The following article from Newsweek contains no new detailed information, except for Zelenskyyโs appearance in the U.S. to update the United Nations and the United States on a first-hand, perhaps pleading, basis accenting the seriousness of the potential Russian attack on the Ukraine attack on their three nuclear power plants. I am wondering if the U.S. and NATO can come together with a plan to prevent a war-scale attack on the three plants in time to prevent Russiaโs ultimate intent, whatever it is.
What is obvious to me is that both Russia and Ukraine know the terrible danger to a huge area of Ukraine and Europe should use these plants as all-out weapons of a genocide style nuclear war as has been implied several times before on prior destructive attacks, including destroying a dam for cooling-water provisions for the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, that has been attacked numerous times by the Russian military. (And by the way, the Zelenskyy name has two โyโs at the end.) ~llaw
Russia is seeking to target three Ukrainian nuclear power plants, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has told the United Nations.
In addressing the U.N. General Assembly, Zelensky warned that, if Vladimir Putin was prepared to resort to such a move, “it means nothing you value matters to Moscow.” Newsweek has contacted the Kremlin by email for comment on the claims.
The Ukrainian president did not specify which plants were under threat, but there are three operating nuclear power plants on Ukrainian-held territory. These are located in Rivne and Khmelnytskyi in the west and Pivdennoukrainsk in the south of the country.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky speaks during “Summit of the Future” on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, September 23, 2024. He warned of the nuclear threat… More TIMOTHY A. CLARY/Getty Images
Since the start of Putin’s full-scale invasion, the threat that the war in Ukraine could have a nuclear dimension has been expressed variously through threats by Kremlin propagandists and Moscow’s statements of its weapons capabilities.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said on September 21 that possible targets for Russian forces included open distribution devices and transmission substations, which are crucial for the safe operation of nuclear infrastructure.
Separately, Zelensky had told ABC News that Russia was using Chinese satellites to photograph Ukraine’s nuclear sites, and added that “there is a threat of strikes against the nuclear objects.”
During his address to the U.N., Zelensky said that “this kind of Russian cynicism will keep striking if it’s given any room in the world,” adding that the U.N. Charter “leaves no room for that and that’s why the Peace Formula leaves no room either.”
Zelensky called on U.N. countries to support a second peace summit “to end the war” following the first event in June in which Russia did not attend.
Zelensky is in the U.S. to tout his “victory plan,” which he has not clarified publicly but will present to President Joe Biden, U.S. Congress, and presidential contenders Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.
Anatol Lieven is director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft think tank based in Washington, D.C. He told Newsweek that, for Zelensky, victory is defined as the withdrawal of Moscow’s forces from all the Ukrainian territory they now occupy.
“There is nothing in the existing, or feasible, balance of forces and resources between Ukraine and Russia to suggest that this is possible, even should greatly increased Western aid be forthcoming,” Lieven said.
However, Kyiv’s incursion into Russia’s Kursk region showed that Ukraine was capable of counterattacks, and the territory it has captured was “a potential bargaining chip in future negotiations, not a harbinger of Ukrainian victory.”
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are no Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
Nuclear Power Plants ยท Hazardous Materials ยท Terrorism ยท Drought ยท Extreme Heat … page for information on preparing, responding, and recovering during …
So, this discussion spreads some light for the average non-military or political citizenโs knowledge on the remarkably indefinite finer points that quietly go far beyond the agreed upon weapons systems of the Ukraine, U.S, internal skirmish over what, when, why, and where Ukraine can expect help from the U.S., the United Kingdom, and NATO. All that along with the question of who should be our next U.S. president . . .
The depth of the issue is ultimately far greater than this discussion indicates, but I posted it this evening because the elements of it have serious implications concerning who our next president is. Kamala Harris, of course, will push to continue to support Ukraineโs democratic republic, while Trump is obviously against supporting not only our own or Ukraineโs form of government but also obviously on Russiaโs side both militarily and politically.
