global Studies that was shared with NATO, a Russian strike on Aug. 26 signaled this switch in tactics. It was massive — one of the biggest airstrikes since the start of the war almost three years ago — and made combined use of both Iranian-supplied Shahed drones and Russian-made cruise and ballistic missiles.
Russia launched 109 drones that day, in an offensive orchestrated to tie up Ukrainian air defenses, while strategic Russian bombers and MiG-31K fighters flying from airfields inside Russia launched 127 cruise and ballistic missiles targeting the nuclear power plants’ electricity-feeding substations. Ukrainian air defenses had success in intercepting them but, nonetheless, there were 32 hits causing significant damage.
“If we aren’t given the opportunity to target deeper inside Russia and reach Russian airfields, our chances [of getting] through this winter aren’t so great,” Gonchar noted grimly. And Volodymyr Kudrytskyi, the former CEO of Ukraine’s national power transmission network Ukrenegro, agrees with that assessment. Speaking to POLITICO, he said there were three factors that would prove critical for Ukraine this winter — the weather, Russian missiles and Ukraine’s ability to strike Russian airfields to interdict strategic bombers and fighters. His greatest fear is that it will turn into a repeat of late 2022, when he truly feared they wouldn’t manage to keep the lights on.
For their part, Ukrainian officials hope the prospect of the energy system’s collapse will ultimately outweigh Washington’s fears of escalation, which have so often unnerved Western allies when deciding what to supply Ukraine with, in what quantities and what Ukraine can do with what it’s given. They’ve been complaining about the West allowing Russia’s threats of retaliation to shape its policy and pursue escalation management based on fear.
Of course, Russian President Vladimir Putin predictably upped his rhetoric last week as news emerged of a possible reconsideration regarding restrictions on the use of Western-supplied long-range missiles inside Russia, saying it would put NATO “at war” with Russia and “significantly change” the nature of the Ukraine conflict. It would amount to “nothing less than the direct involvement of NATO countries,” he menaced.
Following his cue, other senior Russian officials chorused, with Deputy Minister of Defense Alexander Fomin warning that the West is playing a dangerous game, which could lead to a direct military clash between nuclear powers.
But Ukrainian officials argue that such blood-curdling nuclear threats — among the most explicit since the Cold War — are empty, and that each and every time a new weapons system has been supplied or used over the border inside Russia, or fired at targets in occupied Crimea and Donbas, they’ve come to nothing.
Even so, Burns also stressed no one should underestimate the risk of escalation and admitted his agency genuinely feared Russia might resort to tactical nuclear weapons in 2022. And while Biden and British Prime Minister Kier Starmer brushed off Putin’s threats on Friday, the U.S. administration still appears to be trapped between two worries — fear of how Moscow might respond if Western-supplied missiles start striking Russian airfields, and wreck projects for peace talks to get going, and alarm over the prospect of Ukraine losing power.
Biden critics argue he’s being overly cautious. “Kyiv is getting hit; Kharkiv is getting hit. Ukraine should have the ability to defend itself by targeting military targets in Russia,” Donald Bacon, a U.S. congressman and former U.S. air force general told POLITICO. He expressed disappointment at emerging signs that Biden may agree to Britain’s Storm Shadows being used for attacks on Russian airfields but not American ATACMS, and he blamed the U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan for the caution.
“Time isn’t Ukraine’s friend. And so, you’ve got to give it the ability to use resources to defend itself. I think Russian escalation will be minimal because if they’re going to strike at Poland or the Baltics, I think that opens up a can of worms for Russia that it can’t afford. Who should be living in fear of who? Why are we walking in fear of Putin? Let’s let him fear us,” he added.
Volker concurs. “The president has this Cold War upbringing, a 1980s mindset that says we must avoid war at all costs. I think he’s stuck in that thinking . . . I also think that you have a team of people around him who are incredibly cautious and feel we can’t afford to be in a conflict with Russia [because] we need Russia for other issues as well,” he said.
“They think anytime the U.S. exercises power, it’s bad for the world, so we shouldn’t do it. It’s a completely wrong mindset in my view.”
Subscribed
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 three Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this evening’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.
He added: “You say that everything is going according to plan. Pardon me, but the Nazi troops have invaded the territory of the Kursk region. This isn …
Yellowstone quakes · Yellowstone quakes · Latest earthquakes under Yellowstone volcano. List and interactive map of current and past earthquakes near …
Following up from the past two days of conjecture, here we have the first responses from Russia about the American and NATO consideration of allowing military movement into Russia (including the US as a member and an ally of other NATO countries) threatening Moscow.
The US is, at least for the moment, caught between a rock and a hard place in its ability to stay reserved, out of direct engagement in the Russia/Ukraine war as it has up to now, or to enter Russia with NATO weapons, possibly including long range missiles, and military personnel.
The question is: How close are we to a nuclear World War III? ~llaw
Former Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, issued a new nuclear response warning on Saturday stating that it would be a decision with “irreversible consequences.”
Amid the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, tensions between North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries and the Kremlin have continued as NATO leaders have increasingly warned that direct conflict with Moscow is a realistic danger. This comes after Putin and senior Russian officials have repeatedly threatened nuclear escalation against Kyiv and its Western partners since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
In a Saturday Telegram post, Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council and former Russian president, spoke about a nuclear response and that it is a “hugely complex decision with irreversible consequences,” but warned that “you can only test someone’s patience for so long.”
