Putin has lowered the standards for possible nuclear war with new doctrine. See article for text and image credits
LLAW’s NUCLEAR NEWS & THE IMPACT OF TODAY’S STORY
“The doctrine said any attack by a non-nuclear power supported by a nuclear power would be considered a joint attack, and that any attack by one member of a military bloc would be considered an attack by the entire alliance, it said.” (from the following Reuters’ article).
According to both Russia and the United States this has already happened when Ukraine recently fired long-range U.S. missiles with conventional warhead ATACMS into Russia for the 1st time at targets within Russia.
So all we can do at the moment is speculate on what may or may not happen next. But I do believe it is mandatory that the violation resolution (if it is resolved) must happen before Trump takes office on January 20, 2025. But I suspect it will be delayed . . . ~llaw
Putin issues warning to United States with new nuclear doctrine
Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with Yevgeny Balitsky, Moscow-installed governor of the Russian-controlled parts of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia region (not pictured), amid the Russia-Ukraine conflict, at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia November 18, 2024. Sputnik/Vyacheslav Prokofyev/Pool via REUTERS /File Photo
Summary
Putin approves new nuclear doctrine
Kremlin says this is a signal to the West
Russia lowers nuclear threshold
Russia says US ATACMS fired into Russia
Safe haven assets rally after Russian move
MOSCOW, Nov 19 (Reuters) – Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday lowered the threshold for a nuclear strike in response to a broader range of conventional attacks, and Moscow said Ukraine had struck deep inside Russia with U.S.-made ATACMS missiles.
Putin approved the change days after two U.S. officials and a source familiar with the decision said on Sunday that U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration allowed Ukraine to use U.S.-made weapons to strike deep into Russia.
Russia had been warning the West for months that if Washington allowed Ukraine to fire U.S., British and French missiles deep into Russia, Moscow would consider those NATO members to be directly involved in the war in Ukraine.
The updated Russian nuclear doctrine, establishing a framework for conditions under which Putin could order a strike from the world’s biggest nuclear arsenal, was approved by him on Tuesday, according to a published decree.
Analysts said the biggest change was that Russia could consider a nuclear strike in response to a conventional attack on Russia or its ally Belarus that “created a critical threat to their sovereignty and (or) their territorial integrity”.
“The big picture is that Russia is lowering the threshold for a nuclear strike in response to a possible conventional attack,” said Alexander Graef, a senior researcher at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg.
The previous doctrine, contained in a 2020 decree, said Russia may use nuclear weapons in case of a nuclear attack by an enemy or a conventional attack that threatened the existence of the state.
The U.S. National Security Council said it had not seen any reason to adjust the U.S. nuclear posture. Together, Russia and the U.S. control 88% of the world’s nuclear warheads.
Putin is the primary decision-maker on the use of Russia’s nuclear arsenal.
LOWER THRESHOLD
The doctrine said any attack by a non-nuclear power supported by a nuclear power would be considered a joint attack, and that any attack by one member of a military bloc would be considered an attack by the entire alliance, it said.
Russia’s defence ministry said Ukraine had struck Russia’s Bryansk region with six missiles, opens new tab, and that air defence systems intercepted five and damaged one.
“We will be taking this as a qualitatively new phase of the Western war against Russia and we will react accordingly,” Putin’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said in English, adding that U.S. personnel and data must have been used in the ATACMS attack on Russia.
Lavrov said Russia would do everything to avoid nuclear war, and pointed out that it was the U.S. which used nuclear weapons against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
On the 1,000th day of the Ukraine war, Russia also included a broader definition of the data that could be used to indicate Russia was under mass attack from aircraft, cruise missiles and unpiloted aircraft.
The war is entering what some Russian and Western officials say could be its final and most dangerous phase as Moscow’s forces advance at their fastest pace since the early weeks of the conflict and the West ponders how the war will end.
Government bonds and the Japanese yen rallied, while stocks and the euro fell, as investors bought safe-haven assets after the publication of Russia’s doctrine. The Russian rouble fell past 100 per U.S. dollar for the first time since October 2023.
WAR
Russian diplomats say the crisis is comparable to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when the two Cold War superpowers came closest to intentional nuclear war, and that the West is making a mistake if it thinks Russia will back down over Ukraine.
The Kremlin said Russia considered nuclear weapons a means of deterrence and that the updated text was intended to make clear to potential enemies the inevitability of retaliation should they attack Russia.
“Now the danger of a direct armed clash between nuclear powers cannot be underestimated, what is happening has no analogues in the past, we are moving through unexplored military and political territory,” said Sergei Ryabkov, Russia’s deputy foreign minister overseeing arms control and U.S. relations.
The main changes to the nuclear doctrine were flagged by Putin in September.
Asked whether publication of the decree was linked to Washington’s decision on allowing Ukraine to fire U.S. missiles deep into Russia, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the doctrine had been published in a “timely manner”.
“Nuclear deterrence is aimed at ensuring that a potential adversary understands the inevitability of retaliation in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies,” Peskov said.
The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.
Reporting by Reuters in Moscow; Writing by Anastasia Teterevleva and Guy Faulconbridge; editing by Mark Trevelyan, Jon Boyle, Timothy Heritage, William Maclean
As Moscow bureau chief, Guy runs coverage of Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States. Before Moscow, Guy ran Brexit coverage as London bureau chief (2012-2022). On the night of Brexit, his team delivered one of Reuters historic wins – reporting news of Brexit first to the world and the financial markets. Guy graduated from the London School of Economics and started his career as an intern at Bloomberg. He has spent over 14 years covering the former Soviet Union. He speaks fluent Russian.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’S ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA”:
(Please note that the Saturday and Sunday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS — unedited —are added to Monday news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are three Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this evening’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
Following recent rumors regarding evacuation and ongoing issues at the plant, Claiborne County Emergency Management would like to reassure the public …
The controversial Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant owned by PG&E
LLAW’s NUCLEAR NEWS & THE IMPACT OF TODAY’S STORY
This article from the “Los Angeles Times” contends that public support for nuclear power plants is growing, and that is true. But it does not mean that more nuclear power plants should be re-erected from past failures or old age nor that new plants, large and/or small should be built.
Not only are nuclear power plants extremely dangerous to public health and safety, they are accident prone, facing everything from human error to natural causes such as weather and earthquakes. They are also subject to terrorist attacks, and the more there are their danger increases exponentially nuclear power plants the more dangerous they become, and are most of all, last but not least, potential weapons of mass destruction in the event of nuclear war. This insane problem has already begun to happen in the Russia/Ukraine war.( in both countries (As for this nuclear plant involvement potential, read the recent and incredibly well=researched book “Nuclear War – A Scenario” by well-known researcher Annie Jacobsen, with a nuclear power plant involved in nuclear war involving the quite predictable and horrifying destruction of the very nuclear power plant that is the subject of this very scenario in the L.A. Times article).
The general public, including our senators and legislators, I am sad to say, is generally unaware of such treacherous potential and how nuclear proliferation could be the groundwork for WWIII, creating a world facing not only dangerous death and destruction, but potential permanently fatal issues around the globe that is nothing short of the extinction of human and other life.
Humanity is playing with a global “fire” that we have no idea how to extinguish. ~llaw
Has nuclear power entered a new era of acceptance amid global warming?
The Diablo Canyon Power Plant rises along the California coast near San Luis Obispo.
When Heather Hoff took a job at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, she was skeptical of nuclear energy — so much so that she resolved to report anything questionable to the anti-nuclear group Mothers for Peace.
Instead, after working at the plant for over a decade and asking every question she could think of about operations and safety, she co-founded her own group, Mothers for Nuclear, in 2016 to keep the plant alive.
“I was pretty nervous,” said Hoff, 45. “It felt very lonely — no one else was doing that. We looked around for allies — other pro-nuclear groups. … There just weren’t very many.”