In my book, that means that Trump, as many of us already clearly know, is a traitor to America and our form of government. Remember when he said that Putin was a โgeniusโ for invading Ukraineโ not so long ago? This goes far deeper than the words, and Trumpโs actions should he be elected could well be the downfall of our government we like to refer to as, โby and for the Peopleโ, not to mention a nuclear WWIII. ~llaw
Weapons systems continue to be a sticking point between the U.S. and Ukraine
Earlier today, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited an ammunition plant in Scranton, Pa. The plant produces some of the most vital pieces of equipment for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. Since the war began, the U.S. and its NATO allies have been slowly and incrementally providing military assistance to Ukraine. And in each step, the Biden administration has been cautious about both the weaponry and the training it supplied, hoping to prevent escalating the war that Russia started.
This has frustrated Ukrainian officials and its most ardent supporters in the U.S. The latest debate amid all of this? For months, the Ukrainians have been pressing for American long-range missiles with the ability to strike deep into Russia, a move that some officials fear could place the U.S. and its allies in direct conflict with Russia. NPR’s Tom Bowman joins me now to talk about this. Hey, Tom.
TOM BOWMAN, BYLINE: Hey, Scott.
DETROW: So I want to get to all the context in a moment. But first, let’s directly start with this latest question. Throughout the conflict, the Biden administration has been cautious in approving American-made missiles hitting targets deeper into Russia. Do we think that request is ultimately going to be approved?
BOWMAN: You know, it’s really hard to say at this point, Scott. We keep hearing it’s under discussion. Secretary of State Antony Blinken met almost two weeks ago with his British counterpart, Foreign Secretary David Lammy. And Blinken seemed to indicate it would happen.
ANTONY BLINKEN: We have adjusted and adapted as needs have changed, as the battlefield has changed, and I have no doubt that we’ll continue to do that.
BOWMAN: So, again, it sounds like they’re moving in that direction. And, of course, President Biden later had a meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and talked about allowing long-range weapons to be used. But it appears, again, there’s still deliberations and no final decision. Now, Britain seems to be leaning forward on this issue because they see the recent move by Iran to provide hundreds of missiles to Russia – it really changed the debate. The Brits have long-range missiles, too. It’s called the Storm Shadow. And the French, by the way, have their own, the SCALP. But here’s the thing, Scott – they both have American-made components, and therefore would require U.S. approval.
DETROW: And even as, over the last few years, we have seen some of the initial hard-line warnings from Russia not play out – right? – if you do X, that we will consider it a grave threat; if you do Y, we’ll consider it a grave threat – it’s hard not to see this particular one as having some merit. We are talking about missiles partially American-made striking deep into Russia. And Putin has said that would be a move that would effectively mean Russia is now fighting NATO.
BOWMAN: No. That’s absolutely right. And again, from the start, the U.S. has been slowly ramping up military support to Ukraine while always weighing how Russia would respond. Putin has hinted at using tactical nuclear weapons, which gets everyone’s attention. These are real concerns. But Putin, again, has made similar threats after the U.S. allowed, you know, Patriot missiles, F-16s. So a lot of this people say is bluster. Now, the current issue is allowing what’s called ATACMS, an acronym that – you know, military loves acronyms. It stands for Army Tactical Missile System. Get this – it can travel 190 miles.
Right now, the U.S. is allowing Ukraine only to use them in Crimea to strike Russian military targets, and they’ve been quite successful. Now, again, getting back to the British and the French long-range missiles, they can travel about 155 miles. So you can imagine the Ukrainians are pressing for that American weapon to use deep inside Russia, which can go, you know, farther.
DETROW: Yeah. Now, when you and I have had versions of this conversation with different points of – will the U.S. allow this weapon system or that weapon system to go to Ukraine? – you have at times pointed out that sometimes it was more of a symbolic conversation than something that was really central to the war. So I’m wondering with these missiles, how necessary are these long-range weapons for Ukraine and are there sufficient targets that they’d like to hit?