“Yet, Russia has been patient. It is obvious that a nuclear response is a hugely complex decision with irreversible consequences. What arrogant Anglo-Saxon dimwits fail to admit, though, is that you can only test someone’s patience for so long,” Medvedev said.
He added: “It will turn out in the end that certain moderate Western analysts were right when they warned: ‘True, the Russians are not likely to use this response, although…it’s still a possibility. Besides, they may use new delivery vehicles with conventional payloads.’ And then—it’s over. A giant blot of molten-grey mass in the place where ‘the mother of Russian cities’ [historical name of Kiev] once stood. Holy s***, it’s impossible, but it happened…”
This comes as the United States and other Western countries have been providing Ukraine with military aid to defend itself against Russia. Earlier this year, the U.S. began supplying Ukraine with longer-range ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) missiles.
Ukraine has pressed hard for the U.S. and the United Kingdom to drop their prohibition on American ATACMS and British Storm Shadow missiles to be used to target Russian territory, amid concerns that their use would escalate the conflict.
Newsweek has reached out to the White House and the Russian Defense Ministry via email for comment.
Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s former president now serving as deputy chairman of the country’s Security Council, is seen in Volgograd on March 12. Medvedev, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, issued a new nuclear… More YEKATERINA SHTUKINA/POOL/AFP/Getty Images
When asked if Washington would drop the restrictions, President Joe Biden said on Tuesday that his administration was “working that out now.”
However, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Wednesday that “most likely, of course, all these decisions have already been made,” by the West regarding dropping the prohibition on long-range weapons, the state news agency Tass reported.
“This can be assumed with a high degree of probability,” Peskov told Russian media. “At the moment, the media is simply conducting such an information campaign to formalize the decision that has already been made.”
If Ukraine were given permission to use weapons for strikes deep into Russia, Peskov said that Moscow would come up with “an appropriate response,” although he added “there is no need to expect some kind of response everywhere.”
Subscribed
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 in this evening’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.
… nuclear strike on a NATO country. BRITISH BLOWBACK. In the case of Britain, Moscow was likely to declare that London had gone from a hybrid proxy war …
This Russia/Ukraine war has already turned into a “nuclear war”, albeit without nuclear bombs, but make no mistake about it — nuclear power plants can be described as stationary nuclear weapons of mass destruction either on a quiet peaceful Sunday afternoon or most likely in a time of war.
And both countries seem to fully recognize this fact, using the terrorist concept of this kind of nuclear war as a lethal strategy against each other, which has now spread to both countries. I have also read that the United States has or will withdraw its prohibition restricting Ukraine to militarily enter Russia as a condition of supplying Ukraine with military and other protective aid and equipment.
I fear that the US may soon be driven to also send aid to Ukraine in the form of troops in a humanitarian manner. Doing so would no doubt change the entire scope of and military operations of both the Ukraine military defensive and offensive strategies, and affect Russia’s military strategies as well. I sincerely hope that this no more than a delusional nightmare in my curious and reactive mind. We shall see . . . ~llaw
Over 100 Russian drones and missiles flew near Ukrainian nuclear power plants recently
Power engineers have recorded over 70 Russian drones and more than 30 cruise missiles flying close to Ukrainian nuclear power plants in recent weeks.
Source: Energoatom, the Ukrainian state-owned nuclear company
Quote: “The movement of more than 70 unmanned aerial vehicles from the terrorist state and over 30 enemy cruise missiles flying near Ukrainian nuclear power plants was recorded in recent weeks,” the statement reads.
Energoatom states that such actions by Russia “pose an unprecedented threat not only to Ukraine but to the entire continent”.
Background:
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will expand the presence of its monitoring missions in Ukraine to infrastructure facilities that affect the safety of nuclear power plants.
Further Russian attacks on the power system of Ukraine may lead to an emergency at one of the three operating nuclear power plants still controlled by Kyiv, Bloomberg reported.
Subscribed
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 in this evening’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.
Further Russian attacks on the power system of Ukraine may lead to an emergency at one of the three operating nuclear power plants still controlled by …
Representatives from the IAEA’s 178 Member States will convene from 16–20 September for the 68th IAEA General Conference at the Agency’s headquarters in Vienna, Austria. Read more →
The IAEA is highlighting its flagship initiatives, addressing challenges like climate change, energy sustainability and public health, at its upcoming 68th General Conference, providing a platform to review progress, seek input from member countries and outline the way forward. Read more →
Mongolia is steadily expanding the capacity of its workforce to detect and treat cancer earlier, according to a team of international experts appointed by the IAEA, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Read more →
Japan’s approach for recycling and disposing of soil and radioactive waste from decontamination activities after the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (FDNPS) accident as currently planned is consistent with IAEA Safety Standards, an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report released today says. Read more →
“From the hard realities of war in Europe and preventing a nuclear accident, to bringing health, and food to the tables, in developing countries, your Agency, the IAEA, is continuing its work,” the IAEA Director General tells Board of Governors. Read more →
