“End Nuclear Insanity Before Nuclear Insanity Ends Humanity” ~llaw

Lloyd A. Williams-Pendergraft

Feb 20, 2025

Share

President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in the East Room of the White House on December 8, 1987, which was voided in 2019, proving that treaties and other agreements between or among nations mean very little in the grand scheme of international politics and potential war. (Note: See the article for description and photo credits)

LLAW’s NUCLEAR WORLD NEWS TODAY with the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES of TOMORROW

The following report from the think tank “Stimson” — a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization that focuses on international security issues, analyzing policy evaluations and recommendations on nuclear proliferation, arms control, and conflicts in global security — is an excellent and thorough look at “how” and perhaps “why” the United States is responsible for much of the existing threat of nuclear war. Today we and the rest of the world is left with nothing but something called “deterrence”, a form of avoiding nuclear war through creating and maintaining a more powerful nuclear armed capability than our nuclear armed neighbors, which cannot last, primarily because of the constantly spiraling cost that could bankrupt the very concept of “money”, which we all worship.

It is wrong for the U.S. to place all of the nuclear threats on Russia, China, or even North Korea because when it comes to policy and practice disagreements including war, even nuclear war, we fail to practice what we preach — or as other countries might consider our political and military posture — hypocritical.

And, I will add, with considerable concern, that with the obvious treachery of our new president (#47) that the hypocritical moniker becomes all the more visibly apparent and critical to the future well-being if not the the annihilation of mankind and most other life on planet Earth. ~llaw

Gambling on Armageddon

How US Nuclear Policies Are Undercutting Deterrence and Lowering the Threshold for Nuclear War

Questioning the logic of U.S. nuclear weapons policy in the 21st Century

By Geoff Wilson Lead Author • Christopher Preble Co-Author • Lucas Ruiz Co-Author

Grand Strategy

• February 19, 2025

1. Download
2. Acknowledgments
3. Foreword
4. Executive Summary
5. Introduction
6. Deterrence vs Superiority
7. A Brief History of the US Nuclear Triad
8. The Current Program of Record
9. A Lack of Accountability Regarding New and Future Weapons
10. The “Necessary-But-Not-Sufficient” Mindset
11. Escalation Control, “Limited” Nuclear Strikes, and Redefining US Nuclear Strategy
12. Stabilizing Nuclear Policies in a Destabilized WorldChina, Russia, and the United States have each embarked on a drastic overhaul of their nuclear weapons arsenals. Arms control and non-proliferation efforts have faltered while the few remaining agreements between the great powers slowly drift toward expiration. However, a new nuclear arms race is not inevitable and should not be treated as such. This report identifies and critiques the logic and trends underpinning the United States’ nuclear modernization agenda and charts a path toward a more responsible strategy of nuclear deterrence.

Download

Full Report (PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank our Henry L. Stimson Center colleagues, Dan Grazier, Julia Gledhill, Hunter Slingbaum, Will Smith, and Nicole Gilbert for their advice, input, and collaboration in initiating this project; Justine Sullivan, Caitlin Goodman, and Joaquin Matamis for their hard work and flexibility in its production and promotion; and Stimson Center President Brian Finlay and Senior Vice President of Research Programs Rachel Stohl for their continued support and leadership in all of our work.

Special thanks to Congressman John Tierney for his early input on the report and willingness to write such a timely and compelling foreword for it; and to Ben Loehrke of the Stanley Foundation, who provided us with a thoughtful, constructive, and thorough peer review.

We also want to thank our peers and colleagues in the field: James Acton, Matthew Fay, Eric Gomez, Adam Mount, Gabe Murphy, and Scott Strgacich, for their help in highlighting the critical issues in the field of nuclear weapons policy and for crystalizing the need for writing this report.

Finally, we would like to thank the Colombe Foundation, Stand Together, the New-Land Foundation, the Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellowship, and Ploughshares Fund, without whose generous support this report would not have been possible.

Responsibility for the content of this report rests with the authors alone and does not necessarily reflect the views of our colleagues or Stimson.

Foreword

Confronting the New Nuclear Sword of Damocles

By Rep. John Tierney

The risks posed by the new global nuclear arms race are stark.

Driven by domestic politics, regional conflicts, international distrust, and parochial interests, the world’s nuclear powers are rearming — and the threat of nuclear coercion has once again cast its shadow over our politics and international discourse. Regrettably, today the nightmare scenario of a nuclear war in our lifetimes — launched either through accident, miscalculation, or madness — is no longer unthinkable, and everyday Americans must confront the reality that they can no longer take their safety and security for granted.

In this inclusive composition, “Gambling on Armageddon,” Geoff Wilson, Christopher Preble, and Lucas Ruiz describe the severe state of play concerning nuclear weapons policy in the United States, provide an informative sketch of how the current situation developed, and demonstrate why U.S. nuclear policy should not have to continue on this path going forward.

This extensive work gives those who have not had the time or inclination to follow this often-opaque policy issue a compelling snapshot of the U.S. arsenal’s origin, development, and often questionable policy justification; it also provides seasoned analysts and policymakers with a single reference that invites a critical and fresh take on how the United States might proceed amidst such uncertain times.

In sum, the authors have done a service to the policymaking community in presenting crucial facts and a persuasive counterargument to the same, tired “spend-more” security argument. This is more important now than ever as the need for a saner approach to U.S. nuclear posture reaches a critical juncture in the international drive toward an arms race that is at once unwise, immoral, financially debilitating, and potentially ruinous.

Rep. John Tierney is executive director at the Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation and the Council for a Livable World. A former nine-term Congressman from Massachusetts (1997-2015), he served on the House Intelligence Committee and chaired the National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee.

Executive Summary

The United States has embarked on a path to modernize and expand its nuclear arsenal, at an estimated cost of $1.7 trillion over 30 years. This astronomical spending is unlikely to enhance Americans’ security—and may well undermine it by accelerating a looming nuclear arms race.

Policies that sound tough, but undermine strategic stability, do not enhance national security. The decision to continue the current course is being driven by serious misconceptions about the importance of nuclear superiority. At best, current plans commit U.S. taxpayers to costly weapons programs, including the development of new tactical nuclear weapons that do little to further real deterrence. At worst, the drive for an “all-of-the-above” supremacy approach to U.S. nuclear strategy, with an increased focus on weapons meant to fight and “win” a nuclear war, will only stoke the fires of the global nuclear arms race while lowering the threshold for nuclear use. Ultimately, such policies would cast aside President Ronald Reagan’s wise conclusion that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” Thus, reversing these trends is essential to maintaining U.S. deterrence and global strategic stability while preventing a further slide toward nuclear misadventure, miscalculation, or madness.

This report focuses attention on the discrete capabilities required to sustain a credible nuclear deterrent. It considers the origins of the nuclear triad during the Cold War and explains why a similar posture is not fit for purpose in the contemporary era. Amidst severe fiscal constraints, including a massive and growing public debt, spending on nuclear weapons draws resources away from conventional forces and missions. The intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) leg of the nuclear triad is particularly ripe for scrutiny, especially because the Sentinel missile program is grossly over budget and behind schedule.

Policymakers contemplating the various rationales offered in support of nuclear modernization should:

First, commit to a legitimate sole-purpose, “deterrence-first” nuclear approach, focused on a secure second-strike submarine capability during the next ten years;

Second, challenge the assumption that new tactical nuclear systems and platforms are needed because the advocates for these programs have failed to show how they enhance U.S. security and have ignored the discrimination and escalation risks; and

Finally, reaffirm the U.S. commitment to forego future explosive nuclear testing. A decision to break the current moratorium on explosive nuclear testing would give a green light to other nuclear weapons states to do the same, ceding a significant strategic advantage to U.S. rivals.

The United States—indeed, any country—has nothing to gain from a world where the risk of nuclear war has risen. Therefore, U.S. lawmakers should reject policies that might make that outcome more likely, especially if such policies are based on claims about the declining efficacy of nuclear deterrence in favor of a belief in the value of nuclear supremacy, a concept that has never been tested—and never should be.

The United States and the world came close to the brink of nuclear disaster on more than one occasion during the Cold War. Learning from that experience, U.S. policymakers should commit to preventing an unconstrained nuclear arms race that would do little to make Americans, U.S. allies, or the world, any safer.

Introduction

The world is caught in the throes of a new global nuclear arms race.

Every nuclear-armed nation is in the process of rapidly modernizing, expanding, and diversifying its nuclear arsenal.¹ In capitals across the globe, serious public debates are taking place regarding the role nuclear weapons might play in regional and global conflicts of the future. Meanwhile, several non-nuclear powers are publicly weighing whether they should consider abrogating their Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) commitments in favor of building their own deterrent in the face of rising great power tensions, outright nuclear coercion, regional conflict, and the erosion of global nuclear norms that have persisted since the end of the Second World War.

For its part, the United States is leading the charge in this effort. What in 2011 was initially pitched as a comparatively modest $214-billion, 10-year plan to modernize and refurbish U.S. nuclear delivery systems, warheads, and critical nuclear infrastructure has grown into at least a $1.7-trillion effort over 30 years to replace every single leg of the U.S. nuclear triad — that is, the strategic bombers, land-based ICBMs, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) aboard nuclear-powered ballistic submarines (SSBNs) that comprise the “strategic” part of the U.S. nuclear arsenal — and to pave the way for a whole new generation of nuclear weapons through the development of new industrial capability.²

The projected cost of this effort is staggering. Yet the dollar amount, as well as the decision to proceed with the replacement of every leg of the triad simultaneously, which is driving these costs— has escaped close scrutiny. This lapse is doubly surprising given that triad modernization has resulted in significant, and thus far unresolved, issues of prioritization and oversight and risks destabilizing an already tense strategic environment.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the total U.S. nuclear modernization enterprise is estimated to cost American taxpayers $75 billion annually between 2023 and 2032.³ To put that figure into context, that is the equivalent of two Manhattan Projects, the four-year American program to build the world’s first atomic bombs during World War II, every year during this nine-year period.⁴ By contrast, adjusting for inflation to 2024 dollars, the Reagan administration spent just $70.5 billion on nuclear weapons during its entire eight years in office.⁵

Unfortunately, this massive influx in spending is coming at a time when many of the norms that once governed the actions of the world’s nuclear-armed states have broken down.⁶ Nuclear saber-rattling has become common, treaties have lapsed or been suspended, and regional wars between nuclear-armed and nonnuclear-armed states have erupted across the globe. Experts and political leaders have begun to publicly reconsider the utility and purpose of nuclear weapons, and many of our foundational beliefs concerning nuclear weapons, deterrence, and the commitment of nuclear-armed nations to their promises to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons from the globe.

This breakdown in norms, as well as global instability and expanding regional wars involving nuclear powers, has even caused some prominent leaders and experts to propose the adoption of certain Cold War-era nuclear warfighting strategies—ignoring President Reagan’s famous dictum that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”⁷

Seemingly oblivious to these warnings, experts and leaders on both sides of the U.S. political aisle have proposed that the United States adopt what they claim is a Reaganesque “peace-through-strength” strategy and increase yearly Pentagon spending on both conventional and nuclear weapons above already historic levels.⁸ With “peace through strength” as a prevailing talking point, many in Washington focus primarily on whether the United States is spending enough on nuclear weapons, rather than whether the current record-setting nuclear budget will actually enhance U.S. national security.

Unfortunately, unlike in previous nuclear arms races, the drive for expanded systems and new nuclear weapons has not accompanied a commensurate diplomatic effort to curb new and destabilizing nuclear developments and deployments. Instead, global hostilities and domestic politics have led to the toppling or suspension of most of the world’s remaining nuclear arms control treaties; now, for the first time in recent memory, the world faces an immediate future in which few arms control agreements remain.⁹

In the absence of arms control agreements, or even just a sustained effort to negotiate new ones, the world is now at a dangerous crossroads. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, nuclear powers and their leaders have approached nuclear weapons issues, ostensibly, from a standpoint of deterrence. The purpose of nuclear arsenals was to safeguard countries’ sovereignty and ensure that any attempt by another nuclear nation to coerce or defeat a particular country through violence could be made too costly to be worth any potential gains.

U.S. nuclear modernization is estimated to cost American taxpayers $75 billion annually between 2023 and 2032—the equivalent of two Manhattan Projects per year.

But this new arms race, abetted by the breakdown in international norms, parochial and political domestic interests, and the abandonment of the diplomatic processes that limited the deployment of destabilizing types of weapons, has driven the world back to a place where calls for new tactical, less-than-deterrent, or battlefield nuclear weapons are given serious consideration. A return to this warfighting paradigm should be seen as incredibly dangerous, however. Proponents of new systems with smaller warheads argue that they are more “usable” because they supposedly stay below the threshold that might trigger a full-scale nuclear retaliation, often characterized through the concept of mutually assured destruction. In a world where such “usable” systems are deployed by states that are increasingly at odds with one another, leaders might view nuclear weapons not as the final and unthinkable last resort in a conflict that has run out of control, but instead as practical, or even advantageous, tools in times of crisis.

Proposals for nuclear-warfighting weapons are not hypothetical. At least three new nonstrategic nuclear weapons—the sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N), the W76-2 low-yield Trident Submarine warhead, and the Long-Range Stand-Off Weapon (LRSO)—are currently working their way through the U.S. nuclear development and production pipeline, or have already been deployed alongside U.S. forces. Meanwhile, nuclear spending proponents and “peace-through-strength” advocates are calling for other escalatory steps, such as the development of new road-mobile U.S. ballistic missiles, the deployment of new tactical nuclear forces into the Indo-Pacific and European theaters, and even the full resumption of explosive U.S. nuclear testing.¹⁰

With the world already perched on the precipice of a dangerous global conflict and a new nuclear arms race, this paper addresses the following critical questions. First, do current and proposed U.S. policies actually reinforce U.S. nuclear deterrence? And second, is there a logical and realistic strategy behind the new nuclear arsenal that the United States is building at such great cost?