Today, however, public support for nuclear power is the highest its been in more than a decade as government and private industry struggle to reduce reliance on planet-warming fossil fuels.
Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.
Although a string of nuclear disasters decades ago had caused the majority of older Americans to distrust the technology, this hasn’t been the case for younger generations.
Old-school environmentalists “grew up in the generation of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. … The Gen Zers today did not,” said David Weisman, 63, who has been involved in the movement to get Diablo Canyon shut down since the ’90s and works as the legislative director of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.
“They don’t remember how paralyzed with fright the nation was the week after Three Mile Island. … They don’t recall the shock of Chernobyl less than seven years later.”
Public support for nuclear power is the highest its been in more than a decade. Here, the domed reactors of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant rise along the California coast.
(Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times)
Many of these younger nuclear advocates — outwardly vocal on social media sites such as X and Instagram — hope the renewed interest will fuel a second renaissance in nuclear power, one that helps California, the U.S. and the globe meet ambitious climate goals.
“I think we are the generation that’s ready to make this change, and accept facts over feelings, and ready to transition to a cleaner, more reliable and safer energy source,” said Veronica Annala, 23, a college student at Texas A&M and president of the school’s new Nuclear Advocacy Resource Organization.
While some advocates wish nuclear revitalization wasn’t being driven by energy-hungry AI technology, the excitement around nuclear power is more palpable than it has been in a generation, they say.
“There’s so many things happening at the same time. … This is the actual nuclear renaissance,” said Gabriel Ivory, 22, a student at Texas A&M and vice president of NARO. “When you look at Three Mile Island restarting — that was something nobody would have ever even thought of.”
Support for nuclear energy in the U.S. has been rising since 2016
Support for nuclear began rising in the U.S. after the Western U.S. energy crisis led to widescale blackouts. It dived after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident, and began rising again in 2016.
Support
Public support for nuclear power is the highest its been in more than a decade. Here, the domed reactors of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant rise along the California coast.
(Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times)
Oppose
Fukushima nuclear accident
Russia invades Ukraine, triggering energy crisis
Western U.S. energy crisis leads to widescale blackouts
This enthusiasm has also been accompanied by a surprising political shift.
During the Cold War nuclear energy frenzy of the 1970s and ’80s, nuclear supporters — often Republicans — touted the jobs the plants would create, and argued that the United States needed to remain a commanding leader of nuclear technology and weaponry on the global stage.
Meanwhile, environmental groups, often aligned with the Democratic Party, opposed nuclear power based on the potential negative impact on surrounding ecosystems, the thorny problem of storing spent fuel and the small but real risk of a nuclear meltdown.
“In America … it has been highly politicized,” said Jenifer Avellaneda Diaz, 29, who works in the industry and runs the advocacy account Nuclear Hazelnut. “That is a little bit shameful, because we have great experts here — a lot of doctors, a lot of scientists, a lot of engineers, mathematicians, physicists.”
Today, younger Republicans are 11% less likely to support new nuclear plants in the U.S. than their older counterparts. Meanwhile the opposite is true for the left: Younger Democrats are 9% more likely to support new nuclear than older Democrats, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center.
As a result, while Republicans older than 65 are 27% more likely to support nuclear energy than their Democratic peers, Republicans age 18 to 29 are only 7% more likely to support it than their Democratic counterparts.
“Young Democrats and young Republicans may be looking at numbers — but two separate sets of numbers,” said Weisman. “The young Republicans may be looking at the cost per megawatt hour, and the young Democrats are looking at a different number: parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Brendan Pittman, 33 — who founded the Berkeley Amend movement, aiming to get his city to drop its “nuclear-free zone” status — said he’s noticed that younger people have become more open to learning about nuclear energy.
“Now — as we’re getting into energy crises and we’re talking more about, ‘How do we solve this?’ — younger people are taking a more rational and nuanced review of all energy. And they’re coming to the same conclusion: Yeah, nuclear checks all the boxes,” Pittman said.
Advertisement
“I remember getting signatures on the streets of Berkeley, and I would say most young people — when I said we’re looking to support nuclear energy — they would just stop me and say, ‘Where do I sign?’” he said. “I didn’t even have to sell it.”
Younger Democrats are more likely than others in their party to support more nuclear plants
Share of Americans who favor more nuclear plants
Younger Democrats are more likely to support more nuclear plants, while younger Republicans are less likely to support them.
Noah Haggerty
Los Angeles Times
This newfound enthusiasm has also affected the nuclear industry, where two dominant age groups have emerged: baby boomers who mostly took nuclear jobs for consistent work, and millennials and Gen Zers who made a motivated choice to enter a stigmatized field, advocates in the industry say.
“You get all sorts of different backgrounds, and that really just blooms into all sorts of fresh new ideas, and I think that’s part of what’s making the industry exciting right now,” said Matt Wargon, 33, past chair of the Young Members Group of the American Nuclear Society.
Like the workers themselves, the industry has formed two bubbles: the traditional plants that have been operating for decades and a slew of new technologies — from small reactors that could power or heat single factories to a potentially safer class of large-scale reactors that use molten salt in their cores instead of pressurized water.
At existing plants, younger folks have injected innovation into longstanding operation norms, improving safety and efficiency. At the startups, those who’ve worked in the industry for decades provide “invaluable” knowledge that simply isn’t in textbooks, industry workers say.
Steam rises from the cooling towers of the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, in Waynesboro, Ga.
(Mike Stewart / Associated Press)
The infusion of new talent and ideas is a significant change from when Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island disaster in 1979 and the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986 devastated the industry. Regulations became stricter, and development on new reactors and new technology slowed to a halt.
False narratives around the technology ricocheted through society. Both Hoff and Avellaneda Diaz recall their parents worrying about radiation affecting their ability to have children. (The average worker at Diablo receives significantly less radiation in a week than a passenger does on a single East Coast to West Coast airplane flight.)
“Radiation is invisible — you can’t see it. You can’t smell it. You can’t hear it,” said Wargon. “And people tend to fear the unknown. … So if you tell them, ‘Oh this power plant has a lot of radiation coming out of it,’ it’s hard to dispel [the misinformation and fear].”
Only as the memories faded and new generations entered the workforce did the reputation of nuclear power slowly recover.
Advocates also say that college campuses have become a leading space for nuclear advocacy, with Nuclear is Clean Energy (NiCE) clubs popping up at multiple California schools in the past few years.
Nuclear advocates say the internet and easy access to accurate information has also helped their cause.
“That was certainly a revolution because right now, it’s super easy to Google it,” Avellaneda Diaz said. “Back then you needed to go to the library, get the book — it was not that easy to get the information or be informed.”
A poll conducted by Ann Bisconti, a scientist and nuclear public opinion expert, found that 74% of people who said they felt very well informed strongly favored the use of nuclear energy in the U.S., whereas only 6% who felt not at all informed supported it.
As such, public outreach and education has become a core tenant of the new nuclear advocacy movement.
“Let’s be real,” Annala said, “our generation has the whole internet at our fingertips … so, just starting the conversations is really the big thing.”
Advocates speculate that the ability to rapidly disseminate information on nuclear energy to combat misconceptions might have helped prevent nuclear energy from becoming politically and culturally toxic after the Fukushima accident, unlike with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
While the Texas A&M students were quite young when the disaster unfolded, both Wargon and Pittman were in college in 2011 when an earthquake and tsunami in Japan crippled the power systems at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, triggering a meltdown. Avellaneda Diaz was in high school.
Hoff was working at Diablo Canyon when Fukushima happened. The public scare, in part pushed by the media, almost led her to quit her job.
Instead, after taking the time to analyze the causes of the meltdown and the errors made, she decided to embrace nuclear.
For her, Fukushima was a reminder that nuclear power comes with risk — however small — but that even in a worst-case scenario, operators are skilled at preventing a disaster. (PG&E says a Fukushima flooding episode would be impossible at Diablo Canyon.)