BOWMAN: You know, it kind of depends who you talk with. The Institute for the Study of War says there are some 250 targets. They could be attacked with these long-range U.S. weapons, everything from airfields to oil and weapons depots, armored vehicles. And these attacks could also hurt Russia’s ability to launch glide bombs into Ukrainian cities. We’ve been seeing a lot of that. But some of the Pentagon will tell you that the Russians have moved a lot of this, even beyond the range of those longer-range U.S. missiles. And defense officials also say that Ukrainians have also used most of their long-range missiles hitting those Russian sites in Crimea. They don’t have many left.
But then the question is, of course, why can’t you just send them more? The U.S. has thousands of these missiles and want to hold them in case, let’s say, the U.S. is faced with an adversary, you know, military action in the Pacific, Middle East or Europe. So, you know, and again, that’s a question that’s out there. Can you provide more? And we still don’t have an answer to that.
DETROW: Let’s say these get approved. Would it change the course of the war? Would it have a – make a big difference?
BOWMAN: Well, no. No one is saying that, but it clearly will continue to hurt Russia, its war machine. Some officials are saying to Ukraine, listen, you’re doing a good job with your drones in attacks deep inside Russia. Scott, just last week, a swarm of Ukrainian drones hit a massive weapons depot 300 miles inside Russia, just west of Moscow, so talk about deep inside Russia. And this weapons depot had also – get this – had missiles supplied by North Korea. There’s little doubt the U.S. intelligence helped in that targeting. And American officials are telling Ukraine these relatively inexpensive drones are doing a great job, so don’t just look to our missiles. Also, officials want Ukraine to focus more on defensive measures in the eastern part of their country, where right now Russia continues to make inroads.
Of course, as we know, Ukraine pushed deep into the Kursk region of Russia. But what did that really achieve? U.S. officials are asking now. They’re saying this privately. But finally, the U.S. has been pressing Ukraine to do a better job at recruiting younger Ukrainians for its military. Right now – get this- they’re not recruiting any soldiers under the age of 25. But the U.S. military, about 87% of their new recruits are between 18 and 24 years old.
DETROW: Right. So Tom, let’s back up here for a moment. We’re coming up on the third anniversary of the war, at least the expansion of the war. Russia had already effectively invaded Crimea years before that. What is the path forward? – because in many ways, it’s a stalemate, and there are big questions about what U.S. support looks like depending on who’s elected president.
BOWMAN: Well, the big thing is, how do you define winning? Or as General David Petraeus famously said during the Iraq War, tell me how this ends. It’s kind of the same thing here. U.S. military officials have said neither side can win. Russia can’t take over all of Ukraine, and Ukraine, they don’t have the power to push all Russian forces out of their country. So what’s the way ahead? No one really answers that question. And neither side, Ukraine or Russia, at this point seems intent on negotiations. And here at home, you know, Trump, of course, has been skeptical of spending more on Ukraine. And Kamala Harris has said the U.S. must keep supporting Ukraine. So I think next year, the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, you’ll see more pressure for some type of negotiation or at least talks, regardless of who’s in the White House.
DETROW: That’s NPR’s Tom Bowman. Thanks for coming in, Tom.
BOWMAN: You’re welcome.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are two Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
They are facing resistance from some House Republicans who have raised concerns about the program’s cost. “That’s really difficult for us is that when …
Kim called it a proof of U.S. ambition to “bring out its nuclear strategic assets, show off its strength and increase threats“, according to KCNA. The …
I have been avoiding, with gritted teeth, posting this storyโthat has been out and growing with more details for several days. Let me just say this is the most thoughtless, unbelievable, and dangerous national proposal I have ever encountered in my nearly 83 years (coming November 23rd) of life on planet Earth, much of it in the nuclear industry, and Three Mile Island was my personal reason for ending a career that had spanned parts of three decades. My reason was and still is the very same reason that nuclear plant TMI-2 (the one that is shut down forever because of a partial meltdown on March 28, 1979) and will remain under clean-up and final demolition until 2052, at least. That is a clean-up span of 73 years. Just that single accident tells us how dangerous nuclear power plants are to sustained life on planet Earth. And we want to re-open old ones and build hundreds of new ones around the world?