This report examines these questions by offering a brief examination of deterrence theory with a corresponding survey of how the U.S. nuclear arsenal evolved into its current form. It then evaluates current U.S. nuclear weapons proposals in terms of their overall deterrent effect and offers several rational alternatives that might be taken to mitigate nuclear risk, reduce budgetary waste, and increase fiscal accountability—while building a stronger national security policy and a more reliable deterrent. Ultimately, a failure to correct the course of current U.S. nuclear weapons plans might lead to the adoption of costly and destabilizing systems that could undermine U.S. deterrence, weaken U.S. national security, and even increase the likelihood of nuclear war.

IMAGE 1. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in the East Room of the White House. December 8, 1987.

“C44071-15A, President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty in the East Room of the White House. 12/08/1987,” Ronald Reagan Library, White House Photo Collection Gallery, Summits with Mikhail Gorbachev, Dec. 8, 1987, https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/audiovisual/white-house-photo-collection-galleries/summits-mikhail-gorbachev.

Deterrence vs Superiority

It is paramount to distinguish between formal models of deterrence and the political catchphrase that the term has become. The term “deterrence” has been bandied about so much in modern political and ideological discourse that it has become diluted into a concept largely synonymous with “power projection,” or a generalized idea of military strength. This has made deterrence both useful to those who want to sound tough on national security issues, as well as distasteful to those who are seeking a less militarized approach to foreign policy. However, deterrence is an essential term to use in the modern nuclear context, especially in a period when seemingly provocative and destabilizing nuclear weapons proposals are framed as “necessary” for ensuring deterrence capacity and credibility.

The authors of this report are principally concerned with the original, core concept of deterrence as a strategy designed to avoid or discourage open conflict through the outward projection of capability, preparedness, and resoluteness. Properly conceived, an effective deterrent raises the potential costs of a war to such a point that no rational actor would choose to initiate one.

Although deterrence and nuclear superiority are sometimes used interchangeably in contemporary political debate, the concept of deterrence stands in stark contrast to that of superiority, strategies concerned with the ability to fight, overpower, or coerce an opponent—often regardless of cost—due to significant advantage or power disparity. The former is aimed at discouraging an adversary from taking an action that threatens the deterring state’s core interests—first and foremost attack on sovereign territory; the latter is aimed at forcing an adversary to take an action favored by the coercing state. Such demands, by their nature, encompass a much wider set of objectives than those of deterrence, many of which are not vital interests.

The nuclear weapons states have, perhaps partly as a matter of luck, so far managed to avoid what their predecessors in the pre-nuclear age could not—direct confrontations leading to full-scale war.¹¹ Deterrence strategies should be directed toward maintaining and extending this strategic stability and ensuring that all parties realize that any nuclear exchange, regardless of magnitude, is a critical error that no one will walk away from unscathed.

To be clear, this is not as simple as it sounds. Nuclear deterrence is, essentially, an unproven theory conceptualized by a group of game theorists during the early days of the Cold War that has been adapted and extended ever since. Nuclear weapons have not been used as retribution since 1945; thus the theory’s effectiveness is a matter of speculation and supposition. Yet the logic of these theories—grounded in all parties’ likely annihilation—seems to explain why. Deterrence hinges upon a fragile balance of terror. If the United States, or any other nuclear state for that matter, ever abandons the taboo of nuclear use—even in favor of a so-called “limited nuclear strike”—the stabilizing power of nuclear deterrence will most likely be abandoned as well. Once Pandora’s Box has been opened, there is no putting the horror of nuclear weapons use away again.

By contrast, nuclear weapons and strategies designed for superiority—in other words, those that prioritize the capability to overwhelm, disrupt, or disable an opponent’s nuclear arsenal or defenses (a.k.a. “disarming” first strikes)—are often couched in the language of defense. Such weapons and doctrine, their advocates say, are needed to maintain parity in a multi-peer environment.¹² Proponents of nuclear superiority envision a world in which fighting and winning a nuclear war is not only possible, but perhaps even likely, and should thus be prepared for. They argue that achieving both technical and numerical nuclear superiority would ensure a favorable advantage that is presumed to reduce a state’s expected costs in a nuclear war, increase its resolve, and provide it with coercive bargaining leverage.¹³ The search for “parity,” then, offers these advocates a useful euphemism to advance their goal of superiority. Under this rubric, they call for more, and new, nuclear weapons, fueling the arms race currently underway.¹⁴

The Deterrence Paradox

Fundamentally, however, rapid new nuclear weapons development is strategically destabilizing. Competitive decisions to innovate do not occur in a vacuum and nuclear rivals will respond to each other’s actions. It is therefore unrealistic to think that any nuclear power would be willing to allow an opponent to develop new nuclear weapons and capabilities, thereby eroding confidence in their own deterrent, without responding in kind. As political scientist Arthur Lee Burns stated in 1957, “[new weapons] may cause the major contending powers to adopt new or radically extended strategies, calling in their turn for a complete reassessment of national interests, and of the value of resources, alliances, and conventional armaments.”¹⁵

Suppose one nation learns that a rival is rapidly developing systems that could dominate, overwhelm, or defeat its defenses and immobilize or destroy the weapons that comprise its deterrent, those that are held in reserve to be used only in the direst circumstances. In that case, a competitive response dictates that the nation must do the same to offset any strategic advantage its rival might gain to maintain deterrent parity. At best, this is how arms races are sustained. At worst, it can drive nations into conflict.¹⁶

Deterrence theorists recognized this dichotomy between deterrence and superiority even at the beginning of the first nuclear age. As Bernard Brodie, one of the founding thinkers of modern deterrence theory, cautioned in 1959, “the capacity to deter is usually confused with the capacity to win a war,” but “deterrence has always suggested something relative, not absolute.” He ultimately concluded that deterrence “does not depend on superiority.” Indeed, deterrence might even foster restraint and a willingness to negotiate, whereas a fixation on winning is likely to produce the opposite effect. “For the sake of deterrence,” Brodie explained, “we want always to choose the less provocative of two policies, even if it may mean some sacrifice of efficiency. But if we were in fact interested primarily in winning and only secondarily in deterrence, we should be extremely loath to make any such sacrifices.”¹⁷

Brodie’s early appraisal of deterrence dynamics and the lure of trying to achieve superiority eerily foreshadowed the recurring debates surrounding U.S. nuclear strategy since the end of World War II—and which are prevalent again today. But much has transpired since Brodie first contemplated such things. In order to understand where we are now, we need to revisit how we got here.

A Brief History of the US Nuclear Triad

At the dawn of the first nuclear age, the United States had exclusive control over the greatest paradigm-shifting weapons ever developed. However, the development of that emerging arsenal into its current form today was not an intentional process guided by a clearheaded strategy. Indeed, it often had more to do with the competing interests of the uniformed service branches and political constituencies.

After the Soviet Union conducted its first successful nuclear test in August 1949, the United States lost its monopoly on nuclear weaponry, requiring a reconceptualization of the bomb’s place in defense strategy. The U.S. Army and Navy were locked in an intellectual battle for their continued relevancy with a rising and newly independent U.S. Air Force (USAF), which had the only real-world experience deploying nuclear weapons in battle. Each of the services developed theories of nuclear use based on their strengths, doctrines, and parochial interests.

This fierce interservice rivalry eventually resulted in a triad of delivery vehicles. Debates ebbed and flowed between those advocating for a larger arsenal to bolster warfighting capacity and those who realized that even a single nuclear strike could initiate an irretrievable spiral toward a nuclear holocaust.¹⁸ Under President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “New Look,” the U.S. Air Force’s share of the military budget rose to about 45% while the Navy and Army’s collective share fell from 65% to 51%.¹⁹ The resulting policy focus enshrined an approach of overwhelming nuclear response, “massive retaliation,” to Russian aggression in Asia or Europe as the first nuclear doctrine.²⁰

As the theoretical precursor of later nuclear deterrence theories, the “New Look” conceptualized nuclear weapons as both a deterrent, by threatening to use them in response to aggression, while also preserving a belief in the utility of nuclear weapons for warfighting.²¹

In the late 1950s, the Navy leveraged the emergence of ballistic missile technology to argue for a survivable nuclear force. Recognizing the futility of fighting a nuclear war, the sea service, under the guidance of Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Arleigh Burke, developed “finite deterrence”—a policy that emphasized the minimal number of nuclear weapons needed to ensure a credible second-strike capability, while not depending on land-based delivery systems that were vulnerable to a disarming first strike.²² Finite deterrence hinged on the theory that both the United States and the Soviet Union were afraid of nuclear war and were thus hesitant to initiate one, what Thomas Schelling called the “reciprocal fear of surprise attack.”²³ The finite deterrence doctrine argued that SSBNs, with their inherent stealth and survivability, disincentivized a first strike that would most likely fail to eliminate all retaliatory forces, creating strategic stability at a lower cost. When the Navy’s Polaris SLBM program was first deployed in 1960, it established the service’s strategic position by creating the sea-based leg of the triad and enshrining a survivable second-strike capability as the crux of deterrence strategy.

IMAGE 2. In session at the Pentagon, 10 February 1960. They are (from left to right): General Lyman Lemnitzer, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; Admiral Arleigh A. Burke, Chief of Naval Operations; General Nathan Twining, USAF, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Thomas D. White, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force; and General David M. Shoup, Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps. Official U.S. Navy Photograph, now in the collections of the National Archives.

“USN 1047895 The Joint Chiefs of Staff,” U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command, Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia, Feb. 10, 1960, https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/us-people/b/burke-arleigh-a-1958-1961/usn-1047895.html.

Meanwhile, to regain lost ground in the defense budget, the Army devised its “flexible response” doctrine. Based on the concern that a ground war with the Soviet Union in Europe was still possible, the flexible response doctrine emphasized a need to give the president a range of military options, both conventional and nuclear, that could be adapted for any situation.²⁴ Therefore, U.S. troops were deployed in Europe as a tripwire against a general Soviet invasion of any NATO territory. In that scenario, where Soviet conventional forces were seen as having a numerical advantage over NATO formations, a flexible response envisioned that tactical nuclear weapons would level the playing field. This led to the development of a bewildering array of nuclear weapons that mirrored conventional archetypes, such as nuclear bazookas, anti-air missile batteries, artillery shells, and landmines. But the notion that most U.S. nuclear weapons earmarked for the defense of Europe would have been detonated on Western European soil was not an attractive prospect for U.S. allies.

Finally, Air Force officials unveiled their “counterforce” doctrine, which prioritized targeting the Soviet Union’s nuclear and conventional forces while reserving a portion of the U.S. arsenal to threaten countervalue (city-targeting) strikes. This strategy allowed the USAF to develop a wide range of nuclear arms for use at any level of conflict, while still maintaining the primacy of its increasingly complex and costly strategic bomber programs, despite major advancements in ballistic missile technology.²⁵ Ultimately, though, these two strategies proved to be unwieldy. The countervalue strategy put the USAF in the uncomfortable role of justifying targeting millions of innocent civilians while still paying lip service to the Geneva Convention. Counterforce appeared out of step with the continued development of early warning capabilities. Counterforce also necessitated the implementation of launch-on-warning doctrines for land-based forces. These changes were driven by a “use-it-or-lose-it” mindset in which vulnerable silo-based missiles are launched after receiving a warning of an incoming missile strike. As a practical matter, USAF missiles targeted against rival nuclear forces would most likely pass their rival missiles in midair (opponents having registered the launch) and ultimately land on missile fields or mobile launchers that had already fired their weapons.

The Triad Takes Shape

Ultimately, the U.S. government amalgamated the three parochial Cold War deterrence strategies, at least rhetorically, to establish the U.S. nuclear triad. Rather than reining in the U.S. nuclear enterprise, the Kennedy and Johnson administrations justified the force structure ex post facto, largely ensuring that parts of each doctrine survived despite changing tactics, technologies, budgets, and enemies. This helped to spur the development of redundant systems across services, even as the United States never fully committed to either a pure deterrence or offensive strategy.²⁶ Of greatest concern, the existence of a wide range of nuclear assets led to proposals of nuclear use amidst crises—bringing the world uncomfortably close to Armageddon on more than one occasion—when there were still nonnuclear or diplomatic options on the table. This “if-we-have-them, why-can’t-we-use them?” mindset remains a significant challenge today and will be discussed later in this paper.

The triad continued under the administrations of Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter, despite a series of arms limitation treaties negotiated and signed during their tenures. President Reagan perhaps came closer than any of his predecessors in questioning the utility of nuclear arms. He reported “horror” during his first briefing on the nuclear war plans he might be required to authorize as president. Reagan’s doubts deepened with the lessons learned from major wargames conducted during his administration, leading to a major reversal in his nuclear rhetoric and eventually a joint statement with his Soviet counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev, that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”²⁷

President George H. W. Bush capitalized on this momentum through unilateral executive action with his Presidential Nuclear Initiatives (PNIs) of 1991. Through these unilateral executive actions, Bush Sr. ended the Army’s and Marine Corps’ nuclear missions, withdrew many tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, and removed all nuclear weapons from the surface navy and attack submarine fleets. By taking a bold course of action and challenging the Russians to follow suit, President Bush seemed to be on course to dismantle the U.S. nuclear arsenal’s warfighting elements, but this effort was cut short when Bush lost his bid for reelection.²⁸

President Bill Clinton initiated the first Nuclear Posture Review in 1994. As chair of the review, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy Ashton Carter focused on the secure second-strike capability as the fundamental guarantor of U.S. nuclear deterrence and sought to move the United States toward a sea-based monad.²⁹ Carter’s plan was foiled, however, when triad proponents, led by Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), rallied to save it.³⁰ Since that debate, the triad has been persistently touted as the optimal form of U.S. nuclear deterrence with few willing to scrutinize the assumptions underpinning it. Notably, when Ashton Carter became secretary of defense in the final two years of President Barack Obama’s second term, he never publicly questioned the triad’s strategic rationale.