Environmental activists in Seoul march during a rally marking the 12th anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
(Ahn Young-joon / Associated Press)
Today, Hoff writes the emergency protocols for Diablo Canyon and hopes the industry will learn again how to engage with the public.
She said that’s what happened with her when she first — somewhat reluctantly — took a job at Diablo.
“I was a little obnoxious for the first few years,” Hoff said of her constant questioning and search for a critical flaw.
Instead of pushing back against her, the plant welcomed it.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’S ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA”:
(Please note that the Saturday and Sunday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS — unedited —are added to Monday news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are no Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this evening’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
… Nuclear and Radiological Activity under the Ministry of Emergency Situations (MES). … Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Nijat Aliyev, Head of the …lear War
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also urged Russia to leave the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and raised concerns about damage to one …
“The smaller size of SMRs also means smaller areas required for emergency planning. A large nuclear plant will need a radius of 16 kilometres for this …
The most common type, though, are light water reactors, which are very similar to traditional nuclear power plants being built in Russia, France and …
NPR
LIMA, Peru — President Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping on Saturday agreed that any decision to use nuclear weapons should be controlled by …
President Biden shakes hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Lima, Peru, …
You know, this was an opportunity for them to take stock of their relationship after four years of President Biden stewarding it along with President …
BBC
The fear of nuclear war forced nations to come together to stop the spread of atomic weapons. Could a similar idea curb the use of fossil fuels?
… nuclear weapons, according to the White House … Zelenskiy says Ukraine must do everything to end war next year. 32 min …
More from this section ; Poland scrambles fighter jets over massive Russian missile attack on Ukraine. 17/11/2024. 3 min. read ; Ahead of G20 summit, …
The Washington Post
… emergency power shutdowns and nationwide rolling blackouts. … Although Ukraine’s nuclear plants were not directly impacted, several electrical …
Quote: “The transmission system operator [Ukrenergo] has urgently introduced emergency power outages. … Pivdennoukrainsk Nuclear Power Plant prepares …
Energy.. Framatome’s accident-tolerant fuel sets operational record in Swiss nuclear reactor · Prabhat. an hour ago. 0. 4. Energy.. Hydrogels …
Taleghan 2 Obliterated: How Israel is Thwarting Iran’s Homegrown Nuclear Threat … An aerial view captures the aftermath of a devastating Israeliekend News
President Biden shakes hands with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Lima, Peru, …
You know, this was an opportunity for them to take stock of their relationship after four years of President Biden stewarding it along with President …
More from this section ; Poland scrambles fighter jets over massive Russian missile attack on Ukraine. 17/11/2024. 3 min. read ; Ahead of G20 summit, …
Quote: “The transmission system operator [Ukrenergo] has urgently introduced emergency power outages. … Pivdennoukrainsk Nuclear Power Plant prepares …
By the coincidence of consecutive dates of a couple of similar international articles, this piece is also from Australia, but it also points out that the entire world, including non-nuclear-armed endowed countries, is worried about the coming 2nd presidency of Donald Trump, who is not considered anywhere around the world, including in his own country, to be a straight shooter who can, in any way, be relied upon to “do the right thing” for democracy.
Two points from this article are similar to several of the previous articles I have led this blog post with my constant concerns — that the United States, with the cost of “deterrence”, cannot afford to protect its non-nuclear allies from any nuclear conflict and that their pretense to “take care” of countries like Australia and South Korea, and that we should not pretend to be able to do so. A third, and dangerous issue is the re-election of Donald Trump who often seems to be more personally allied to our nuclear enemies like Russia, North Korea, and to some degree, China. My own view is that Trump should never, ever, be allowed to get within miles of the nuclear football. Congress needs to change the procedure for knowing and using the nuclear codes before Trump and the new congress take office in mid-January.
Australia obviously, from the opinion and points of author Dr. Peter Hooton, feels like they are better off to separate themselves from the United States as a partner in military matters. They are not the 1st country who is uncomfortable allying with the USA, and that may very well include Ukraine, knowing that Trump, (who said on July 2nd of this year, that he will halt the Russia/Ukraine war in 24 hours after he becomes president. That huge brag and/or lie is likely, as “Rolling Stone” headlined yesterday, “Trump’s Peace Plan for Ukraine Looks Like Putin’s Victory,“.
So it is well known that the only way Trump could possibly do as he says is to side with Russia’s annexation of Ukraine, but even that is unlikely to happen because NATO is, of course, not happy with the USA’s limited or restricted actions in the recent past. But still, Trump is likely to quickly try to negotiate on Putin’s behalf leaving Ukraine and NATO out in the cold air of winter. ~llaw
Australia has long contributed to global arms control and non-proliferation efforts, yet its reliance on the US nuclear umbrella reflects a conflicting stance on nuclear disarmament. This dependence not only undermines Australia’s historical commitment to nuclear disarmament but also risks drawing the nation into potential nuclear conflict without assured protection.
Australia has made important contributions to the negotiation and consolidation of multilateral nuclear (and conventional) arms control and non-proliferation measures—in relation, for example but by no means only, to the indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1995 and to the adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996. But it sees the world, strategically, through the eyes of a nuclear weapon state (NWS) and thus takes an essentially NWS view of the future which pays, ever more obviously now, lip-service to nuclear disarmament as, at best, a distant ideal.
Australian defence strategists would have us believe that, for as long as nuclear weapons exist, Australia must (and presumably can) rely on US nuclear weapons for its security. The United States has been largely silent on this claim while continuing broadly to assure “Allies and partners,” in the language of its most recent Nuclear Posture Review (2022), that they can be confident of US readiness “to deter the range of strategic threats they face whether in crisis or conflict.”
This language raises questions that are much too little asked. Nuclear war poses an existential threat most obviously to the nuclear weapons possessors themselves. So does Australia really believe the United States would choose to expose itself to the risk of nuclear attack by threatening to use its nuclear weapons for any purpose that did not serve its own strategic interests exclusively? Of course it doesn’t.
Does the United States in any case have the means to defend Australia against strategic nuclear weapons? No. As impressive as they sometimes are, none of the air defence systems now deployed in Israel and Ukraine are capable of intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and no such system is reliably available even to the United States itself.
What grounds do we have for fearing that Australia could become a nuclear target independently of its alliance relationships? Surely the answer to this question is “none.” Nuclear weapons are not needed to exploit Australia’s strategic vulnerabilities—its massive import dependency, and long sea lines of supply and communication—and can do nothing to alleviate them. The only credible occasion for deploying nuclear weapons against us would be a nuclear war in which the United States was already engaged.
The situation might then be summarised as follows: the concept of extended nuclear deterrence allows us to claim the benefit of association with another state’s nuclear weapons. But when deterrence fails, we will very quickly discover that there is no “nuclear umbrella.” The United States has no capacity to defend us against the strategic nuclear missiles that may be deployed against us precisely because we have claimed the false protection of its nuclear arsenal. Australia’s mistaken reliance on nuclear weapons as a last line of defence thus makes us more, rather than less, likely to experience their impact.
In 2016, Australia voted against a UN General Assembly resolution clearing the way for the negotiation of a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons and refused to participate in the negotiations that led to the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in New York the following year. Australia is now one of the few countries in its own region not to have signed the treaty. The Australian Labor Party adopted a resolution in 2018 committing a future Labor government to do so but has not followed through in the face of unwavering US hostility to the Treaty, and for fear of being wedged by a parliamentary Opposition whose principal contribution to the national life is incessantly to sound the national security alarm.