From the article: โThe symbolism is enormous,โ said Joseph Dominguez, CEO of Constellation. โThis was the site of the industryโs greatest failure, and now it can be a place of rebirth.โ Obviously, a major new capital infusion from a group of big banks that together control trillions of dollars in potential funding can only help jump-start a new expansion of nuclear power.
A symbolic place of rebirth? Apparently we have no common sense of values, and will spend trillions upon trillions of dollars (including bigger and stronger nuclear bombs) in order to ensure our own and other unnecessary demise of life on planet Earth for reasons that make no common sense at all. ~llaw
A Rising Mass Of Support Could Lead To A U.S. Nuclear Renaissance
David Blackmon is a Texas-based public policy analyst/consultant.
Sep 23, 2024,07:19am EDT
The huge towers of Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Londonderry Township, Pennsylvania, near … [+]Bettmann Archive
A group of the worldโs biggest banks said Monday they will increase support for the expansion of nuclear power, according to the Financial Times. The banks, including Barclayโs, Bank of America, Citi, Morgan Stanley, BNP Paribas, and Goldman Sachs will make the formal announcement later Monday at an event with White House climate policy advisor John Podesta.
The stepped-up commitment from the banks is in support of goals set out at last yearโs COP 28 conference to triple nuclear generation globally by 2050. It comes as expansion of wind generation – and, to a lesser extent, solar – is meeting with rising opposition from communities and struggling with profitability even while benefitting from a suite of government subsidies and tax incentives. It also comes as power grid managers struggle with increasing reliability issues as they are forced to integrate more and more intermittent wind and solar into their regional power structures.
Developers of AI and other cutting-edge technologies that require power-hungry data centers have become increasingly concerned that their needs canโt be met by intermittent generation, even with backup provided by current battery technology. U.S. companies are increasingly seeking to execute power supply agreements with traditional forms of 24/7 baseload generation to fill their needs. Nuclear generation, as a zero-emissions power source, helps such companies meet both their power needs and emissions reductions goals.
On Friday, Microsoft announced it had reached a deal with Constellation Energy to restart Unit 1 of its Three Mile Island nuclear facility in Pennsylvania to provide power to fill its own regional data center needs. Unit 2 of the Three Mile Island facility suffered a partial meltdown in 1979, an incident that released radioactive gases and iodine into the atmosphere, and which still ranks at the most severe nuclear incident in U.S. history. The U.S. nuclear power industry, which had undergone a rapid expansion during the 1970s, has struggled to restore public and policymaker confidence in the safety of its operations across the 45 years since that event.
Three Mile Islandโs Unit 1 was not impacted by that incident and continued in service until it was retired by Constellation in 2019 due to economic reasons. Constellation said it plans to invest $1.6 billion to refurbish Unit 1, with a target for restarting the reactor by 2028. Its deal with Microsoft is for a 20-year power provision commitment.
โThe symbolism is enormous,โ said Joseph Dominguez, CEO of Constellation. โThis was the site of the industryโs greatest failure, and now it can be a place of rebirth.โ Obviously, a major new capital infusion from a group of big banks that together control trillions of dollars in potential funding can only help jump-start a new expansion of nuclear power.
But much will depend on regulators who oversee the permitting process for restarting existing units and building new ones. Reuters reports that Constellation has yet to file a formal application for the restart of the Three Mile Island unit. It quotes Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) spokesperson Scott Burnell as saying โItโs up to Constellation to lay out its rationale for justifying restart, so weโre prepared to engage with the company on next steps.”
The Bottom Line
Historically, the steps in Americaโs regulatory permitting processes have been painstakingly slow to evolve. Recent attempts by West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin and other pro-energy members of congress to streamline those processes via legislation have met with opposition from Democrats and Republicans alike.
Whether strong new commitments from major banks along with pressure from tech developers and nuclear generation companies can combine to speed things along remains to be seen. It also remains to be seen if activist groups who favor wind and solar but have historically opposed nuclear expansion – largely by exploiting the fright scenarios from the Three Mile Island incident over the last 45 years – will now work in opposition to these rapidly evolving plans for a nuclear renaissance.