The Current Program of Record

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 and the end of the Cold War, U.S. nuclear strategy and posture seemed to proceed on autopilot. The adversary the triad was formulated to deter no longer existed, leaving it without a clearly defined raison d’être. Strategic bombers were moved off alert, plutonium pit production (the creation of nuclear bomb cores) stopped, and global nuclear weapons testing ended—with a few notable exceptions from states that are not signatories to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)—and the United States and Russia ratified a series of strategic arms reduction treaties that limited the number of warheads and bombs that each country could deploy.³¹

U.S. nuclear forces had little role to play in the post-9/11 wars and the Global War on Terror. This led to a critical state of laxity within parts of the force. Reports of flagging morale and discipline rose,³² shocking errors and mistakes were made,³³ and significant questions began to arise regarding the role of nuclear arms in U.S. national security. Were they unusable—or even a vulnerability—in deterring or defeating non-state actors and terrorist organizations?

Aside from concerns about the proliferation of nuclear technology within the so-called “axis of evil”—Iran, North Korea, and Iraq—the global security environment during the early 21^st century overwhelmingly focused on the threat of terrorism, not nuclear arms racing. Indeed, the United States’ and Russia’s ratification of the landmark New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) in 2010 seemed to continue a decades-long trend toward global nuclear arms reduction.³⁴

But even so, the triad survived.

The Influence of Politics and Parochialism on Nuclear Strategy

Ironically, in an effort to find U.S. Senate support for the ratification of New START, the Obama administration agreed to invest a comparatively modest $214 billion into new nuclear weapons programs, originally billed as a “modernization” plan to update aging elements of the triad.³⁵ But once the doors had opened to modernizing some elements of the arsenal, groups with vested interests began lobbying for more money for additional weapons and new nuclear missions.

The ossification of U.S. nuclear strategy during the Cold War into separate, service-oriented, strategies for nuclear use (i.e., counterforce, finite deterrence, and flexible response), ensured that the wasteful and contradictory “belt-and-suspenders” approach to nuclear posture remained in place. And, more important, this posture was poised to expand when the budgetary floodgates reopened.

IMAGE 3. Air Force Senior Airman Aric Desantiago and Airman 1st Class Glenn McCray perform maintenance on a Minuteman III weapon system at a launch facility in Colorado on February 12, 2024.

Air Force Senior Airman Sarah Post, “Weapon Work,” U.S. Air Force, Colorado, United States, Feb. 12, 2024, https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2003401235/.

Ultimately, lawmakers decided on a simultaneous approach to completely overhaul all three legs of the nuclear triad within the same 30-year period. The Air Force championed the need for both new stealthy radar-penetrating bombers to carry new stealthy radar-penetrating nuclear cruise missiles, as well as new silo-based ICBMs fixed throughout the American Mid- and Mountain West. Meanwhile, the Navy called for a whole new fleet of stealthy, secure second-strike SSBNs to patrol the world’s oceans. Moreover, the national security establishment has now dusted off old nuclear supremacy talking points, opening the modernization effort up to a new host of lower-yield, tactical nuclear weapons that will blur the line between U.S. strategic and conventional forces.

Evidence of domestic politics and parochialism driving at least part of the triad modernization debate can be seen in the fact that there had been some discussion over the years about reducing the nuclear triad down to a dyad by cutting the land-based ballistic missile force.³⁶ Yet, much has changed following Sen. Thurmond’s objections during the Clinton administration. The idea of cutting the ICBM leg of the triad is now perceived as particularly unpopular among key constituencies in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming—the states that host ICBMs. Congressional resistance to eliminating the ICBM leg of the triad has combined with corporate opportunism; defense contractors are suddenly gleeful about the prospect of developing the first new U.S. ICBMs since 1970. Ironically, then, the signing of a verifiable arms control treaty that would have allowed the United States to significantly reduce its number of deployed ICBMs instead somehow became a reason for U.S. taxpayers to shell out more than $140 billion to build an entirely new generation of land-based missiles.³⁷ New START should have provided real room for lawmakers to make responsible reductions to at least one leg of the triad if not all three; instead, it created an opportunity to spend more money on redundant nuclear capabilities.

More Spending Yields Poor Results

All told, triad modernization entails three major new strategic nuclear weapons programs: the development of the Sentinel ICBM, Columbia-class SSBN, and B-21 bomber, which is designed to carry both conventional and nuclear weapons. All these programs are now significantly behind schedule and straining the national defense budget.

The Sentinel missile alone is 81% over budget and years behind schedule, triggering a “critical” Nunn-McCurdy breach that forced the Pentagon to publicly justify its continued development to Congress.³⁸ Meanwhile, the lead Columbia-class SSBN is anticipated to be finished between 12 and 16 months behind schedule and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. Ultimately, the prospects for both programs are only expected to worsen as supply chain issues and skilled worker shortages continue to impact production timelines.³⁹

IMAGE 4. The B-21 Raider continues flight testing at Northrop Grumman’s manufacturing facility on Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.

“The B-21 Raider,” U.S. Air Force, Northrop Grumman manufacturing facility on Edwards Air Force Base, California, https://www.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2003472725/.

The B-21 bomber program, the specific, per-unit costs of which remain classified, was originally pitched to Congress in 2014 with a total topline price tag of $55 billion.⁴⁰ At the time, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said that he had high confidence in the Air Force’s cost estimate because he controlled the requirements for the new aircraft and was comfortable saying “no” to, “all kinds of people wanting to add new things to this bomber.” Despite Welsh’s assurances, however, the estimated cost of the B-21 program has grown from $55 billion to $203 billion.⁴¹

But Congress’s determination to spend a generation’s worth of wealth in order to update older “legacy” triad systems and weapons leads to an equally important follow-on question: If the United States is willing to invest many hundreds of billions of dollars into developing new nuclear weapons that will be in the arsenal for at least the next half-century, how will the new weapons be supplied, maintained, and upgraded—especially given ballooning costs, significant industry disruptions, and reliability problems that are likely to be created by introducing so many new systems at once?

A Lack of Accountability Regarding New and Future Weapons

Perhaps the best way to measure the scope and scale of the new nuclear arms race is to consider the industrial preparation to develop and maintain an entirely new generation of U.S. nuclear weapons and warheads.

Within the current program of record, the United States is already updating the factories and laboratories where the peach-sized plutonium bomb cores—or “pits”—are made, in order to meet a legislative mandate to build 80 new plutonium pits a year by 2030.⁴² This, more than any other indicator, demonstrates the United States’ commitment to a future with nuclear weapons as a central pillar of its foreign policy, and one concerned more with superiority than deterrence.

The United States already maintains thousands of plutonium cores in storage just in case it should suddenly need to build more bombs; yet current plans assume that the United States should be producing new cores, for new weapons, based on new designs, at a rate of almost 100 a year. The addition of as many as 1,000 new nuclear bomb cores during the next ten years would represent a dramatic expansion of the U.S. arsenal.

That effort goes hand in hand with plans to build the first new generation of U.S. nuclear warheads since the 1980s.⁴³ The moves to produce these warheads, including the W93 nuclear warhead meant to be carried aboard U.S. and UK nuclear submarines, as well as recent proposals to modify existing warheads (such as the W76-2 and B61-13) to carry out new missions, has occurred with little strategic discussion or public debate.

Unfortunately, much like the triad modernization program, these new warhead initiatives have encountered many problems. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued repeated warnings about the serious lack of accountability in the U.S. nuclear weapons enterprise, noting that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the office within the Department of Energy in charge of building and maintaining the actual warheads and fissile material that comprise the U.S. nuclear arsenal, has failed to provide a realistic program cost and meet production schedules. According to a 2024 GAO report, the NNSA has failed to even develop “cost estimates that cover the full life cycle of [modernization] program activities.”⁴⁴ According to a 2023 GAO report focusing on the NNSA’s major industrial efforts, including the National Labs and plutonium production facilities, “NNSA’s major projects collectively exceeded their cost estimates by over $2 billion. They also surpassed their collective schedules by almost 10 years.”⁴⁵

This incredible lack of program oversight and accountability has not stopped calls to increase NNSA’s nuclear weapons budget, however. NNSA’s total funding increased by $5 billion from 2021 to 2024, most of which can be accounted for by new nuclear weapons activities alone, which grew by $4 billion during the same period.⁴⁶

At this point, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether the United States will need to conduct new explosive testing in the coming decades because military commanders are unlikely to be comfortable with a deterrent based on entirely new and untested technology.⁴⁷ Indeed, there have already been congressional attempts to prepare the Nevada Test Site for a resumption of explosive nuclear testing, and several former Trump administration officials have put forward proposals to prepare to resume explosive nuclear testing during the second Trump administration.⁴⁸

Needless to say, a return of explosive nuclear testing by the world’s major nuclear powers, and the likely negative follow-on effects it would have across many fields, would be incredibly dangerous and destabilizing for Americans, U.S. allies, and the world. But even putting most of these normative concerns aside, from a purely interests-based standpoint, a resumption of U.S. explosive nuclear testing benefits the United States little while giving up a significant strategic advantage. This is because much of the relative strength of the U.S. nuclear arsenal rests in its reliability compared to that of other nuclear powers.

IMAGE 5. The Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site tracks an unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, November 5, 2024, during Air Force Global Strike Command’s Glory Trip-251 operational test.

United States Army, “Starry Streak,” U.S. Air Force, Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, November 5, 2024, https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2003591076/.

U.S. nuclear weapons have been tested more than those of any other nation. U.S. commanders know how U.S. nuclear weapons work, and—more important—that they will work, with a high degree of confidence. Breaking the current moratorium on explosive nuclear testing would open the door for other nuclear weapons states to develop new nuclear weapons that would require explosive nuclear tests. This would not only cede a significant strategic advantage to the United States’ nuclear rivals but would simultaneously stoke the nuclear arms race that U.S. taxpayers and the national security establishment are already struggling to account for domestically.⁴⁹

A return of explosive nuclear testing by the world’s major nuclear powers would be incredibly dangerous and destabilizing for Americans, U.S. allies, and the world.

Any one of these new nuclear weapons programs could be seen as a significant departure from how most contemporary U.S. leaders have, at least publicly, sought to reduce the role that nuclear weapons play in U.S. national security policy. The decision to pursue nuclear weapons programs all at once, alongside a new drive for tactical nuclear weapons, and at staggering cost, should be viewed as nothing less than a total reversal of the U.S. NPT commitments to reduce the relevance of nuclear weapons in global affairs and eventually work toward their elimination. Instead, it represents a major shift away from a deterrence-based nuclear policy, to one hoping to build nuclear superiority at every level of the U.S. nuclear weapons enterprise.

But the debate is still far from over.

The “Necessary-But-Not-Sufficient” Mindset

Although the $1.7 trillion modernization plan is already well underway, it has not ended calls for even more programs and more funding from key sectors of the national security establishment.

Notably, following the Biden administration’s pullout from Afghanistan in 2021, those advocating boosts in defense spending and parochial interests rushed to justify nearly $1 trillion in annual defense spending—a 40% real increase since 2000.⁵⁰ National security hawks quickly pivoted to focus on China as an emerging global power, or what former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin labeled the “pacing challenge” for U.S. defense policy.⁵¹ The rise of Chinese President Xi Jinping coincided with a serious buildup of the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA’s) conventional and nuclear arsenals and increasingly assertive behavior in East Asia. The China challenge is the dominant narrative within the U.S. national security discourse.⁵²

Mirroring the logic that gave rise to the Cold War and the first nuclear arms race, American policymakers’ fixation on the perceived threat that China poses to U.S. national interests and the very fabric of American society has facilitated a new militarization of U.S. foreign policy. This situation has only worsened with the Russia-Ukraine War, which some have suggested is a failure of Western deterrence and points to the need to overhaul American commitments and capabilities.⁵³ Factions within the national security establishment have altered the United States’ perception of deterrence as dependent on strategic superiority.⁵⁴

Moving the Goalposts

Proponents of nuclear superiority have also altered the purpose of U.S. nuclear modernization efforts first initiated under President Obama. Originally offered as a compromise to modestly upgrade nuclear forces while diplomats pursued further strategic reductions, today’s nuclear development program has been refocused on creating a nuclear arsenal meant to directly confront nuclear rivals—and, if necessary, fight and win a nuclear war. For instance, former Trump National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien recently wrote, “The United States has to maintain technical and numerical superiority to the combined Chinese and Russian nuclear stockpiles. To do so, Washington must test new nuclear weapons for reliability and safety in the real world for the first time since 1992—not just by using computer models.”⁵⁵

IMAGE 6. An unarmed Trident II (D5LE) missile launches from the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine USS Maine (SSBN 741) off the coast of San Diego, California, Feb. 12, 2020.

MC2 Thomas Gooley, “USS Maine Successfully Tests Trident II D5LE Missile,” U.S. Navy, San Diego, California, February 12, 2020, https://www.pacom.mil/Media/Photos/igphoto/2002249405/.

Despite the United States’ having already committed to spending $1.7 trillion on nuclear modernization during the next 30 years, nuclear weapons advocates claim this is not nearly enough. For example, former Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and former NNSA Deputy Administrator Madelyn Creedon, who together chaired the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, have argued: “The U.S. nuclear modernization programs underway are critical and necessary, but no longer adequate to deter the increased challenges from Beijing, Moscow, and the possibility of engaging both simultaneously.”⁵⁶ Central to this belief is a strange new claim that the 1,670 strategic nuclear warheads that the United States maintains ready to launch at a moment’s notice are, somehow, not enough to deter the United States’ nuclear peers.⁵⁷

Testifying several times before Congress between 2021 and 2022 as the head of U.S. Strategic Command, Adm. Charles Richard shocked many when he intimated that the United States may not have enough nuclear forces to deter both China and Russia at the same time.⁵⁸ This statement seemed directly at odds with the contemporary understanding of U.S. deterrent posture, indirectly criticized the New START Treaty (which limited the United States and Russian strategic nuclear deployments to 1,550 warheads), and provided a rationale for boosting nuclear weapons spending.