Parties to the TPNW are prohibited from providing any support to another state’s nuclear weapons program. In Australia’s case, this would mean (at a minimum) giving up its nuclear umbrella and terminating all nuclear-weapons-related activities at the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap. Australia/US relations would be faced with a challenging reset, not least because the Americans have come to assume a largely unquestioning Australian like-mindedness on strategic issues. We are though, I think, much too inclined to overlook the fact that Australia’s national character and international credibility in the nuclear era have been shaped, to a genuinely important degree, by an enduring commitment to nuclear disarmament. We owe it to ourselves not to diminish this (to some modest degree bipartisan) legacy. And we do certainly diminish it by opening ourselves to the prospect of becoming an expendable bit-player in someone else’s nuclear war. Australia has taken practical steps, in close consultation with the United States, to carefully dissociate itself from other weapons—anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions—that it, unlike the United States, has formally renounced. It could do the same with nuclear weapons.
Australia can dissociate itself from nuclear weapons without turning its back on the alliance. But this will only get harder as the focus shifts from deterrence to undermining confidence in the survivability of strategic nuclear weapons platforms, and Australia finds itself increasingly caught up in US strategic non-nuclear weapons programs. We might perhaps begin by placing more emphasis publicly on an important US motivation for extending the nuclear deterrence concept to allies, which is to reduce the incentive for them to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. As a party to the TPNW, Australia would be demonstrating its determination never to acquire these weapons, and the United States would no longer have to pretend that it is holding a nuclear umbrella over our heads.
It really makes no difference, for the purposes of this argument, who sits in the Oval Office, but the fact that Americans have chosen, for the second time in eight years, to hand over the nuclear launch codes to Donald Trump obviously does nothing to diminish its force. Australia is always more at ease in the world, and more helpful, when it makes a real effort to see the world for itself—as it has done from time to time over the past eighty years. Our relationship with the United States is claustrophobic and the situation is getting worse. We must find some clear air soon if we are to avoid suffocation. This will require genuinely independent thinking and the courage of our traditionally multilateralist and humanitarian convictions. A second Trump administration gives us a chance to see whether we still have these qualities.
Peter Hooton is a former diplomat whose postings included appointments as High Commissioner to Samoa (2001–03) and Solomon Islands (2007–09). Prior to leaving the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in 2012, he was Assistant Secretary for Arms Control and Counter-Proliferation.
This article is published under a Creative Commons License and may be republished with attribution.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’S ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA”:
(Please note that the Saturday and Sunday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS — unedited —are added to Monday posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “All Things Nuclear”.)
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are two Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this evening’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
National Intelligence Officers (NIOs) serve as the principal subject matter experts to the DNI and national security decision makers on all aspects of …
Boyce. Months between rejuvenation and volcanic eruption at Yellowstone caldera, Wyoming. Geology. Vol. 43, August 2015. doi …
IAEA Weekly News
15 November 2024
The United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) got underway in Baku, Azerbaijan, this week. Follow our COP29 Blog for in-depth coverage of the role of nuclear energy and its applications in the discussions and see the top stories on IAEA.org.
The IAEA is at COP29 in Baku, putting into place concrete measures to help countries use nuclear science and technology to fight climate change. Read more →
As major tech companies like Google and Microsoft face growing energy demands from data centers powering AI, they are turning to advanced nuclear technologies such as small modular reactors to provide clean and reliable power. Read more →
The IAEA and the EBRD are broadening their collaboration in the nuclear energy sector to help countries achieve net zero. This partnership represents a significant step, as it extends their cooperation beyond nuclear and radiation safety concerns. Read more →
The COP29 climate conference has kicked off in Baku, Azerbaijan and the IAEA is once again present to discuss all the ways that nuclear science and technology can help in the fight against climate change. Read more →
It has been awhile since I have selected a Brit “Sky News” story, partly because their format is so hard to use without dealing with many other news stories that make posting difficult and a bit confusing to the casual reader, But the publication has, and still does, provide some of the best nuclear-world news, particularly threats of nuclear war.
So of course with the U.S. once again saddled with the confused, unpredictable and unsteady mind of Donald Trump as President, the Russia/Ukraine war becomes foremost at a new higher more intense level in the hearts and minds of NATO, America, and, of course Ukraine and Russia, with a stronger and more bitter taste in our political and military divides. Trump was partly responsible for Putin’s decision to re-open the old conflict between the two countries, and many of us will be biting our fingernails in anticipation of the future progress of the now nuclear-threatening war,
Trump has never supported democratic Ukraine’s military needs to help defend their country in this war. The current administrations has allowed limited military equipment and minimal arms all saddled with restrictions, and have been caught, as a NATO leader, somewhere between a ‘rock and a hard place’ that has obviously left Ukraine and its young democracy as well as Europe in a huge lurch.
So it is that the rest of the world, including all of America and most of Europe, is nervously standing at attention, pensive and afraid, about what will come of not only Ukraine but also the NATO countries of Europe — and to some degree the rest of the free world as well. ~llaw
Moscow signalling Putin’s intentions for Ukraine when Trump takes over, analysts say
Reporting around the conflict in Ukraine over the past week has been dominated by the significance of Donald Trump’s presidential election victory.
The Republican will take over in the White House in January, having promised during his election campaign to end the war within 24 hours of becoming president.
His statements around Ukraine – and his so-called “America first” approach to foreign policy – have led many commentators to suggest he would withdraw support from the country in its struggle to repel Russia’s invading forces.
But experts from the Institute for the Study of War think tank say the indications are that the Kremlin is now attempting to dictate the terms of any potential “peace” negotiations with Ukraine in advance of Trump’s inauguration.
“The manner in which the Kremlin is trying to set its terms for negotiations strongly signals that Russia’s objectives remain unchanged and still amount to full Ukrainian capitulation,” the group’s analysts say.
“The Kremlin does not appear any more willing to make concessions to the incoming Trump administration than it was to the current administration.”
It said Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s claims yesterday that “peace” can only be achieved when the West stops providing military assistance to Ukraine indicates that Russia continues to assert that the West must end all provisions of military assistance to Ukraine as a prerequisite for peace negotiations.
Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov also claimed yesterday that the start of Trump’s presidency would not fundamentally change the US position on Ukraine and that any proposals to freeze the frontline were “even worse” than the Russia-favourable Minsk Agreements that followed its first invasion of Ukraine in 2014.
“Lavrov’s pre-emptive rejection of the potential suggestion to freeze the current frontline further indicates that Russia is not interested in softening its approach or demands in negotiations and maintains its objective of total Ukrainian capitulation, which Vladimir Putin explicitly outlined in June 2024,” the analysts continue.
“Zakharova’s and Lavrov’s statements also undermine Putin’s recent efforts to feign interest in a willingness to ‘restore’ US–Russian relations with the new US presidential administration and instead indicate that Putin likely is taking for granted that the Trump administration will defer to the Kremlin’s interests and preferences without the Kremlin offering any concessions or benefits in return.”
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’S ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA”:
(Please note that the Saturday and Sunday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS — unedited —are added to Monday posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “All Things Nuclear”.)
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are three Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this evening’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
And for us, the requirements of protecting the operators and protecting the investment actually fully, like, fully covers everything that’s necessary …
… nuclear weapon to pose a more credible threat. The country’s breakout time — the period required to develop a nuclear bomb — is now estimated in weeks …
“I don’t see a pandemic finishing us off, and climate change itself would (to quote Keating) ‘do us slowly’. The one sure path to extinction is nuclear war.” – Professor Peter Doherty AC, Nobel Laureate, communication to the author, 9 Sep 2024.
From the “Pearls and Irritations” COP29” image caption for the astute and well-written article below: “I don’t see a pandemic finishing us off, and climate change itself would (to quote Keating) ‘do us slowly’. The one sure path to extinction is nuclear war.” – Professor Peter Doherty AC, Nobel Laureate, communication to the author, 9 Sep 2024.
This article from an excellent Australian publication and author Tilman Ruff puts the USA and Donald Trump directly behind the proverbial eight-ball regarding the foreseeable future, especially concerning the environment and ‘all thing nuclear’.