Nothing related to energy and energy policy in the United States is ever simple. The only element of absolute certainty about this new pro-nuclear initiative is that it will be no exception to that rule.
David Blackmon is an energy-related public policy analyst/consultant based in Mansfield, TX.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are no Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
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 Ukraineโs three nuclear power plants and their multiple reactors, which also supplies about half of Ukraineโs 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 โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
… All in one place. #microsoft #ai #nuclear. … All Things Securedโข210K views ยท 3:30 ยท Go to channel ยท TMI to start up Unit 1 again, state officials …
There was no immediate comment from Moscow. The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), did not immediately respond to …
Vladimir Putin’s threats of nuclear war are a form of โpsychological warfareโ designed to cover up his fears of defeat in Ukraine, David Lammy has …
Vladimir Putin’s threats of nuclear war are a form of โpsychological warfareโ designed to cover up his fears of defeat in Ukraine, David Lammy has …
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 โ which caused me to rethink my future and exit the nuclear business soon thereafter โ and clean-up/demolition is not expected to be completed until 2052. Unit 1 is being considered to possibly be re-born to service Microsoftโs 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 โrock and a hard placeโ. 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 โCommon Dreamsโ . . . ~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 โwar was becoming increasingly unavoidableโ 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 hasnโt 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 โunavoidableโ 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 Russiaโs 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 NATOโs refusing to give Russia any security guarantees for NATOโs military infrastructure that moved into UkraineโRussia 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 Russiaโs invasion of Ukraine? Even if so, didnโt 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 โsuccess is confrontation.โ 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 NATOโs 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 Ukraineโs 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 โvictoryโ over the worldโs 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 Americaโs 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 โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
View all programs ยท 1A ยท All Things Considered ยท Destination Out ยท Fresh Air ยท Here and Now ยท Homespun ยท Juke Joint ยท Morning Edition ยท On Point ยท The …
All Classical HD 3 Music Programs ยท All Things Acoustic ยท Bama Bluegrass ยท Classical Music with David Duff ยท Getting Sentimental Over You ยท Something …
All Things ยท Culture ยท Food and Drink ยท The Guide ยท All Things ยท Culture ยท Food and Drink ยท The Guide ยท Classical ยท Ways To Give ยท Corporate Support …
The only reason I have posted this short Forbes story is to point out that the whole concept of nuclear proliferation and โdeterrenceโ 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 โall things nuclearโ are a dead-end for all life on planet Earth: The quote: โA 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 โ a 34% increase from the year before. Thatโs $3,000 every second, or $173,000 a minute, wasted on weapons that threaten life instead of saving it.โ
This is the existing โthreatโ to all life โ 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 claimedโperhaps bizarrelyโthat 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 โ 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 โ a 34% increase from the year before. Thatโs $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 โ enough to power 12 million homes with wind or plant 1 million trees every minute.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are two Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
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 …
… nuclear war. Deterrence is absent,โ says Sergei Strokan, an international affairs columnist with the Moscow daily Kommersant. During the Cold War …
โWhen I was younger, at the end of the Cold War, the biggest threat we had was no-notice-1,000 ICBMs just coming over the North Pole, and how would …
Many Russian experts agree. And for now, Washington seems to be heeding his threat and holding off on permitting Ukraine to use the weapons. โRussia’s
List and interactive map of current and past earthquakes near Yellowstone volcano. Android App ยท Android App ยท Volcanoes & Earthquakes Upgrade the …
IAEA Weekly News
20 September 2024
Read the top news and insights from this weekโs 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 โ
Eleven countries have been newly elected to serve on the 35-member IAEA Board of Governors for the 2024โ2025 period. The election took place on Thursday, 19 September, at the plenary session of the 68th IAEA General Conference. Read more โ
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 โ
From welcoming the IAEAโs newest Member States to learning about all aspects of the IAEAโs work, find out what happened on the first day of the IAEA’s 68th General Conference. Read more โ
Although I donโt 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 โrock and a hard placeโ 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 Iโm 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 doesnโt 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 โrock and a hard placeโ a narrower tightening turn of the vice the free world is in. This is partly why the articleโs author, Philips P. OโBrien makes his conclusion as he does. He also understands the scales and balances of those โStrategistsโ who for better or worse contrive the progress of wars, of which I have no clue.