If 1,670 deployed strategic warheads, many hundreds of which are constantly forward deployed and in range of their targets around the world, are not enough to ensure a credible and devastating—almost certainly world-ending—nuclear response, then what would be? This line of reasoning has opened the floodgates to profligate nuclear spending: If the current force is not enough to ensure deterrence, then there is no objective marker for what might be.

Policymaking Without Considering the Costs

Nuclear spending proponents have championed the recent Congressional Strategic Posture Commission report that, among other escalatory steps, recommends: uploading more than one nuclear warhead onto U.S. ICBMs;⁵⁹ increasing the planned purchase of 100 B-21 nuclear bombers (and the tanker aircraft needed to service them); increasing the purchase of planned Columbia-class SSBNs; developing new road-mobile ICBMs; and introducing new tactical nuclear forces to be deployed in the Indo-Pacific and European theaters.⁶⁰

The plans for this new class of tactical “theatre” weapons are consistent with rhetoric that departs from a secure second-strike posture and instead pushes for a nuclear warfighting strategy. For example, the Strategic Posture Commission explains that “U.S. theater nuclear force posture should be urgently modified in order to provide the President a range of militarily effective nuclear response options to deter or counter [emphasis added] Chinese or Russian limited nuclear use in theater.”⁶¹

But although many policymakers and others have called for increasing current nuclear spending, no serious debate has occurred about where that money would come from. When members of the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission were questioned by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) about how the United States would pay for their proposed expansive changes to U.S. nuclear forces, former Sen. Kyl said that the commissioners had deliberately not speculated on that during the production of the report.⁶² After being pressed for a response by Sen. Wicker, Sen. Kyl said,

“The number one priority for our national security is our strategic deterrent, and the nuclear [arsenal] underpins that. If it is the number one priority, whatever funds are available, that should have first call on those funds…So that is my guiding principle in backing my fellow commissioners in saying that we wanted to recommend to you what we thought was essential, and that you would find a way to be able to support that financially.”⁶³

But proposing an open-ended commitment to further wide-ranging weapons development, of some indefinite number, on top of the current 30-year modernization plan—without giving any consideration to even the most basic cost/benefit analysis—is folly.

In 2024, payments on the national debt surpassed U.S. defense spending, a potentially ominous portent given calls to increase other spending while continuing to cut taxes.⁶⁴ Such fiscal considerations should be seriously weighed against any potential marginal deterrence benefits that may result from successfully deploying another category of theatre weapons systems a decade or more from now, especially when the United States already maintains a credible nuclear deterrent capable of ending all human civilization on the planet.

Escalation Control, “Limited” Nuclear Strikes, and Redefining US Nuclear Strategy

The justifications for increased spending on nuclear modernization to pursue strategic superiority, which would supposedly strengthen deterrence, do not hold up.

If Americans should have learned one lesson from the Cold War, where the U.S. arsenal alone reached a peak of some 31,255 nuclear warheads, it should have been that merely possessing more weapons did not equate to greater security.⁶⁵ Achieving nuclear superiority might sound appealing in congressional testimony, on the campaign trail, or within the bounds of a book, but underneath the surface-level “strong-on-defense” talking points lurks the truth that an overwhelmingly favorable nuclear balance is a chimera. Pursuing such a course risks ruin. If, for example, such buildups stimulate the deep-seated insecurities of the United States’s nuclear peers who could see an incentive to accelerate their own arms-racing behavior, this will only further roil an already deeply unsettled geopolitical environment and ultimately undermine U.S. national security.

This is of particular importance when it comes to the potentially large-scale return of tactical nuclear forces to the U.S. arsenal. Proponents of these types of weapons envision a world in which tailored options for limited nuclear use in theatre-scale conventional conflicts in Europe and Asia are essential to U.S. military operations. These warfighting strategies call for the development of new weapons, as discussed throughout this paper. This would necessitate breaking the nuclear use taboo and yet assumes that that can be done without escalating a conflict with China or Russia to a general nuclear exchange.

And that is an irresponsible assumption to make.

The Myth of Escalation Control

The core concept of nuclear deterrence holds that the threat of unacceptable losses created by a nuclear response will outweigh any potential gains made by deploying a “limited” nuclear strike in the first place. That basic calculus—the threat of general nuclear war—is what has kept the world’s nuclear-armed nations from using even a single nuclear weapon against one another, no matter how small or limited, in all the wars and crises of the last 75 years.

That is why this class of weapons is so incredibly dangerous.⁶⁶ Since they are often described as being smaller and less destructive than the strategic nuclear arms that comprise the majority of the U.S. arsenal, the new weapons risk appearing to seem more “usable.” Given that they are traditionally meant to be deployed alongside conventional forces, their mere possession can be seen as increasing the likelihood of their use under pressure or in crises.⁶⁷

The belief that these weapons are somehow more useful or controllable just because they have a smaller explosive yield is deeply misguided. Quite the contrary, deterrence hinges on the belief that nuclear weapons use is unthinkable in all but the most catastrophic of circumstances: when the very survival of the state is at stake. Efforts to lower the bar for nuclear use—or to even envision some scenario in which a crisis with a nuclear rival might be contained by using a limited nuclear strike—is folly.

President Reagan’s secretary of state, George Schultz, underscored this when he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2018:

“The idea of a low-yield nuclear weapon is kind of a mirage. It is a nuclear weapon. It has all kinds of aspects to it. Even a low-yield weapon would have huge damage immediately and radiation and so on. It invites escalation. So, my own opinion is I hate to see people start figuring out how they can use nuclear weapons—that is what it amounts to—because their use is so potentially devastating. You get an escalation going and a nuclear exchange going, and it can be ruinous to the world very easily.”⁶⁸

Forcing an adversary to critically analyze whether they are under a small nuclear attack or a large nuclear attack and expecting them to choose a discriminate response in the few minutes between the detection of any launch and its impact is illogical. And, regardless of the attacker’s intent, providing any casus belli for nuclear response and escalation allows for an all-too-real road to Armageddon.

A critical study has borne this out. The Reagan administration tested the viability of limited nuclear strikes that were already built into the U.S. war plan with its 1983 Proud Prophet war game. Using actual top-secret plans overseen by real administration officials and military leaders in the chain of command, Proud Prophet probably was one of the most realistic wargames ever conducted by the U.S. government, according to nuclear historian and Reagan administration advisor Paul Bracken.⁶⁹ In the game, U.S. and NATO nuclear strikes were used to try and “escalate to de-escalate” a looming conventional conflict from turning into a general war between Soviet and NATO forces. U.S. strategy at the time called for the deployment of limited nuclear strikes to halt Soviet forces and signal that the United States was willing to further escalate unless Soviet leaders agreed to pause hostilities and negotiate a cease-fire.⁷⁰ Much like modern versions of such theories, Bracken explains, “U.S. logic here was that further escalation to attacks on cities would make the Soviet Leaders understand that they couldn’t win.”⁷¹

Although such limited warfighting strategies had been intended to limit escalation and prevent a general nuclear war, that is not how the situation played out when there were human beings making the decisions while under pressure and in a competitive environment. According to Bracken:

The Soviet Union team interpreted the nuclear strikes as an attack on their nation, their way of life, and their honor. So they responded with an enormous nuclear salvo at the United States. The United States retaliated in kind. The result was a catastrophe that made all the wars of the past five hundred years pale in comparison. A half billion human beings were killed in the initial exchanges and at least that many more would have died from radiation and starvation. NATO was gone. So was a good part of Europe, the United States, and the Soviet Union.⁷²

Especially important here is the fact that “this game went nuclear,” Bracken observed years later, “not because [Defense] Secretary [Caspar] Weinberger and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs were crazy but because they faithfully implemented the prevailing U.S. strategy.”⁷³ Once the taboo for nuclear use had broken down, it was much easier to escalate from battlefield to strategic nuclear weapons than prevailing theories had assumed. Indeed, despite the “escalate-to-deescalate” logic, escalation control proved impossible once deterrence had broken down and nuclear weapons were suddenly “usable.”

“Usable” Nuclear Weapons vs. Reality

The grave implications of uncontrolled escalation once the nuclear threshold has been crossed is further demonstrated throughout modern U.S. history by the fact that though there have been plans drawn up to use nuclear weapons in every American conflict since World War II—up to and including the first Gulf War—they have thus far never been needed. Whether or not these were offered as tactical opportunities, options for option’s sake, or as a means to keep the United States’ significant tactical nuclear forces relevant in an era defined largely by low-intensity conflict is largely inconsequential. What is important is that no matter how bad a tactical or strategic situation was on the ground, wise strategists always realized that the costs and risks of using even one of these weapons far outweighed their potential tactical benefit.

Nuclear weapons remained holstered even in those moments when U.S. forces were at significant risk of being defeated or even outright destroyed. In the battle for the Chosin Reservoir during the Korean War, for example, UN forces, including the entire U.S. 1^st Marine Division, were assaulted by a Chinese force that outnumbered them by as much as four to one. Although that might seem like a prime opportunity for a limited nuclear strike (certainly of the sort that modern proponents would envision), Washington viewed such an action as too extreme—even though the United States maintained near-total nuclear superiority around the globe.⁷⁴

The Discrimination Problem

If any further reason is needed to doubt the utility of these kinds of nonstrategic nuclear weapons, a final concern is that they also undermine the credibility of conventional U.S. forces. Several current and planned designs pose a significant discrimination problem to enemy leaders, create uncertainty around U.S. missile launches, and force rivals to constantly evaluate whether they are under a conventional or nuclear attack.

This is a significant problem for the LRSO and SLCM-N because both are based on the conventional U.S. cruise missile platform, one of the most ubiquitous weapons in the United States’ conventional arsenal. Therefore, if the United States finds itself in a conflict with Russia or China, the leaders of those countries will have to ascertain whether any U.S. cruise missile launch is carrying a conventional or nuclear payload—and do so while under attack and extreme pressure to act. In such a scenario, the likelihood of a nuclear response, even against a conventional attack, rises sharply.

Systems that blur the line between strategic and tactical nuclear forces are perhaps even more dangerous. For instance, should the United States decide to launch a single low-yield W76-2 warhead from an Ohio or future Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, an adversary might well assume it was under attack from a 90-455kt nuclear weapon, not an 8kt one, because that is the primary warhead yield of the Trident missile system upon which the W76-2 is fitted.⁷⁵ When facing an early warning report describing an inbound Trident missile attack, adversaries would not be incentivized to wait and see what kind of warhead detonates at the missile’s terminus if they are instead worried that they are facing a general attack meant to disable their own nuclear forces. Under such “use-it-or-lose-it pressure,” what may have been intended as a limited nuclear strike could quickly escalate into a general nuclear war.

IMAGE 7. The Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine USS Wyoming (SSBN 742) pulls into Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk, Virginia, in support of USSTRATCOM Component Commanders Conference, February 2, 2024.

Petty Officer 1st Class Cameron Stoner, “USS Wyoming (SSBN 742),” U.S. Navy, Naval Station Norfolk, Norfolk, Virginia, February 2, 2024, https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Photo-Gallery/igphoto/2003388416/.

Furthermore, imagining a coercive or “limited” role for these weapons would undercut the United States’ overall deterrent posture. The Ohio (and future Columbia) submarines are meant to serve as the secure second-strike force, the bedrock foundation of America’s most essential deterrent capability. Even if one accepts the notion that there might be a use for a limited U.S. nuclear strike on some hypothetical target, launching a weapon from one of these submarines confuses the matter—and even risks the discovery and destruction of America’s deterrent strike force by using these nuclear weapons for missions unrelated to strategic deterrence.⁷⁶

Throwing away more precious resources to pursue a strategy of nuclear overmatch, especially at the nonstrategic level, would be inherently destabilizing and potentially put the United States on a path toward some form of uncontrollable nuclear exchange, especially during periods of crisis, instability, or conflict.

Stabilizing Nuclear Policies in a Destabilized World

In a period where even the most optimistic observers admit that many of the old norms and values that once governed international relations and nuclear stability have eroded or fallen away altogether, it is critical to ensure that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is postured in such a way as to promote stability and reduce uncertainty.

The authors of this report suggest the following:

First, U.S. lawmakers should commit the United States to a legitimate sole-purpose, “deterrence-first” nuclear approach, focused on a secure second-strike submarine capability during the next ten years. All new nuclear weapons programs should be judged against President Reagan’s statement that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” Current modernization plans that go beyond a strategy of nuclear deterrence—one that aims to avoid or discourage open conflict by raising the potential costs of war to such a point that no rational actor would choose to initiate it—should be canceled or postponed. Clarity of purpose is of critical importance when it comes to prioritizing efforts among competing legs of the strategic nuclear triad. Prioritization is essential to ensuring that programs with soaring costs or built around untested assumptions about their possible uses are subjected to close scrutiny.

The Sentinel ICBM, in particular, is a grotesque acquisition blunder. Its costs have already ballooned over 80% since it was initially pitched to Congress during the Obama administration, and few believe that it will cost less than the new projected costs. Revelations in 2024 from the Pentagon, Air Force, and prime defense contractor Northrop Grumman have shown that initial plans were unrealistic; updating the silo infrastructure might now have to expand to include digging and building entirely new silos in as many as five states. According to Bill LaPlante, the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer, the Air Force is looking for ways to “reduce the Sentinel project’s complexity,” but those decisions are unlikely before 2026.⁷⁷

Moreover, the Air Force has admitted that it might have to reopen the contract to new subcontractors, “when it has a clearer idea of when the major construction work will begin.”⁷⁸ This delay probably ensures that the USAF will have to extend the life of the current Minuteman III ICBMs while simultaneously developing the Sentinel, an option that the Air Force repeatedly said was impossible while it was lobbying Congress to build the Sentinel in the first place.