I would only add that terrorism and local battles over nuclear power plants (as no-borders participation in any conflict of any size) will also contribute to Professor Doherty’s well-advised statement about nuclear war being the ‘sure’ path to extinction as opposed to a pandemic. But a pandemic-like killer in a no-borders dispute leading up to WWIII by introducing radiation-poisoning illness and death to huge areas of countries around the world, but, for sure, the nuclear bombs would follow to finalize doomsday . . .
I take this concept of terrorism and war from the increasing involvement of nuclear power plants in the Russia/Ukraine war as well as Annie Jacobsen’s book ‘“Nuclear War – A Scenario “, and my own experience, knowledge, and edification. All of this potential mayhem, possibly leading to doomsday also makes me wonder why we would even allow more nuclear power plants, or nuclear weapons, anywhere on planet Earth., yet we blindly continue on status quo. ~llaw
“I don’t see a pandemic finishing us off, and climate change itself would (to quote Keating) ‘do us slowly’. The one sure path to extinction is nuclear war.” – Professor Peter Doherty AC, Nobel Laureate, communication to the author, 9 Sep 2024.
Two days after Donald Trump’s election last week, the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service reported that this year will be the warmest on record and the first year more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, likely more than 1.55°C above. Yet exactly when global leadership on climate action is needed most, the world’s second-largest emitter has a climate-denying, corrupt, criminal president-elect with no regard for facts, committed to leaving the Paris Agreement and ramping up fossil fuel extraction and use.
The stakes could hardly be higher at this year’s climate COP in Baku, Azerbaijan, starting this week. Most of us now understand how crucial to human and planetary health a stable and hospitable climate is, and that securing this is the defining challenge of our age. Yet too few of us make the connection that the most acute, immediate danger to our lives and climate still comes from nuclear weapons.
The two paramount human-made existential threats we confront today – nuclear weapons and climate change – exacerbate each other and need to be addressed together, with utmost urgency. One harms us and our biosphere every day, the other could deplete it irrevocably and end human civilisation and many species in less than a day.
Last week the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Australia launched a new briefing paper examining what nuclear weapons and climate change have to do with each other. The paper addresses the connections between climate, nuclear weapons, nuclear power and the stuff that puts the ‘nuclear’ in nuclear weapons. What effect would nuclear war have on the climate? Does climate change increase the risk of nuclear war? How does nuclear power generation—sometimes touted as a climate-friendly energy source—relate to nuclear risks? Could the massive amounts of radioactivity inside nuclear reactors and waste storages cause radioactive contamination akin to nuclear weapons? Could nuclear facilities themselves be turned into weapons?
Robust scientific evidence shows that the tens of millions of tons of smoke from burning cities ignited by even a nuclear war in one global region, involving 2% of the global nuclear arsenal, would suddenly plummet temperatures worldwide to ice age levels for several years, decimate agriculture, disrupt ocean food chains and condemn over two billion people to starve to death.
Burning cities from a nuclear war involving 4400 Russia and the US weapons, possessing close to 90% of the world’s nuclear arsenal, would put 150 million tons of smoke into the atmosphere. This would plummet average surface temperatures 10°C colder than present, and 20-35°C colder in large areas of Eurasia and North America, a severe abrupt ice age that would result in the large majority of the world’s 8 billion people starving to death, along with the starvation and extinction of many other species.
Nuclear weapons and climate are deeply interconnected. The hospitable and stable climate required for human and biosphere health needs protecting from both rampant global heating and nuclear war.
A climate-stressed world is an even more dangerous place for nuclear weapons. Over the last decade, the number of armed conflicts and their casualties have steadily grown, exacerbated by food and water insecurity, worsening poverty, extreme climate events, displacement and other consequences of global heating. These conflicts and the use of nuclear weapons to assert political and military power with claimed impunity undermine the international cooperation needed to address the climate crisis and other shared challenges. Nuclear arsenals and growing military expenditures not only make conflicts more dangerous and deadly, but have huge opportunity costs, as vast resources are diverted from addressing the real needs of people and planet. Military organisations and activities are also large emitters of greenhouse gases, rarely measured or reported and largely unconstrained.
Apart from being slow, now the most expensive energy source, associated with risks of catastrophic accidents, routine radioactive emissions and intractable waste challenges, nuclear power inseparably creates the capacity to build nuclear weapons. Its promotion as a somewhat low carbon energy source is largely by vested interests and for political and potential proliferation purposes. Facilities to enrich uranium for nuclear reactors can readily enrich it to weapons grade, and the plutonium inevitably produced from uranium inside a nuclear reactor can be extracted from the spent fuel rods. Both routes have been used for proliferation of nuclear weapons. In most nuclear-armed states, the infrastructure, personnel, expertise, industrial capacity and government investments in nuclear power are also key to their nuclear weapons programs.
Nuclear facilities including reactors, spent fuel storage ponds and reprocessing plants contain vast amounts of long-lived radioactive materials. They are effectively pre-positioned large radiological weapons or ‘dirty bombs’, vulnerable to direct military attack or disruption to electricity and water supplies essential for continuous cooling. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has starkly highlighted the dangers of a radiological disaster from nuclear facilities in a war zone, particularly with military attacks on, occupation and weaponisation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and destruction of the Kakhovka Dam which provided cooling water.
A healthy and sustainable future for all life on Earth requires rapid transition to renewable energy and net zero greenhouse gas emissions, and that we prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons before they eliminate us. Nuclear weapons should concern everyone working to avoid climate chaos. Nuclear disarmament is climate action, and effective climate action will help prevent nuclear war. Virtually every species will be harmed in a nuclear war and by global heating; only one species can stop them.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’S ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA”:
(Please note that the Saturday and Sunday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS — unedited —are added to Monday posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “All Things Nuclear”.)
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are no Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this evening’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
Getting that done required two things: an “all hands-on-deck” herculean … The PenRen effort comes to mind when I run across articles about how to fix …
Nuclear energy is the nation’s largest source of clean power and avoids more than 470 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year, which …
All I can say is that this is a really bad, expensive, and dangerous idea, especially in the face of an unhinged nuclear armed world that has already figured out that nuclear powers plants are also easily turned into powerful weapons of mass destruction, yet we are talking about somewhere around 200 gigawatts or 200 or more added nuclear reactors of both large and small new nuclear power plants including rehabilitation of old plants that have been shut down for years due to their their age and their questionable nuclear safety.
I have to wonder, when all is said and done, what on Earth the reasoning was for such a dangerous and financially expensive venture — especially when renewable power plants like wind, solar, geothermal and hydro are so much cheaper to build, operate, and provide power as needed to meet future demand without the fear of running out of uranium for nuclear fuel. Nobody seems to realize that uranium, like coal, oil and gas, is essentially a fossil fuel that is subject to depletion, which could make nuclear power plants something useless like white elephants, or creating costs to produce at multiple-thousands of dollars per pound that nobody or nothing, even the AI producing tech corporations, could never afford. ~llaw
The Three Mile Island nuclear power generating station shown here Monday, March 28, 2011 in Middletown, Pa. continues to generate electric power with the Unit 1 reactor. (AP Photo/Bradley C Bower)
The Biden administration on Tuesday released a roadmap for plans to triple U.S. nuclear capacity by the middle of the century, prompting the following short article from “The Hill” and other news providers.
The plan sets a goal of 200 gigawatts of new capacity by 2050, more than three times the 2020 capacity. This will require the development of multiple new power sources, including large and small modular plants, as well as upgrades to existing reactors and restarting retired ones. This includes adding 35 gigawatts of new capacity by 2035 and a goal of 15 gigawatts per year by 2040.
“Ramping sustained production to about 15 [gigawatts] annually by 2040 will be important to serve both our domestic 2050 deployment goals and project deployments around the globe, making more U.S. nuclear products and services available for export,” the administration’s road map states.