So, to the point Mr. OโBrian 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 donโt 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 nowโat 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 Ukraineโs 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 itselfโwhich 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 infrastructureโtargeting 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 Putinโs 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 zoneโinside 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 landโthe 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. โScoresโ 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 strikeโbut no evidence shows that any steps were actually taken. The Carnegie Endowmentโs Christopher Chivvis warned in March 2022 that nuclear weapons use was one of two of the most likely results of the warโbased on โscoresโ 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 weaponsโ 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 expertsโ 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 Kahnโs 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 attackโeven 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. Chinaโs regional neighbors, such as Japan, South Korea, and even Taiwanโall of which could make nuclear weapons quite easilyโwould 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 โnuclear war cannot be won and must not be fought.โ It was a stunning Chinese power play in the midst of all the fanfare, one that has not received the prominence it deserves.
Itโs not just Russiaโs 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 donโt. 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 Putinโs 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 Russiaโs 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 Ukraineโdiscouraging 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 citiesโhave provided Russia with a major asymmetrical advantage in this war.
Even now, as the US and Britain appear ready to approve Ukraineโs 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 warโmaking 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 weakestโparticularly 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; itโs the one that happens in leadersโ 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 itโs 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 โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are no Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
… 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 …
โAs 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 ..
โI’m concerned about everything that you hear in the media, like the dangerous things they say about what should happen to President Trump, and even …
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 โcar manufacturingโ 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 โ 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 โno-1st useโ 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 โ especially if Trump wins the presidency.
There is a wise old saying about โnever fraternizing with the enemyโ 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: โNo one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there’s too much fraternizing with the enemy.โ 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 โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
American media suddenly spawned a series of publications on the need to avoid nuclear escalation by all means. … things, stresses the inadmissibility …
In September 2022, Putin said, โIf the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will without doubt use all available means to protect …
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, โCan there be a World War III without the use of nuclear weapons?โ My answer as well as Albert Einsteinโs (many years ago) was, of course, โNo!โ. Einstein insinuated his own โnoโ in a more colorful way, saying โAfter World War III the next war will be fought with sticks and stones.โ
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 โnuclear buttonโ with his individual control of the โnuclear footballโ, 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 Worldโs 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 Deenย (united nations)
Tuesday, September 17, 2024
Inter Press Service
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 17 (IPS) – The constant drumbeat of nuclear threats seems never endingโemanating 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 missilesโand 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 leadersโincluding 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 โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are no Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
… nuclear energy. Mr Shackel discussed with Sky News host Andrew Bolt the lack of radiation from living near nuclear plants. โThere are simple facts …
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 โBulletin of Atomic Scientistsโ, a publication that I subscribe to. No doubt other news agencies have noticed this risk for the future world โ 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 yesterdayโs 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 โ the essence of all life as we know it. ~llaw
Nuclear power: future energy solution or potential war target?
Ukraineโs president posted a video of a fire at Ukraineโs 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 weaponsโweakening international resolve to intervene in conflicts.
Russiaโs occupation of Ukraineโs Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant has already set a dangerous precedent that could sway the course of future wars. More recently, Russiaโs 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 timesโmost recently on September 5โin 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 gunfireโincreasing the risk of an accident. Zaporizhzhiaโs 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 Russiaโs 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 plantโs 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 Grossiโs 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 Zaporizhzhiaโs 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 Russiaโs 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 adversaryโs 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 Turkeyโand 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 dโetats 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 Departmentโs 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 Russiaโs 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 โLLAWโS ALL THINGS NUCLEARโ RELATED MEDIAโ:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanityโs lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about โall things nuclearโ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story available in this eveningโs Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Fridayโs only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Postโs link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
Nuclear 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) …