Ultimately, ICBMs are relatively less important for deterrence than other delivery vehicles. Their locations are all known to nuclear rivals, and their ballistic trajectories, mostly over the North Pole, make them only usable against targets in Russia. Given that deterrence relies on credibility—not supremacy—the Navy’s SSBN fleet could maintain deterrence against multiple targets while lowering overall costs and logistical burdens.

In a similar vein, current U.S. plans to expand upon production of new plutonium pits and next-generation warhead development, in anticipation of a future expansion of the global nuclear arms race, should be reevaluated given their ballooning costs and potentially destabilizing nature.⁷⁹ It will matter little if the Pentagon launches a dozen or a hundred new nuclear weapons programs if most are unlikely to be completed in a timely fashion and do not add to the credibility of the U.S. deterrent.

This concern should be familiar to every American taxpayer, given the fact that the last 20 years of conventional weapon systems development, for programs such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Zumwalt-class destroyer, and the littoral combat ship have been seriously over budget and behind schedule and have all failed to deliver the capabilities that were promised.⁸⁰ The fact that the national security establishment is focusing so many resources and finite industrial capacity on new nuclear systems that are costly, redundant, and of limited deterrent value suggests that valuable resources are being siphoned off from other vital national security priorities that would do more to make the United States and its allies safer during a time of real uncertainty.⁸¹

Therefore, funds currently earmarked for the Sentinel should be reprioritized to systems necessary for real deterrence, that is, critically, the Navy’s SSBN fleet underpinning the United States’ secure second-strike force. If resources must be reallocated from one nuclear program to another, finite deterrence needs to be prioritized.

Second, U.S. lawmakers should eliminate new tactical nuclear systems that pose a discrimination problem to potential nuclear rivals. In a world that is seemingly becoming more dangerous, with trust among the major powers near all-time lows, the United States must draw a line between its nuclear and nonnuclear forces. This is especially true when it comes to arming one of the most ubiquitous weapons in the U.S. conventional arsenal, the cruise missile, with a nuclear warhead. If U.S. adversaries cannot tell the difference between a nuclear-armed cruise missile and a conventionally armed cruise missile on a radar screen, the world risks sleepwalking into a general nuclear war in any conflict involving the launch of a U.S. cruise missile. This is crucial in complex theatres such as the Indo-Pacific, where commanders have already voiced concerns about “eroding conventional deterrence” alongside the need to do “everything possible to deter conflict.”⁸²

By eliminating proposed new dual-use weapons programs such as the SLCM-N and LRSO, the United States could take a major step toward lowering the long-term prospects of both accidental and escalatory nuclear war, save money, and strengthen global strategic stability. Moreover, cutting these still-hypothetical programs would not undermine the U.S. nuclear deterrent; their future development and deployment, however, could make the world a much more dangerous and destabilizing place for American service personnel across the globe.

Furthermore, especially in the case of the SLCM, returning these weapons at scale to the arsenal poses a significant number of problems for U.S. forces around the globe and here at home. Putting nuclear weapons on conventional U.S. Navy ships will require burdensome additional maintenance, training, and security to those ships and their crews while also reducing the SLCMs’ effectiveness in their primary conventional missions; the SLCM-Ns will take up space that would have otherwise been earmarked for conventional cruise missiles.⁸³ Likewise, any incident, accident, or collision at sea—which are not an infrequent occurrence even in the age of advanced sensors—could be greatly inflamed by the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons aboard ship.⁸⁴ As nuclear weapons expert Hans Kristensen noted in his report on such incidents during the Cold War, “deploying nuclear weapons on ships and submarines…created unique risks of accidents and incidents. Because warships sometimes collide, catch fire, or even sink…dozens of nuclear weapons [have been] lost at sea over the decades.”⁸⁵

Although nuclear supremacy proponents might claim that these nuclear cruise missiles are “essential” for the future of the U.S. deterrent, they have not made a compelling case for how, where, and why such weapons need to be deployed and what costs those deployments might impose on U.S. forces that are already struggling to accomplish their critical conventional missions despite more than 20 years of growing defense budgets.

The U.S. risks little by keeping nuclear cruise missiles relegated to history books. The United States can build a safer future by ensuring that these weapons go no further than the design phase. The reduction of such “more usable” nuclear weapons might even serve as a starting point for future arms control initiatives with nuclear peers further down the line.⁸⁶

Finally, the incoming Trump administration should publicly recommit the United States to conducting no future explosive nuclear testing; a resumption of explosive nuclear testing would dramatically undercut U.S. national security objectives. No one benefits from escalating global tensions, and a shortsighted decision to restart U.S. explosive nuclear testing for the first time since 1992 would result in the breaking of one of the last global nuclear taboos and probably lead to the even greater breakdown of international norms.⁸⁷

Likewise, a resumption of U.S. explosive nuclear testing benefits the United States little—and could even be a strategic liability. The fact that U.S. nuclear weapons have been tested more than those of any other nation gives U.S. forces a serious advantage. American military leaders know that U.S. nuclear weapons work. Moreover, the United States has already spent billions of dollars on its stockpile stewardship program, which aims to maintain readiness and reliability throughout the nuclear force—without the need for explosive nuclear testing.⁸⁸ As former Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz put it in 2022:

“Advances in the U.S. Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), which uses science-based assessments of nuclear weapons without the need for explosive testing, ensure that the United States can be more confident than ever in the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of its nuclear stockpile. Every U.S. president since President Clinton has determined through the SSP—rightly—that resuming explosive nuclear testing is scientifically and technically unnecessary.”⁸⁹

By breaking the current moratorium on explosive nuclear testing, U.S. leaders would give a green light to other nuclear weapons states that might want to develop new nuclear weapons that would require similar types of testing. This would not only cede a significant strategic advantage to the United States’ rivals but would simultaneously stoke a nuclear arms race that the U.S. national security establishment is already struggling to pay for and manage. It should also be noted, that while this paper is primarily concerned with analyzing issues from a hard-security lens, the prospect of renewed explosive nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site, could have a major humanitarian impact on the health and safety of millions of U.S. citizens in the American Southwest, at a time when the United States has still failed to fully deal with the destructive domestic legacy of the last nuclear arms race.

Ultimately though, a unilateral decision to resume U.S. explosive nuclear testing would undoubtedly have far-reaching effects. It would represent a concrete end to any notion of U.S. nuclear restraint or that the United States still holds some sort of moral high ground regarding nuclear issues when compared to its nuclear rivals. An explosive breakdown of one of the last nuclear taboos might even put the final nail in the coffin of the NPT while setting off a cascade of nuclear weapons program breakouts across the globe.

Focusing on shortsighted policies that sound tough but undermine strategic stability does not enhance national security.

This is no time for sloppy thinking or political games. U.S. policymakers need to be laser-focused on measures to enhance national security. Focusing on shortsighted policies that sound tough but undermine strategic stability does not enhance national security. At best, current plans commit U.S. taxpayers to costly weapons that drive defense contractor profits while doing little to further real deterrence. At worst, the drive for an “all-of-the-above” supremacy approach to U.S. nuclear strategy, with an increased focus on weapons meant to fight and “win” a nuclear war, will only stoke the fires of the global nuclear arms race while lowering the threshold for nuclear use worldwide. Reversing these trends is essential to maintaining U.S. deterrence and global strategic stability while preventing a further slide toward nuclear misadventure, miscalculation, or madness.

The United States—indeed, any country—has nothing to gain from a world where the risk of nuclear war is rising. Thus, U.S. lawmakers should reject policies that might make that outcome more likely, especially if they are based on claims about the declining efficacy of nuclear deterrence in favor of a belief in the value of nuclear supremacy, a concept that has never been tested—and never should be.

The United States and the former Soviet Union came close to the brink of nuclear disaster during the Cold War. U.S. policymakers should be in no hurry to return to the same flawed policies of that age while stoking an unconstrained nuclear arms race that is spending generational wealth on new weapons that will do little to make Americans, U.S. allies, or the world any safer.

---

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:

1. All Things Nuclear
2. Nuclear Power
3. Nuclear Power Emergencies
4. Nuclear War Threats
5. Nuclear War
6. Yellowstone Caldera & Other Volcanoes (Note: There are no Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in today’s Post.)
7. 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.

TODAY’s NUCLEAR WORLD’s NEWS, Thursday, (02/20/2025)

All Things Nuclear

NEWS

Pressure grows in Congress to revive payments to many sickened by atomic weapon tests

KALW

HEINSIUS: About a hundred above-ground nuclear detonations happened at the test site in the 1950s and ’60s. Locals could see them from here or catch …

Donald Trump fired and then unfired the employees that manage our nuclear stockpile

WAMU

Russian Weapons-Grade Materials. 0:52:33. All Things Considered, Oct 6, 2016. Next President To Face Challenges On Nuclear Weapons. 3:47. Follow Us.

Pressure grows in Congress to revive payments to many sickened by atomic weapon tests

Texas Public Radio

A new bill has created strange political bedfellows. Copyright 2025 NPR. Tags. All Things Considered · Facebook · Twitter · LinkedIn · Email · Ryan …

Nuclear Power

NEWS

UN atomic watchdog chief visits Fukushima as Japan returns to nuclear power – YouTube

YouTube

The United Nations’ nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi visited Japan’s stricken Fukushima plant on Wednesday (Feb 19) to inspect the …

Potential for Nuclear Energy to Power AI Datacenters | Bloomberg Businessweek – YouTube

YouTube

Maria Korsnick, CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, discusses the critical role nuclear power has in meeting the energy needs of AI. Jeetu Patel …

Three Mile Island owner says reopening of nuclear station is on schedule – pennlive.com

PennLive.com

“Every new milestone confirms our belief that the Crane Clean Energy Center can be returned to service better than ever, restoring 835 megawatts of …

Nuclear Power Emergencies

NEWS

How would a restarted TMI alert midstaters to a nuclear emergency? – PennLive.com

PennLive.com

The plant’s owners told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on Wednesday it would use the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, or IPAWS, as …

Three Mile Island nuclear plant lays out emergency plans | Local News – Lancaster Online

Lancaster Online

The owner of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant says it is updating software and evacuation plans to respond to any potential emergencies.

Ukraine’s emergency services still dealing with aftermath six days since Russian drone …

pravda.com.ua

The State Emergency Service of Ukraine continues to work on partially opening the structures of the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant (СNPP) …

Nuclear War Threats

NEWS

Trump’s threats on Greenland, Gaza, Ukraine and Panama revive old-school … – The Conversation

The Conversation

Trump’s threats on Greenland, Gaza, Ukraine and Panama revive old-school US imperialism of dominating other nations by force, after decades of nuclear …

Gambling on Armageddon – Stimson Center

Stimson Center

How US Nuclear Policies Are Undercutting Deterrence and Lowering the Threshold for Nuclear War … Threats and the Role of Allies’: Remarks by Acting …

Nuclear War

NEWS

Gambling on Armageddon – Stimson Center

Stimson Center

How US Nuclear Policies Are Undercutting Deterrence and Lowering the Threshold for Nuclear War. Questioning the logic of U.S. nuclear weapons …

Democratic Lawmakers Urge Rubio to Renew New START Nuclear Pact With Russia

USNews.com

… nuclear weapons pact that expires next year, saying that even during tense times the agreement has reduced the risk of nuclear war. The lawmakers …

Sens. Markey, Merkley and Reps. Beyer, Garamendi Urge Secretary Rubio to Replace …

Edward Markey

… Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group, today wrote to … nuclear forces, reversing decades of work to reduce the risk of nuclear war.

“End Nuclear Insanity Before Nuclear Insanity Ends Humanity” ~llaw

Lloyd A. Williams-Pendergraft

Feb 19, 2025

1

Share

Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump have been locked in a war of words (Image: AFP via Getty Images)

LLAW’s NUCLEAR WORLD NEWS TODAY with the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES of TOMORROW

Good news for my “LLAW’s All Things Nuclear” daily Post: The national media has started to recognize it, and that will help considerably to increase the readership and expand our subscription base. Please remember that Subscriptions are free, but the more we have, the more interest we can generate in this dangerous world of nuclear energy and the constant threat of nuclear war.

It only takes a minute to subscribe, and the link is always directly below this “Nuclear World News Today” section” So if you are concerned about future of humanity and other life and the threat that “all things nuclear” presents to us, I urge you to sign up . . .

Okay, now, back to the lead news of today:

The free world is up in arms! Uh, WHO is the dictator? It’s not Zelenskyy, for sure. Trump is backing Putin and the Kremlin against Ukraine in this Russia/Ukraine war and is outright lying about who started the war, why it began, and is attacking Zelenskyy and Ukraine as the bad guys. This is precisely what I feared but expected and Trump has left the free world out in the cold in order to pacify Putin and give the Ukraine back to Russia.

To put this in perspective, Trump is, perhaps intentionally, creating a potential nuclear World War III by his actions and words, and Britain, France, and other NATO European nations will not stand for such an incredible Trump/United States support of Putin and Russia that now seriously threatens the entire world. ~llaw

I have posted a link to the entire catastrophic mess that Trump has created so that anyone who is concerned can read it all until they can’t stand anymore of it any longer. The Downing Street article posted just below is just one of several leading up t this one. Here is the link to them all:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/2016345/ukraine-live-donald-trump-demand-elections-putin

US president Donald Trump sparked fury after branding the Ukrainian leader a “dictator without elections”, adding that Kyiv had started the war

By Michael Knowles, Home Affairs and Defence Editor

20:36, Wed, Feb 19, 2025 | UPDATED: 20:46, Wed, Feb 19, 2025

32Bookmark

British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and spoke to Volodymyr Zelensky after Donald Trump’s remarks (Image: AP)

Sir Keir Starmer told Volodymyr Zelensky it was “perfectly reasonable to suspend elections” during Vladimir Putin’s bloodthirsty invasion of Ukraine.