“This will add hundreds of thousands of good-paying construction and operation jobs across the United States that would be sustained for decades. Achieving this production rate will require an expanded workforce, robust supply chains for fuel and components, and long-term solutions for managing spent fuel.”
The strategy outlined is part of a concerted push by the Biden administration to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a goal the incoming Trump administration is likely to abandon. However, increased deployment of nuclear power has bipartisan congressional support and President-elect Trump has signaled support as well, calling for the construction of new nuclear reactors during his 2024 campaign.
The framework relies on existing federal authorities but would require new funding, leaving nuclear power’s bipartisan supporters in Congress to fill the gap by allocating that money.
It comes months after the announcement that Pennsylvania will restart one of the reactors at Three Mile Island, the site of a near meltdown in the 1970s, to power Microsoft data centers. Both hard-line conservative Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), who represents the area, and his 2024 Democratic opponent, Janelle Stelson, backed the restart.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’S ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA”:
(Please note that the Saturday and Sunday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS — unedited —are added to Monday posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “All Things Nuclear”.)
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this evening’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
… things to know about Trump’s selection for EPA chief. by Zack Budryk. 2 hours ago. Energy & Environment / 2 hours ago. See All. Video/Hill.TV. See all …
This will require the development of multiple new power sources, including large and small-modular plants as well as upgrades to existing reactors and …
President Biden confirmed that same month there was a “direct threat” of Russia deploying nuclear weapons “if … things continue down the path they are …
… threats … Despite these efforts, ICBMs remained a dangerous element of Cold War strategy, symbolizing deterrence and the catastrophic risks of nuclear …
As well as the risks involved with the addition to an erratic and unstable leader for the foreseeable future, the concept of ‘nuclear deterrence’, which is the only actual preventative we have from a nuclear war, is pricing the U.S. and other nuclear armed countries out of our ability to prevent a nuclear war. (Many Posts on this blog have dealt with this issue, and none of them are of a positive or comforting nature, but in fact just the opposite.
The concept of ‘deterrence’ is to increase a country’s nuclear power arsenal to prevent the other nuclear armed countries from launching their weapons because theirs may be superior and more devastating than ours, for instance. So billions and trillions of dollars are spent in a ‘keeping up with the Jones’s’ kind of way. This article points out that America may no longer be able to be the ruler of the ‘deterrence’ method of peace.
And with Trump at our nation’s helm, how can we possibly avoid nuclear war? I have my own opinion, but for today I will bow to this timely and much needed and important article from “Forbes” and author William Hartung, that were we still students at all levels of higher education would be mandatory reading. ~llaw
I am a defense analyst, and cover the economics of Pentagon spending.
Follow
0
Nov 11, 2024,11:57am EST
Updated Nov 11, 2024, 02:53pm EST
398198 01: A prototype interceptor is launched from the Kwajalein Missile Range December 3, 2001 in … [+]Getty Images
The return to power of Donald Trump raises serious questions about the future of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. His statements on nuclear weapons have been all over the map, but a 2017 review by Anthony Zurcher of The Guardian of Trump’s statements since the 980s concluded that “his thoughts on atomic weaponry reflect a certain strain of Cold War arms-race enthusiasm and diplomatic brinkmanship.” And in 2016, after he was challenged when he said ‘possibly, possibly” nuclear weapons could be used, Trump went on to say that if they weren’t to be used, “Then why are we making them?” On the flip side, he has also called nuclear war “the ultimate catastrophe.”
As for his actions in office, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which by all objective accounts had been working to stop Tehran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon. And in 2019, the Trump administration withdrew from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces in Europe treaty (INF), which had banned ground-based ballistic missiles and cruise missiles in the range of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers.
On the other hand, Trump was roundly (and unfairly) criticized for his short-lived effort at nuclear negotiations with North Korea. The talks ultimately failed, but critics who slammed Trump for “rewarding” North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un seemed to be ignoring the fact that in the final analysis talking with adversaries is a precondition for any sort of agreement. Criticism of Trump for being ill-prepared or inconsistent was fair game, but slamming him for talking to the North Korean leader at all didn’t make a lot of sense.
The real test of Trump’s stance on all-things nuclear will be his approach to the Pentagon’s multi-year effort to build a new generation of nuclear-armed missiles, bombers, and submarines, plus new warheads to go with them, a plan that some experts suggest could cost up to $2 trillion in the next three decades.
The nuclear plan has already been plagued by major cost overruns, including an 81% increase in the projected cost of the new intercontinental ballistic missile, dubbed the Sentinel, and developed and produced by Northrop Grumman. The cost overrun prompted a government review of the program, but the assessment ended up pronouncing that the program was too important to cancel.
The review of the Sentinel was a missed opportunity. Former secretary of defense William Perry has called ICBMs “some of the most dangerous weapons we have,” because the president would have only a matter of minutes to decide whether to launch them on warning of attack, increasing the risk of a nuclear confrontation sparked by a false alarm.
The Pentagon has a big shopping list – a larger Navy, more combat aircraft, new armored vehicles, drones and other unpiloted vehicles. Even with a Pentagon budget soaring towards $1 trillion per year, something may have to be cut. There’s also a chance that at least a few fiscal conservatives in Congress may seek across-the-board cuts, including the Pentagon, upon news that for the first time interest on the federal debt is larger than the Pentagon budget.
On the other hand, despite the occasional criticism, Trump has come to see weapons contractors as important allies in executing his domestic strategy because of the jobs created by contracts with the Pentagon and foreign buyers. This alliance was on display in Trump’s effort to make a huge weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, which he claimed could create 500,000 jobs in the United States, when a more realistic estimate would be one-tenth to one-twentieth of that figure. The ultimate test came after the Saudi regime’s murder of the U.S.-resident Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi, when Trump issued a statement saying that U.S. arms to the Saudi regime would continue, in part because he didn’t want to reduce business for “our wonderful defense companies.”
Donald Trump is nothing if not unpredictable. Will Trump the deal maker pleasantly surprise us by attempting to enter into negotiations to reduce nuclear arsenals, or will he resort to bluster and threats that make negotiations more difficult, even as he helps line the pockets of major weapons makers with billions of dollars of our tax money? To some degree it’s up to what kind of pressure he gets for and against the current buildup, which is a question that can only be answered once he is in office.
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’S ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA”:
(Please note that the Saturday and Sunday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS — unedited —are added to today’s and coming Monday posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “All Things Nuclear”.)
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this evening’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the federal agency in charge of commercial nuclear reactors, says the reason these power plants — Palisades, …
Military installations and other strategic sites could also find themselves under threat from nuclear strikes, especially if aggressors were to launch …
14/2024 · International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi is bringing this message to the 29th · This year’s COP has …
Woodward was most impressed with Joe Biden’s management of the nuclear threat from Russia two years ago when Vladimir Putin was threatening to attack …
14/2024 · International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi is bringing this message to the 29th · This year’s COP has …
Woodward was most impressed with Joe Biden’s management of the nuclear threat from Russia two years ago when Vladimir Putin was threatening to attack …
Geopolitical tensions and processing limitations of refined uranium threaten nuclear power industry · The U.S. bans Russian uranium imports, investing …
Following, from the “Bulletin of Atomic Scientist” is the new revelation-like document (or nuclear bible) that will begin carrying us through the next four years of Donald Trump and his merry band of Nazis. Note that the story refers to Trump as an authoritarian or fascist, which is absolutely not a complimentary tag for a sitting American president.
As I have stated and re-stated many times over the past two-plus years, the survival of us all including Mother Earth herself is in dire danger of extinction, and the insane election of Donald J. Trump as our next president is impossible to reconcile in my own mind and prompted me to almost say, “to hell with it”, and shut myself down from this daily “All Things Nuclear” blog. But after a restless night it occurred to me that this is a bad time to give up because the chances of nuclear war have just spectacularly elevated, increased by a minimal and overly optimistic 10% with Trump at the helm of the United States of America. ~llaw
As an aside, I am making some improvements and adjustments to the blog, some of which will be integrated over time, but I will immediately do away with posts on Saturday and Sunday in order to protect and preserve my mental and physical health (I will turn 83 years old on the 23rd of this month, so I have earned a day or two off each week.)
What to expect from Trump’s second term: more erratic, darker, and more dangerous
Illustration by Thomas Gaulkin / klyona / valeo6 / depositphotos.com
Those who managed to see Trump’s strategic plan for the country through the smoke screen of his brash and boisterous campaign should feel privileged. But most of us—including myself—are still trying to figure out what to make of Trump’s nationalist and isolationist grumbling in his off-script rallies, and whether he’ll stick to a Project 2025 template that the candidate distanced himself from during the campaign, but now his supporters say is the agenda.
The uncertainty does not exist only in the United States. Officials and analysts the world over wonder what Trump’s “peace through strength” approach means, and what they should expect from an erratic and unpredictable president-elect who may not have a concrete plan—or even “the concept of a plan”—for dealing with allies and adversaries.
Will Israel feel emboldened to extend its war to the Middle East? Should Europe worry about the United States reducing, or even ending, military aid to Ukraine? Should China prepare for a new confrontation with Washington? These are only a few of the many questions that have emerged from this year’s US presidential election outcome.
To help understand what the next four years may bring, I invited nuclear policy and security experts to share their views on what a Trump second term could look like—to the extent it is even possible to make any prediction. What they share paints a bleak picture of the US nuclear and foreign policy landscape—possibly with some bright spots and opportunities for increased stability.
Their responses have been lightly edited for length and clarity.
–François Diaz-Maurin
A dire global fallout
The global implications of the US election result cannot be overestimated. Choosing a leader to navigate the United States and the world through this time of global turmoil was critically important. As a friend recently put it to me, it’s as though the entire world has been waiting on the results of a biopsy. With the results in, the prognosis is dire. The United States, once a beacon of democratic values and practices, withers further into political chaos, and its influence in much of the world wanes at the same time that the nuclear threat increases. If left unchecked, a Trump administration’s policies will only increase this threat.
For the first time since the Cold War, the United States is poised to increase the number of its nuclear weapons. A Trump administration is likely to spend up to $2 trillion on the US nuclear arsenal in the coming decades. There is also a good chance that a shifting US policy toward Ukraine will allow Russian President Vladimir Putin to get away with nuclear blackmail, that Iran will become the world’s 10th nuclear-armed state, and that we’ll experience increased confrontation with China. A Trump administration will also almost certainly push for the resumption of nuclear weapons testing, normalizing what was unthinkable for decades and catalyzing the new nuclear arms race.
The next four years will be one of defending progress previously made, preventing bad trends from becoming worse, and laying the groundwork for when the moment is right to make transformational change.
–Emma Belcher, Ploughshares
A darker, more dangerous future
Americans have elected the first openly fascist president in US history. He will use his unchecked power to accumulate great wealth; policy will be a secondary consideration. Trump’s presidency will set back global responses to the climate crisis (a crisis he denies); weaken and perhaps collapse the US alliance system as allies find themselves standing alone against a rising authoritarian tide; fatally wound Ukraine’s defense against Russian imperialism; and give Israel’s government a blank check to pursue its wars. Social programs will be slashed while military budgets could soar. Defenses against pandemics will weaken.
The most serious—though not the most immediate—consequence of giving unchecked power to an unstable, unhinged man is that Trump will have the unfettered ability to launch nuclear weapons whenever he wants, for whatever reason. Americans may forever regret their failure to reform this outdated system of nuclear command and control when there was still a chance.
–Joseph Cirincione, nuclear policy analyst and author
Erosion of international norms
In terms of strategic consequences, the biggest immediate impact of Trump’s election will be on Ukraine and NATO, where Trump will likely seek to reduce or even end military support to Ukraine while putting pressure on Ukraine and Russia to negotiate a ceasefire. In such a deal, Russia would likely retain control over the roughly 20 percent of Ukrainian territory that it seized through force, and Ukraine would likely have to commit to not joining NATO. This would be an unpalatable outcome for many in the West, although, at this point, Ukraine has little prospect of winning back its eastern territory in what has become a costly and damaging war. Trump’s decision to wield his significant leverage by cutting support to Ukraine will force European NATO allies to foot more of the bill for Ukraine’s defense—as well as their own—to deter future Russian predations. Whether the other 31 NATO countries can step up to the plate with increased defense spending and whether they will remain unified in the face of Trump’s more transactional approach to alliances remains to be seen. Despite some pragmatic reasons for ending the war in Ukraine, a downside is that a negotiated ceasefire would erode the important international norm that territory cannot be acquired through the use of force.
Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and his right-wing governing coalition will also benefit from Trump’s election, at great cost to a democratic Israel in the long run. While Trump has said that he wants Netanyahu to “wrap up” the Gaza war by the time Trump takes office in January, his election will also greenlight Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and resettlement of northern Gaza, as well as possible Israeli annexation of the West Bank. This will cement Israel’s trajectory as an ethnonationalist apartheid state. Both the Palestinians and Israeli democracy will be among the big losers of Trump’s election.
–Nina Tannenwald, senior lecturer in political science at Brown University
A cloud with some silver lining
There were not many reasons to be optimistic about world affairs before the US elections. Now, after Trump’s victory, there are even fewer. It is very easy to come up with a list of issues that could go wrong—from the war in Ukraine to nuclear proliferation and arms control. Finding something positive is much more difficult, but one can think of a silver lining to this cloud. No one should seriously expect the Trump administration to stop the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. But if it tones down the “strategic defeat” rhetoric in its relationship with Russia, it could be a step in the right direction. This could also help salvage what is left of the nuclear arms control process or at least reach an understanding, maybe informal, on some restraints.
But it could easily go the other way.
There has been talk in the United States about resuming nuclear tests or getting into an arms race with China. Some countries are openly discussing the idea of getting nuclear weapons if they lose US protection. The United States is a key player in the existing nuclear order and its actions—or inactions—can do a lot of damage. But other countries have agency too, and they should not give up on that order easily. Institutions must be protected, laws and norms universally applied, and commitments honored. Resigning themselves to US disengagement and unpredictability should not be an option.
–Pavel Podvig, physicist and independent analyst with the Russian Nuclear Forces Project
Unfinished business
Nuclear arms control and nonproliferation are in for a rough ride over the next four years. Neither will likely be a priority for a second Trump administration but instead could be bargaining chips for other things Trump may want, such as in his relationships with Russia or China. US pressure to end Israel’s assault on Gaza and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will have long-lasting impacts on the risks that nuclear weapons pose.
Trump is unlikely to reprise his nuclear diplomacy with North Korea, perhaps writing this off as a waste of time. Hopefully, he will avoid the nuclear tit-for-tat threat escalation of 2017. If, however, Trump sees North Korea as unfinished business, he may seek Vladimir Putin’s—not Xi Jinping’s—help this time in persuading Kim Jong-un to come to the table. Leverage on North Korea as a collateral benefit to a resolution on Ukraine is one potential outcome.
Having torpedoed the Iran nuclear deal in his first term, Trump will likely avoid negotiations with Iran in his second. Responding to Iranian provocations, however, will be unavoidable and carry nuclear risks. The fallout from other foreign policy thrusts—support for Israel and pressure on Ukraine—may increase proliferation pressures on Europe, where they have long lain dormant, and in the Middle East, where they are close to the surface. Trump 2.0 will likely pursue a nuclear relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Because of China’s nuclear buildup, Trump is unlikely to seek a follow-on agreement to New START, which expires in 2026. He may balk at the costs of building more US nuclear weapons, however. For better or worse, Putin could see both tactical and strategic advantages in promoting a New START-“lite” to rekindle his manipulative relationship with Trump.