US president Donald Trump sparked fury after branding the Ukrainian leader a “dictator without elections”, claiming Kyiv had started the war.

Mr Trump added that the Ukrainian leader had done a “terrible job”, saying he needed to “move fast or he is not going to have a country left”.

A Downing Street spokesman said: “The Prime Minister spoke to President Zelensky this evening and stressed the need for everyone to work together.

Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump have been locked in a war of words (Image: AFP via Getty Images)

“The Prime Minister expressed his support for President Zelensky as Ukraine’s democratically elected leader and said that it was perfectly reasonable to suspend elections during wartime, as the UK did during World War 2.

“The Prime Minister reiterated his support for the US-led efforts to get a lasting peace in Ukraine that deterred Russia from any future aggression.”

Mr Trump’s comments have provoked a furious backlash, with politicians and military experts warning of “dangerous days” ahead.

A former head of the British Army, Lord Dannatt, warned: “Trump and Putin are trying to bully Zelensky into having an election in order to install a pro-Moscow president.”

John Bolton, Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, said: “Trump’s characterisations of Zelensky and Ukraine are some of the most shameful remarks ever made by a US president.

“Our support of Ukraine has never been about charity – our way of life at home depends on our strength abroad.”

In a post on Truth Social, Mr Trump accused the Ukrainian leader of playing former US president Joe Biden “like a fiddle”.

“He refuses to have elections, is very low in Ukrainian polls, and the only thing he was good at was playing Biden ‘like a fiddle’,” Mr Trump said.

“A dictator without elections, Zelensky better move fast or he is not going to have a country left.

“In the meantime, we are successfully negotiating an end to the war with Russia, something all admit only ‘Trump’, and the Trump administration can do.”

Mr Trump also said Europe “has failed to bring peace”.

Mr Zelensky was elected as president of Ukraine in May 2019. Elections were previously scheduled for 2024, but they were not held as a result of martial law being in place.

Former foreign secretary James Cleverly said: “The USA is a friend and ally. But we must be honest and courageous when we disagree.

“President Trump is wrong about President Zelensky and Ukraine and the Foreign Secretary should say so, his silence is deafening.

“The UK and USA must send the message that we don’t let tyrants win.”

Bob Seely, a former member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, said: “What Trump said is untrue, and frankly he is just repeating Russian dictator Putin’s lines.

“Trump seems to be psychologically under Putin’s influence. Why? This is a disaster for the UK, for Europe, for Ukraine and the US. Much more of this and Trump is going to destroy US moral and political leadership in place for the last 70 years.

“Ever since World War 2, the Russians (and now with Chinese support) have tried to break the link between the US and Europe. If this happens the Ukraine war will widen. Putin will attack NATO states in the Baltic. These are dangerous days.”

Tory MP Simon Hoare said: “Let’s say it unambiguously: Trump is an egotistical stranger to the truth and ignorant of history.

“He’s a menace to the world order. Ukraine was attacked. If Russia wants peace: put your guns down Putin and withdraw.

---

Subscribed

ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO LLAW’s ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA

(Please note that the Sunday and Saturday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS are also added below by category, following Monday’s news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)

There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:

1. All Things Nuclear
2. Nuclear Power
3. Nuclear Power Emergencies
4. Nuclear War Threats
5. Nuclear War
6. Yellowstone Caldera & Other Volcanoes (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story available in today’s Post.)
7. 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.

TODAY’s NUCLEAR WORLD’s NEWS, Wednesday, (02/19/2025)

All Things Nuclear

NEWS

LLAW’s All Things Nuclear #877, Tuesday, (02/18/2025) – Substack

Substack

The Categories are listed below in their usual order: All Things Nuclear. Nuclear Power. Nuclear Power Emergencies. Nuclear War Threats. Nuclear War.

4 thoughts on Trump’s new world order from foreign relations expert Richard Haass – WUSF

WUSF

All Things Considered · 1A · Here & Now · Fresh Air · On Point · Schedule … “Some of them may say we need nuclear weapons of our own, or we’re just …

4 thoughts on Trump’s new world order from foreign relations expert Richard Haass – WHRO

WHRO

All Things Considered. Next Up: 6:30 PM Marketplace. 0:00. 0:00. All Things … “Some of them may say, ‘We need nuclear weapons of our own,’ or …

Nuclear Power

NEWS

Small nuclear reactors a viable option for Singapore, but managing waste is key: Energy experts

CNA

As Singapore explores nuclear energy, experts say it must address concerns about radioactive waste management and “not in my backyard” mindsets.

3 of TVA’s nuclear reactors offline, no rate impact expected – WBIR.com

WBIR.com

The TVA said the outages at Browns Ferry, Sequoyah and Watts Bar were caused by “electrical issues and not problems with the nuclear reactor.”

How to Streamline Nuclear Power Plant Construction – Bipartisan Policy Center

Bipartisan Policy Center

While a nuclear reactor could theoretically replace coal to create steam for many power plants, today’s nuclear energy deployment model cannot meet …

Nuclear Power Emergencies

NEWS

The State Emergency Service said that radiation at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant | УНН

УНН

УНН Society ✎ The State Emergency Service reports normal radiation background at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant after the Russtrike on ..

Trump’s Energy Emergency Declaration Ensnares AI – Public Citizen

Public Citizen

… nuclear power facility away from the broader grid in order to serve a proposed Amazon data center, with FERC citing the harmful cost impacts on .

Nuclear Power Plants in 2025: The Hidden Growth Story Behind Global Energy Security

Energies Media

Automated shutdown mechanisms for emergency scenarios; Advanced monitoring and control systems. The newest reactors come with negative temperature and …

Nuclear War Threats

NEWS

Space Missiles Might Shield U.S. From Doomsday Russian Nuclear Strike – Forbes

Forbes

… nuclear and space weaponry and atomic warfare. Three years into the Kremlin’s bombarding the West with threats to fire off nuclear warheads …

Putin issues thinly veiled nuclear threat as Ukraine rages over peace talks – Daily Express

Daily Express

Donald Trump has warned putting European troops on the ground in Ukraine risks sparking a third global war.

While experts warn of war, Iranian hardliner threatens the US | Iran International

iranintl.com

… threats against Hamas. He concluded, “His other threat about bombing Iran if we do not sign a paper for him also cannot materialize.” The hardline …

Nuclear War

NEWS

75% of Americans could perish in a nuclear attack in World War 3—Chilling new map reveals – Mint

Mint

A newly released map suggests that a large-scale nuclear attack on the US could result in nearly 75% of the population perishing, …

Democratic lawmakers urge Rubio to renew New START nuclear pact with Russia | Reuters

Reuters

… nuclear weapons pact that expires next year, saying that even during tense times the agreement has reduced the risk of nuclear war.

Amid ‘clear’ threat of nuclear war, Guterres tells Security Council multilateral off-ramp is essential

Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs – the United Nations

Strengthening international cooperation and delivering on a UN pact that calls for reforming global governance, among other measures, …

Yellowstone Caldera

NEWS

Yellowstone Seismic Network recording more than earthquakes – Buckrail

Buckrail

JACKSON, Wyo. — According to the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory’s (YVO) most recent Caldera Chronicles, the Yellowstone Seismic Network (YSN) …

The Largest Supervolcano on Earth Awakens with 10,000 Hotspots – En Pareja

En Pareja

The Yellowstone caldera spans about 34 x 45 miles, making it one of the largest formations worldwide. It has erupted three times, with the last one …

LLAW’s All Things Nuclear #877, Tuesday, (02/18/2025) – Substack

Substack

Nuclear Power Emergencies. Nuclear War Threats. Nuclear War. Yellowstone Caldera & Other Volcanoes (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story …

“End Nuclear Insanity Before Nuclear Insanity Ends Humanity” ~llaw

Lloyd A. Williams-Pendergraft

Feb 18, 2025

Share

LLAW’s NUCLEAR WORLD NEWS TODAY with the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES of TOMORROW

Rachel Maddow at “MSNBC” said all that needs to be said last night about the White House Trump/DOGE firing of our “all things nuclear” protection program and then trying to hire them all back (which didn’t go too well by the way). So I’ll just leave this almost unbelievable FUBAR SNAFU by Trump and Musk and his “DOGE” (or puppy-dog investigation kiddie team) program — none of whom, including the two leaders, have the slightest idea about what in the hell they are doing. (Thank you Rachel.)

. . . and then an hour later Lawrence O’Donnell followed up with the Social Security FUBAR SNAFU by the same crew. The two leaders need to be arrested and confined to solitary confinement jail cells, and the “puppy-dog” whiz kids need to be rounded up and severely disciplined and never allowed to touch a computer again (Thank you Lawrence.) . . . ~llaw

Have you considered resigning?’: Maddow calls out Trump staffers who fired nuclear safety personnel

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/1CCoZ0Zlz9k?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

---

Thanks for reading All Things Nuclear! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Subscribed

ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO LLAW’s ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA

(Please note that the Sunday and Saturday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS are also added below by category, following Monday’s news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)

There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:

1. All Things Nuclear
2. Nuclear Power
3. Nuclear Power Emergencies
4. Nuclear War Threats
5. Nuclear War
6. Yellowstone Caldera & Other Volcanoes (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story available in today’s Post.)
7. 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.

TODAY’s NUCLEAR WORLD’s NEWS, Tuesday, (02/18/2025)

All Things Nuclear

NEWS

Trump officials struggled to reinstate nuclear weapons staff after firing hundreds – CNN

CNN

More than 300 employees were initially fired at the agency that is tasked with managing America’s nuclear weapons. All but around 25 NNSA staffers …

Trump administration tries to bring back fired nuclear weapons workers in DOGE reversal

KGW

Your Money | Talking All Things … Some fired employees worked on reassembling warheads, one of the most sensitive jobs across the nuclear weapons …

Government makes historic decision about future of power in US: ‘Protecting taxpayers …

The Cool Down

… nuclear energy over the next decade … What’s the reward system all about? Once you send back your Take Back …

Nuclear Power

NEWS

Japan to increase reliance on nuclear energy in major shift after Fukushima – BBC

BBC

A new energy plan cites growing demand from power-hungry AI data centres and semiconductor plants.

Maddow calls out Trump staffers who fired nuclear safety personnel – YouTube

YouTube

… nuclear industry, cleaning up nuclear waste, managing a nuclear power plant, and ensuring the safety of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and the …

Core Power Targets Mid-2030s for US Floating Nuclear Plant Debut – Ship & Bunker

Ship & Bunker

Core Power says floating nuclear plants can be mass-produced and towed to customer locations without the need for complex site preparations.

Nuclear Power Emergencies

NEWS

Judge calls emergency hearing on DOGE amid continued firing spree – Fast Company

Fast Company

Pantex Plant, the primary nuclear weapons facility in the United States, in Carson County, Texas, was the target of 30% of the cuts. However, by …

Trump Makes Broad Use of Emergency Powers to Advance Policy Priorities – MSN

MSN

… Nuclear Power Then Scrambling to Rehire Them. 2k. 1k. Borrow From Your Home While Keeping Your Current Mortgage Rate. LendingTree. Borrow From Your …

Core Power Announces Programme To Bring Floating Nuclear Power To Market By Mid-2030s

NucNet

… emergency exclusion zone and vastly improving the insurability of FNPPs and nuclear–powered commercial ships.” Earlier this month Core Power said …

Nuclear War Threats

NEWS

Reversing the Slide to Nuclear War—Explained

The Nuclear Threat Initiative

… nuclear war and host a side event focused on reducing nuclear threats imperiling humanity. Big thing at Munich: Statement by the Euro-Atlantic …

Iron Dome America Is Not a Threat to Peace – Global Security Review

Global Security Review

… threats and incapable of addressing the threats posed by adversary space forces. … ​National Securitynuclear missilesnuclear warpentagonRussia …

N Korea missile puts all of US mainland in nuclear attack range – Asia Times

Asia Times

These developments and broader strategic cooperation between US adversaries increase the likelihood of simultaneous multi-domain threats to the US …

Nuclear War

NEWS

Reversing the Slide to Nuclear War—Explained

The Nuclear Threat Initiative

… nuclear war and host a side event focused on reducing nuclear threats imperiling humanity. Big thing at Munich: Statement by the Euro-Atlantic …

Amid ‘clear’ threat of nuclear war, Guterres tells Security Council multilateral off ramp is essential

UN News – the United Nations

“Terrorism and violent extremism remain persistent scourges. We see a dark spirit of impunity spreading. The prospect of nuclear war remains – …

Prioritizing Nuclear Negotiations With Iran | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

If Iran moves to build nuclear weapons, the United States and Israel might go to war to try to stop it. This would be very costly to Iran, but it …

Yellowstone Caldera

NEWS

Watch Skiers and Snowboarders Ride Sicily’s Mount Etna as It Erupts – Explorersweb »

Explorersweb »

Where the Yellowstone Volcano Will Erupt Next. When Yellowstone erupts … caldera overview from space · Scientists Identify Mystery Volcano …

“End Nuclear Insanity Before Nuclear Insanity Ends Humanity” ~llaw

Lloyd A. Williams-Pendergraft

Feb 17, 2025

Share

Putin image from the “National News Desk” (No description or photo credits available)

LLAW’s NUCLEAR WORLD NEWS TODAY with the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES of TOMORROW

The beginning of the most critical times in the future of the Russia/Ukraine war and what it means to the rest of the world has arrived. The “INEDPENDENT” has provided several important stories below, essentially summarizing the important critical aspects of what must happen to prevent Putin from following through on his latest threat: “”If anyone ventures to intervene from the outside and [pose] unacceptable threats of a strategic nature to Russia, they should know that our counter-retaliatory strikes will take place with lightning speed” (Putin threat from the “National News Desk”)

And here is a further warning that I have been expecting because a Trump/Putin agreement without the approval of NATO and especially Ukraine itself will help ensure that Trump cannot arbitrarily “give” Ukraine back to Russia: “Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky warned that Kyiv will not accept any peace deal brokered by Donald Trump and Mr Putin which excludes Ukraine, as senior US and Russian officials gear up for their first direct talks since Russia’s full-scale invasion.” (Zelenskyy brokerage statement from the “INDEPENDENT”)

My personal hope is that Trump will not muddy the water by recommending that Ukraine return to its former occupation by Russia, which would, of course, be unacceptable to Ukraine and NATO, and a terrible blow to the “Free World”. ~llaw

Ukraine-Russia latest: Starmer says US ‘backstop’ only way to deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again

Zelensky says Ukraine will not take part in US-Russia talks this week in Saudi Arabia

Andy Gregory,Tom Watling,Jabed Ahmed

Monday 17 February 2025 20:17 GMT

Sir Keir Starmer has demanded the United States provide a “backstop” to deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again after he attended an emergency meeting of European leaders in Paris.

As the situation rapidly develops, senior European and Nato leaders met at an emergency summit in Paris, with Sir Keir becoming the first to confirm that he would deploy British troops into Ukraine to enforce a peace deal with Russia if necessary.

The prime minister repeated his aim to provide troops to Ukraine but also demanded the US provides a “backstop” to any peacekeeping force.

“There must be a US backstop, because a US security guarantee is the only way to effectively deter Russia from attacking Ukraine again”, Sir Keir said.

But Starmer also signalled the continent could no longer rely on the US for regional security and said the UK would take a leading role to stabilise Europe. “In this moment we have to recognise the new era that we are in, not cling hopelessly to the comforts of the past,” he said.

Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky warned that Kyiv will not accept any peace deal brokered by Donald Trump and Mr Putin which excludes Ukraine, as senior US and Russian officials gear up for their first direct talks since Russia’s full-scale invasion.

Recommended

• Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy travels to United Arab Emirates as momentum grows for war peace talks
• Starmer says he is willing to put British troops in Ukraine to face down Putin
• Zelensky warns that Putin will ‘100%’ occupy Europe if US withdraws Nato support
• Ukraine’s Zelensky says he trusts Donald Trump but wants to meet as US pushes peace talks with Russia

Key Points

• Starmer demands US provides ‘backstop’ to deter Russia from attacking Ukraine
• Volodymyr Zelensky says Ukraine will not take part in US-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia
• EU chief warns ‘surge in defence’ needed amid ‘turning point’ in European security
• Trump says he could meet with Putin ‘very soon’
• More than 46,000 Ukrainian soldiers killed in Putin’s war, says Zelensky

38 minutes ago

Europe must guard against threat from Russia, Danish prime minister says

All European nations must boost their support for Ukraine while ramping up defence spending at home to protect themselves against Russia, Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said after meeting European leaders in Paris.

“Russia is threatening all of Europe now, unfortunately,” Ms Frederiksen told reporters.

Jabed Ahmed17 February 2025 20:17

---

Thanks for reading All Things Nuclear! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Subscribed

ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO LLAW’s ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA

(Please note that the Sunday and Saturday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS are also added below by category, following Monday’s news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)

There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:

1. All Things Nuclear
2. Nuclear Power
3. Nuclear Power Emergencies
4. Nuclear War Threats
5. Nuclear War
6. Yellowstone Caldera & Other Volcanoes (Note: There are three Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in today’s Post.)
7. 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.

TODAY’s NUCLEAR WORLD’s NEWS, Monday, (02/17/2025)

All Things Nuclear

NEWS

DOGE Immediately Regrets Firing Nuclear Weapons Workers – Time

Time

About Us. © 2024 TIME USA, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy (Your Privacy …

A Little Nuclear Good News – by Fran Johns – Substack

Substack

Just when you thought there wasn’t any good news at all . . . … things to worry about. (The nuclear worry factor did go up a few …

Former US DOE CIO Ann Dunkin on her nuclear-scale challenge – Data Center Dynamics

Data Center Dynamics

Finding its origins in the Manhattan Project, before officially being established in 1977 under President Jimmy Carter, the DOE now handles everything …

Nuclear Power

NEWS

India’s NTPC plans to spend $62 billion on 30GW of nuclear power, sources say – CNBC

CNBC

Indian state power company NTPC is looking to build 30 gigawatts (GW) of nuclear power capacity over the next two decades, three sources said.

Core Power plans mass production of floating nuclear power plants – World Nuclear News

World Nuclear News

Core Power of the UK has announced that it will develop a “US-anchored” maritime civil nuclear programme that will “bring floating nuclear power …

Safety, nuclear waste, water use: Here’s what you need to know about Utah’s nuclear push

The Salt Lake Tribune

Specifically, officials want to make it easier to build advanced nuclear reactors that are far smaller than traditional nuclear power plants.

Nuclear Power Emergencies

NEWS

SNRIU: “After the drone strike, the issue of unstable structures at ChNPP becomes critical”

УНН

УНН Society ✎ A Russian drone damaged the protective “Arch” at the Chornobyl nuclear power plant, creating a hole and causing a fire.

Elimination of the consequences of the Russian attack continues at the Chornobyl NPP

УНН

УНН Society ✎ Rescuers of the State Emergency Service are partially opening the structures of the shelter at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant …

Ukraine-Russia war latest: Starmer joins emergency Europe summit amid Zelensky’s fury at …

The Independent

Zelensky says Ukraine will not take part in US-Russia talks this week in Saudi Arabia.

Nuclear War Threats

NEWS

Iran says Israel, US ‘cannot do a damn thing’ against Tehran | Reuters

Reuters

Iran said that U.S. and Israeli threats against it were a blatant violation of international law … nuclear ambitions and its influence in the Middle …

‘You Can’t Do A Damn Thing’: Iran Roars At Trump, Netanyahu Over Threats Against Nuclear Sites

YouTube

Iran condemns Israeli PM Netanyahu’s threat to attack Tehran with U.S. support. The Iranian Foreign Ministry says the comments violate …

Putin threatens West with ‘lightning-speed’ retaliation if it intervenes in Ukraine

The National Desk

WASHINGTON (TND) — Russia’s government has threatened nuclear war for the third time this week. This threat came from Russian President Vladimir …

Nuclear War

NEWS

The reality of a nuclear EMP attack: Why the US needs to be prepared – Fox News

Fox News

Trump has ordered the construction of an advanced missile defense shield similar to Israel’s Iron Dome. Sarah Rumpf-Whitten …

Trump administration tries to bring back fired nuclear weapons workers in DOGE reversal

AP News

… nuclear weapons programs … Mideast Wars Russia-Ukraine War Español China Asia Pacific Latin America Europe Africa.

‘You Can’t Do A Damn Thing’: Iran Roars At Trump, Netanyahu Over Threats Against Nuclear Sites

YouTube

Iran condemns Israeli PM Netanyahu’s threat to attack Tehran with U.S. support. The Iranian Foreign Ministry says the comments violate …

Yellowstone Caldera

NEWS

Observing non-earthquake signals on the Yellowstone Seismic Network – USGS.gov

USGS.gov

The volcano is located about 9,742 km (6,053 miles) from Yellowstone National Park, but the signals from that violent eruption are clearly seen on …

Yellowstone: The World’s First National Park – VOA Learning English

VOA Learning English

It sits on top of an ancient super volcano, known as the Yellowstone Caldera. The caldera remains an active volcano. A lake of hot liquid rock is …

8 Stunning Small Towns In Montana – WorldAtlas

World Atlas

These mountains encircle the northern edge of the Yellowstone Caldera, which you can readily reach from Red Lodge. Additionally, you can get great …

“End Nuclear Insanity Before Nuclear Insanity Ends Humanity” ~llaw

Lloyd A. Williams-Pendergraft

Feb 16, 2025

1

Share

In order to keep abreast of the weekend nuclear news, I will post Saturday and Sunday’s news, but without editorial comment. If a weekend story warrants a critical review, it will show up on Monday’s posts . . .

If you are not familiar with the weekday daily blog post, this is how the nuclear news post works . . . llaw

ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’S ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA”:

There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:

1. All Things Nuclear
2. Nuclear Power
3. Nuclear Power Emergencies
4. Nuclear War
5. Nuclear War Threats
6. Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are no Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available on this weekend’s Post.)
7. 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.

TODAY’S NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS, Sunday, (02/16/2025)

All Things Nuclear

NEWS

Government Fires Specialists Without Realizing They Were in Charge of Nuclear Bombs …

Yahoo News

“It’s really going to be a long process just because of the magnitude of the incident and then being able to document everything that we need to make …

Government Fires Specialists Without Realizing They Were in Charge of Nuclear Bombs … – Yahoo

Yahoo

Paging Dr. Strangelove We’ve all made mistakes before. Maybe we did something in the heat of the moment, or said something we couldn’t take back.

US energy department says less than 50 purged from nuclear security office | U.S. & World

Colorado Springs Gazette

… nuclear weapons arsenal, the Department of Energy said on Sunday … things had suddenly changed. “STOP ALL ACTIONS WITH TERMINATIONS,” said …

Nuclear Power

NEWS

Nuclear power is back on the table in California; the reason? AI – YouTube

YouTube

Will artificial intelligence (AI) lead to a resurgence of nuclear power plants in California? A bipartisan proposal is sparking debate over …

‘It was a huge mistake’ to shut down German nuclear power plants, says Bundestag member

YouTube

‘It was a huge mistake’ to shut down German nuclear power plants, says Bundestag member. No views · 2 minutes ago …more …

Gov. Lee pushes toward nuclear energy with funding for potential small modular reactor – WATE

WATE

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — Tennessee looks to go nuclear, working toward plans to build the country’s first small, modular nuclear reactor (SMR) in …

Nuclear Power Emergencies

NEWS

Ukraine’s emergency services handle aftermath of drone strike at Chernobyl – YouTube

YouTube

Ukrainian emergency services confirm that a drone strike at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, which Kyiv blamed on Moscow, caused an explosion, …

Ukraine’s State Emergency Service reports on situation at Chornobyl nuclear plant since … – MSN

MSN

… ©Dealing with the aftermath of the Russian UAV attack on the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant. Photo: State Emergency Service of Ukraine …

IAEA reports on Chornobyl NPP situation after Russian drone strike

The New Voice of Ukraine

Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) examined the damaged shelter at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) on Feb. 15 …

Nuclear War Threats

NEWS

Opinion | The Disrupter in Chief Can’t End a War Like This – The New York Times

The New York Times

The hovering threat of Russia’s nuclear arsenal is one explanation for the Trump administration’s shocking weakness in its dealings with Russia.

Moving From a Doomsday Clock to a Peace Clock – Fair Observer

Fair Observer

In abdicating its responsibility to warn us of the gravity of these dangers, the BAS risks turning Einstein and Oppenheimer’s call for sanity into yet …

NATO Secretary General says Putin’s nuclear threats should be ignored – MSN

MSN

NATO countries should not be afraid of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threats. The Kremlin is using them only as an attempt to weaken …

Nuclear War

NEWS

Moving From a Doomsday Clock to a Peace Clock – Fair Observer

Fair Observer

Despite serious threats, including potential nuclear war, escalating international conflicts and worsening climate change…

On summit sidelines, NATO commander warns ‘one day we will have to find ways to control AI’

YouTube

… War Games,” you remember? Where the war is triggered by computer. You have all the “Terminator” series, where the computers set up a war, a nuclear …

Ukraine war latest: Macron convening emergency meeting as US and Russian officials head …

Sky News

French President Emmanuel Macron is convening emergency talks on the war in Ukraine with European leaders and NATO, as US officials head to Saudi …

“End Nuclear Insanity Before Nuclear Insanity Ends Humanity” ~llaw

Lloyd A. Williams-Pendergraft

Feb 15, 2025

1

Share

n order to keep abreast of the weekend nuclear news, I will post Saturday and Sunday’s news, but without editorial comment. If a weekend story warrants a critical review, it will show up on Monday’s posts . . .

If you are not familiar with the weekday daily blog post, this is how the nuclear news post works . . . llaw

ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’S ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA”:

There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:

1. All Things Nuclear
2. Nuclear Power
3. Nuclear Power Emergencies
4. Nuclear War
5. Nuclear War Threats
6. Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story available on this weekend’s Post.)
7. 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.

TODAY’S NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS, Saturday,(02/15/2025)

All Things Nuclear

NEWS

Trump firings cause chaos at agency responsible for America’s nuclear weapons

90.5 WESA

… nuclear weapons. Officials were given hours to fire hundreds of employees … All Things Considered. Next Up: 6:30 PM Marketplace. 0:00. 0:00. All …

Trump firings cause chaos at agency responsible for America’s nuclear weapons

Public Radio Tulsa

… nuclear weapons. Officials were given hours to fire hundreds of employees … All Things Considered. Next Up: 7:00 PM Marketplace. 0:00. 0:00. All …

Trump firings cause chaos at agency responsible for America’s nuclear weapons – KRVS

KRVS

… nuclear weapons. Officials were given hours to fire hundreds of employees … All Things Considered. Next Up: 6:00 PM Fresh Air. 0:00. 0:00. All Things …

Nuclear Power

NEWS

Drone attack on Chernobyl nuclear plant casts a shadow over peace prospects in Ukraine

ABC News

A drone armed with an explosive warhead pierced the containment shell over Chernobyl’s melted-down nuclear reactor early on Friday morning, …

Chernobyl was hit by a drone. What are the dangers? | PBS News

PBS

… reactor №4 of Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant. Photo by Andriy Zhyhaylo/ Oboz.ua/ Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images. Experts have said the drone .