–Sharon Squassoni, research professor of international affairs at George Washington University
Increased nuclear dangers
With the re-election of Donald Trump, nuclear dangers just became more dangerous. A bombastic, unpredictable, authoritarian Trump will again have sole authority to order the use of US nuclear weapons and control over the direction of nuclear weapons policy. The second Trump administration will likely bring in a group of opportunistic, loyalist appointees who have promoted foreign policies and nuclear weapons policies that would—if enacted—put the indispensable norms against nuclear proliferation, nuclear weapons use, threats of use, nuclear testing, and nuclear arms racing under stress like never before.
With the last remaining agreement limiting the massive US and Russian nuclear arsenals, New START, due to expire in February 2026, a dangerous three-way nuclear arms race that no one can win and no one can afford may follow. Previously, Trump and his advisors showed little capacity or interest in engaging in a new bilateral arms control framework. Nevertheless, maintaining caps on strategic nuclear arsenals, even by way of an informal agreement between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, would serve US and global interests.
In the months ahead, responsible members of Congress, Western and non-nuclear weapon states, and civil society campaigners must find effective ways to reinforce the taboo against nuclear weapon use. As the US arms control community seeks to prevent the loss of key guardrails against nuclear catastrophe, we also need to be prepared to seize any opportunity to once again progress toward a world free of nuclear weapons.
–Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association
Skyrocketing defense budget spending
Congress drives bloated Pentagon spending just as much as the executive. Lawmakers routinely increase military spending beyond the president’s budget request, regardless of who is in the White House. Sen. Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi, is set to chair the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he advocated for a $950 billion military budget in fiscal year 2025.
I would not be surprised to see the Pentagon base budget break the trillion-dollar threshold during the second Trump administration.
–Julia Gledhill, research associate at The Stimson Center
More confrontation with China
Trump’s victory is likely to intensify Beijing’s worst-case scenario planning and reinforce its perceived need to prepare for what Xi Jinping has described as “dangerous storms” in US-China relations. Anticipating a more confrontational US policy, including more systematic economic decoupling and a renewed focus on projecting power in the Asia-Pacific, Beijing’s response will likely emphasize “putting its own house in order” first. This will entail a stronger emphasis on China’s own power development and a cautious, risk-averse stance toward any US proposals related to military transparency, confidence-building, and arms control. Simultaneously, Beijing sees greater opportunities to strengthen economic ties with European countries that share its reservations about Trump’s “America first” approach and to consolidate its territorial claims within the First Island Chain, where US commitments to regional allies could become more ambiguous and conditional.
In response, South Korea—and potentially Japan—could engage in more serious internal debates about the need for indigenous nuclear capabilities. Should Trump support friendly proliferation as aligned with US interests, China’s immediate security environment would deteriorate significantly. Growing Chinese skepticism about US commitment to nonproliferation principles could, in turn, prompt Beijing to escalate countermeasures against the AUKUS alliance and bolster strategic cooperation with like-minded countries both within and beyond the Asia-Pacific region, deepening divisions within the international security order.
–Tong Zhao, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Subscribed
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are no Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this evening’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
For the first time since the Cold War, the United States is poised to increase the number of its nuclear weapons. A Trump administration is likely to …
Trump will have to manage the gravest tensions with Moscow in more than 60 years, in part fueled by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s threats to use …
With the re-election of Donald Trump, nuclear dangers just became more dangerous. A bombastic, unpredictable, authoritarian Trump will again have sole …
As the world grapples with the escalating impacts of climate change, IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi will join global leaders and stakeholders at COP29, to highlight the vast potential of nuclear solutions for climate change mitigation, adaptation and monitoring. Read more →
The World Fusion Energy Group inaugural meeting, co-organized by the IAEA and Italy, highlighted the growing interest and progress in advancements in fusion technology to provide a clean, safe and limitless source of energy. Read more →
Government ministers and senior officials from dozens of countries convened for the inaugural ministerial meeting of the World Fusion Energy Group today, underscoring the growing interest and progress in developing fusion technology to provide a clean, safe and limitless source of energy. Read more →
With COP29 just around the corner, the focus on nuclear power and its potential continues to grow. Read about the increasingly prominent role nuclear power is playing in the clean energy transition. Read more →
Following a sleepless night and several comments from readers, I have decided not to disappear into the ‘dark nights’ that may be facing us all in the near future. Instead of running away from the villain Trump, I have realized that my mission, because of him, is more necessary than ever, and will certainly provide more reason for more folks to educate themselves and stay abreast of the most serious problem we have ever faced — one of nuclear mass destruction and perhaps extinction caused by ourselves.
So I will stay on, keep on, doing my best to provide awareness of the nuclear issues that we are facing that cannot be resolved without a huge change in our awareness and our hearts. The “All Things Nuclear” issues will not change themselves, and only a united world of united people can make it happen.
I shall reduce my blog posts from 7 to 5 days a week, excluding Saturday and Sunday. Otherwise the posts will be approximately the same, but with more emphasis on America’s nuclear role including our Territories, Canada, and Mexico (because of Trump’s questionable mentality and sanity and his far, far, to the right (Nazi?) administration . , . ~llaw
(Nuclear views, issues, and comments will begin again tomorrow, but you might want to look over the articles in the “Nuclear War Threats” category of today’s TODAY’S NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS .)
Subscribed
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’S ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA”:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are three Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this evening’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
More recently, nuclear outages have exceeded the five-year average because of weather-related disruptions and refueling outages. Nuclear power plants …
The panel will deliver its final report in 2027 and make recommendations for future research. abc.net.au/news/un-votes-for-nuclear-weapons-scientific- …
If you know the story of Don Quixote, you will know the purpose of this image on such a depressing and inauspicious day as this November 6th has turned out to be . . . llaw
In our collective ignorance and apathy we have invited our own demise . . .
I have, for 803 consecutive days, including today, each and every day warned the world while (often struggling in my effort to allow my message(s) to be posted without violating my free-speech rights, in my effort to educate my fellow humans everywhere around the world about the present and coming dramatic life-threatening dangers from the nuclear devastation we are facing.
Because the United States of America’s thoughtless public citizens have voted to add Donald J. Trump to the mix of those others like him — self-aggrandizing, insane, violent, dangerous, power mongering authoritarian dictators — to the combined madness of those few who have the power to use nuclear weapons of mass destruction to destroy our only Earthly home, including ourselves and other innocent life, simply by authorizing with a single coded nuclear football at their personal discretion, this will be my final post from this blog that has been intended to awaken and advise humanity everywhere (including working on a united world “blueprint” of how we might avoid our own demolition commonly known as extinction.
I have gratuitously spent well over two years of my own time and expense providing verifiable media information to use for your, as a reader, individual personal knowledge and edification while at the same time providing a daily commentary of my own thoughts and opinions commensurate with my own background and understanding of “All Things Nuclear” and its mission. Now that I, in my own personal opinion, see that we Americans have elected a mentally unstable President for a second time, obviously indicating our lack of cognitive knowledge, I must accept the fact that my long daily effort has failed. I had hoped that one day I would find a voluntary sponsor and media partner to help me continue and expand on the quantity and quality with this extremely important effort of humanitarianism. Instead, today I realize that, with Trump’s election, it was all a useless pipe dream.
I wish all of you who were loyal part-time readers and supporters from the several posting sources I have used each day —with your constant encouragement — the very best future possible despite the fact that millions of others have overridden our hopes for a united peaceful world where we all could live as one. (Thank you John Lennon for the last word.) ~llaw
If you know the story of Don Quixote, you will know the purpose of this image on such a depressing and inauspicious day as this November 6th has turned out to be . . . llaw
I have skipped the “About” section and simply posted my last compilation of TODAY’S NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS on this Wednesday, (11/06/2024). You may want to read the Trump election stories available today — particularly those from “Reuters.” Just the headlines should give you 2nd thoughts if you voted for this man . . .