Dismissed nuclear bomb specialists recalled by Energy Department – Fortune

Fortune

The Energy Department is seeking to bring back nuclear energy specialists after abruptly telling hundreds of workers that their jobs were …

Nuclear Power Emergencies

NEWS

Drone pierces outer shell of Ukraine’s Chernobyl nuclear plant – AP News

AP News

Video footage shared by the State Emergency Service of Ukraine shows the moment of the impact and the damage to the confinement. Read More. A view of …

Emergency services rush to Ukraine’s Chernobyl nuclear power plant after Russian drone attack

YouTube

Emergency services rush to Ukraine’s Chernobyl nuclear power plant after Russian drone attack. 50 views · 6 hours ago #TheManilaTimes #WorldNews …

Russian Drone Hits Chernobyl Nuclear Radiation Shield, Ukraine Says

The New York Times

Emergency workers gathered in front of a structure at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant that Ukrainian authorities said was hit by a Russian strike.

Nuclear War Threats

NEWS

North Korea says U.S. should abandon military threats, KCNA says | Reuters

Reuters

… threats if it has concerns about its mainland safety, state media KCNA … war exercises with South Korea and sending a nuclear submarine to the Korean …

Netanyahu Plans to Attack Iran and Is Plotting to Lure Trump Into the War – Israel News

Haaretz

An Israeli nuclear attack in Syria? What’s behind the baseless … After Trump’s Bombastic Gaza Threat, Three Scenarios for the War and Hostages.

Kansas Republicans condemn violent threats. Apparently not if they make them, though.

News From The States

Kansas Republicans condemn violent threats. Apparently not if they make them, though. Description. Rep. Patrick Penn, a Wichita Republican, joked with …

Nuclear War

NEWS

Ukraine-Russia war latest: Chernobyl strike sparks nuclear contamination fears as Zelensky …

The Independent

A suspected Russian drone strike on Chernobyl has sparked fears of a radioactive leak but the situation is under control, the chief engineer at …

Ukraine war latest: ‘Risk of radioactive leak’ after Russian strike on Chernobyl – Sky News

Sky News

Alexander Titarchuk said the strike had severely damaged the nuclear power plant’s confinement structure, rendering it non functional. Chernobyl was …

Maryland needs to make its voice heard with other states warning against nuclear war

Maryland Matters

Experts warn that, if nuclear war occurs, it will likely be unintended, the result of dangerous policies compounded by misdeeds, miscommunication, and …

Yellowstone Caldera

NEWS

Pollen record provides window into Yellowstone’s vegetation past – Billings Gazette

Billings Gazette

Yellowstone Caldera Chronicles is a weekly column written by scientists and collaborators of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory. This week’s …

“End Nuclear Insanity Before Nuclear Insanity Ends Humanity” ~llaw

Lloyd A. Williams-Pendergraft

Feb 14, 2025

1

1

Share

(See “Axios” article for description of Chernobyl drone attack and photo credits. ~llaw)

LAW’s NUCLEAR WORLD NEWS TODAY with the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES of TOMORROW

Why would any country’s military or even a terrorist organization attack the cover shelter of the long ago shutdown and current ongoing clean-up of the April 1986 nuclear reactor caused by Russian engineering design error?

I can think of only one reason, and I’m at a loss as to who or what would do this other than to attempt to cause a potentially lethal radiation leak. The IAEA seriously needs to investigate this incident and track down the the responsible party(s) and ensure that such an attack should never be allowed to happen again.

But ultimately, there is only one way to guarantee that nuclear power plants are safe and that is to ban them (old, new, and perceived) from ever operating anywhere in this violent and angry world of humanity. Unfortunately, that will never happen.

Once again, this kind of “all things nuclear” activity — as I have constantly ranted about over the years — is why nuclear power plants and their reactors must be forever banned from our world(s)’ overblown functions and needs right along with nuclear bombs because not only are they life-threatening on their own (along with their poisonous waste), but they are fast becoming an integral part of potential nuclear war and terrorism. ~llaw

Read the “Axios” article below for more details . . .

8 hours ago –World

Russia denies its drone targeted Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine

• Ivana SaricThe damage on the protective shelter of the destroyed fourth power unit at the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant on Feb. 14. Photo: Volodymyr Zelenskyy/Social media/Handout/Anadolu via Getty Images

The Kremlin on Friday denied an accusation from Ukraine that a Russian drone had struck the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.

Why it matters: Ukraine and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said radiation levels remained stable despite the explosion at the plant.

Driving the news: The IAEA said Friday that an explosion was heard at the plant overnight at the containment structure over the plant’s reactor 4 — the site of the 1986 disaster — causing a fire.

• While the IAEA didn’t attribute blame for the strike, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said the strike was caused by a Russian drone that caused “significant” damage.
• “The only country in the world that attacks such sites, occupies nuclear power plants, and wages war without any regard for the consequences is today’s Russia. This is a terrorist threat to the entire world,” he wrote.
• Both Zelensky and the IAEA said radiation levels in the area remain normal.

The other side: Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied the accusations that it was behind the attack, telling reporters Friday it was a “fabrication,” Russian state news agency TASS reported.

• “The Russian military does not do this,” he added.

The big picture: Throughout the war, which is set to enter its fourth year later this month, Ukraine has accused Russia of risking a nuclear incident.

• Russian forces briefly occupied the Chernobyl plant at the start of the war and fighting around the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station triggered warnings of possible nuclear disaster.

Go deeper: Putin ramps up nuclear threats over Ukraine strikes

---

Thanks for reading All Things Nuclear! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Subscribed

ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO LLAW’s ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA

(Please note that the Sunday and Saturday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS are also added below by category, following Monday’s news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)

There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:

1. All Things Nuclear
2. Nuclear Power
3. Nuclear Power Emergencies
4. Nuclear War Threats
5. Nuclear War
6. Yellowstone Caldera & Other Volcanoes (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story available in today’s Post.)
7. 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.

TODAY’s NUCLEAR WORLD’s NEWS, Thursday, (02/13/2025)

All Things Nuclear

NEWS

Donald Trump Makes Major Nuclear Weapons Announcement – Newsweek

Newsweek

He said that once “things settle down,” he plans to meet with China and Russia to discuss how all three countries can reduce their military spending, …

House passes measure to bolster nuclear, retain coal for AI data centers on utility customer dime

WVPE

… nuclear plants and keeping coal plants online … All Things Considered. Next Up: 6:30 PM Marketplace. 0:00. 0:00. All Things …

As coal plants close, Colorado towns consider nuclear waste storage – KSMU Radio

KSMU Radio

All Things Considered. Next Up: 7:00 PM Classical 24. 0:00. 0:00. All … “There’s a lot of great things about nuclear power,” he says. ” I mean .

Nuclear Power

NEWS

Drone strikes Chornobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine, Russia says not to blame – Al Jazeera

Al Jazeera

A Russian drone with a high-explosive warhead has hit the Chornobyl nuclear power plant in the Kyiv region, Ukraine said, amid warnings by the …

Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant drone strike – Wikipedia – Wikipedia

Chernobyl nuclear plant hit by explosion, IAEA says – DW

DW

The energy agency said no casualties were reported after an overnight blast at the former Chernobyl nuclear plant. It also said radiation levels …

Trump Administration, Federal Circuit Set to Jumpstart Investments in Nuclear Energy

Arnold & Porter

Microsoft, for instance, announced last fall that it is financing the reopening of Three Mile Island, the mothballed nuclear power plant near …

Nuclear Power Emergencies

NEWS

A drone damaged the outer shell of Ukraine’s Chernobyl nuclear plant. Radiation levels are normal

NEWS10 ABC

… Emergency Service, the damaged protective shell over the fourth reactor of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant is seen from inside following a drone …

A drone damages outer shell of Ukraine’s Chernobyl nuclear plant – Los Angeles Times

Los Angeles Times

A searchlight illuminates a protective shell over a reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. … The Ukrainian Emergency Service provided a …

Three Mile Island emergency plans posted for public, regulatory review – York Dispatch

York Dispatch

Three Mile Island, central Pennsylvania’s stories nuclear power plant, could be back online by 2028 if all goes to plan for the company planning …

Nuclear War Threats

NEWS

Ukraine says Russia drone attack hits Chernobyl nuclear plant, radiation levels normal

CNN

… attack, and the “threats” to nuclear safety he said Russia poses.

A drone strike at Chernobyl has raised Ukraine’s nuclear ghosts. What are the dangers?

AP News

… risks to nuclear safety during the ongoing war. “There is no room for … threats. Still, a slew of attacks earlier this week prompted the …

Russia denies its drone targeted Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine – Axios

Axios

… war without any regard for the consequences is today’s Russia. This is a terrorist threat to the entire world,” he wrote. Both Zelensky and the …

Nuclear War

NEWS

Statement by the EASLG: Three Essential Steps for Reversing the Slide to Nuclear War

The Nuclear Threat Initiative

… nuclear war. They should continuously and publicly be reaffirmed by leaders in both nuclear and non-nuclear armed states and constantly reinforced …

Trump proposes nuclear deal with Russia and China to halve defense budgets

The Guardian

‘We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things,’ the US president said.

Ukraine says Russia drone attack hits Chernobyl nuclear plant, radiation levels normal

CNN

A Russian drone struck the former nuclear power plant at Chernobyl in an attack overnight into Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has …

Yellowstone Caldera

NEWS

USGS Keeps Volcano Alert Levels Elevated on 4 U.S. Volcanoes – Weatherboy

Weatherboy

The caldera wall behind the vents is 590 feet tall … Yellowstone Volcano Observatory, and the Northern Mariana Islands Volcano Observatory.

IAEA Weekly News

14 February 2025

Read the top news and updates published on IAEA.org this week.

14 February 2025

Update 275 – IAEA Director General Statement on Situation in Ukraine

A drone attack early this morning caused a fire on the building confining the remains of the reactor destroyed in the 1986 Chornobyl accident, a deeply concerning incident that underlines the persistent risks to nuclear safety during the military conflict, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said. Read more →

14 February 2025

IAEA Mission Recognizes Thailand’s Commitment to Improve Nuclear and Radiation Safety

An IAEA team of experts said Thailand is committed to strengthening its national regulatory framework for safety. The team also identified some areas for further enhancements. Read more →

13 February 2025

IAEA Director General Meets Pakistan’s Prime Minister to Strengthen Collaboration on Energy, Health and Food

IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi met Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in Islamabad on Wednesday, as part of his two-day visit to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Read more →

12 February 2025

Groundwater: How Scientists Study its Pollution and Sustainability

Groundwater accounts for around 30 per cent of the world’s freshwater, making it an important resource for addressing current global issues, such as world population growth, agricultural intensification and increased water use in different sectors. Read more →

11 February 2025

Call for Papers: International Conference on Emergency Preparedness and Response

Interested contributors have until 1 May 2025 to submit abstracts for the IAEA’s International Conference on Emergency Preparedness and Response. Read more →

“End Nuclear Insanity Before Nuclear Insanity Ends Humanity” ~llaw

Lloyd A. Williams-Pendergraft

Feb 13, 2025

1

Share

(See the “Brookings” article for description and photo credits ~ llaw)

LLAW’s NUCLEAR WORLD NEWS TODAY with the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES of TOMORROW

The following testimonial and hearing (edited for the media) from the Brookings Institute before the House Armed Services Committee on February 12, 2025 once again demonstrates the great concern about avoiding nuclear war that attempts to do all it can possibly do.

In my estimation, for many reasons — some of them expressed in semi-consecutive previous “LLAWs All Things Nuclear” Posts since Trump’s inauguration — this is not enough, but what else can be done short of all nuclear armed countries laying down their weapons of nuclear war? Of course that is not going to happen.

Therefore, the most important issue of all is to somehow control Donald J. Trump, now the 47th president of the United States, so that straightforward and sound global courtesies and decisions are made during this moment-to-moment day-to-day threat of a nuclear war crisis. How that can be done, I have no idea; but controlling Trump must be the USA’s primary defensive position of all in order to avoid more serious threats of nuclear war and even the possibility of such a war which can never be won. ~llaw

Handout photo dated May 2, 2024 shows Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (Launch/Recovery) Airman Tyler Cardamone, from Peak, Delaware, assigned to air department’s V-2 division, gives a thumbs up as an F/A-18F Super Hornet from Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 103 takes off from the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73) in the Atlantic Ocean. (ABACA via Reuters Connect)

• 18 min read

Editor’s note:

The following testimony was submitted to the House Armed Services Committee on February 12, 2025, for the “Protecting American Interests in a Convergent Global Threat Environment” hearing. It has been lightly edited for publication.

Today’s threats are complex and interconnected.¹ Only through serious, thoughtful, and regular assessment can the United States effectively understand and influence this security environment. The plasticity of this period, wherein major regions and conflicts are being fundamentally reshaped, contains challenges and opportunities for U.S. national security interests.

Understanding global threats

For most of the second half of the twentieth century, American strategic planners largely faced a Cold War in which superpower conflict was kept on ice by nuclear deterrence, turning hot in proxy fights that were costly but containable. The collapse of the Soviet Union brought that era to an end. In Washington during the 1990s, war became a matter of assembling coalitions to intervene in discrete conflicts when bad actors invaded their neighbors, stoked civil or ethnic violence, or massacred civilians. After the shock of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, U.S. strategy shifted to terrorist organizations, insurgents, and other nonstate groups. The resulting “war on terror” pushed thinking about state-on-state conflict to the sidelines. For most of this century, the prospect of a major war among states was a lower priority for American military thinkers and planners, and whenever it took center stage, the context was usually a potential conflict with China that would materialize only in the far-off future, if ever.

Now, the relatively narrow scope that defined war during the post-9/11 era has dramatically widened. An era of limited war has ended; an age of comprehensive conflict has begun. What the world is witnessing today is akin to what theorists in the past called “total war,” in which combatants draw on vast arrays of resources, mobilize their societies, attack a broad variety of targets, and reshape their economies to prioritize warfare over all other state activities.

The character of war is changing in three fundamental ways:

1. The continuum of conflict has collapsed

In an earlier era, one might have seen the terrorism and insurgency of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis as inhabiting the low end of a spectrum of conflict intensity; the armies waging conventional warfare in Ukraine as residing in the middle; and the nuclear threats shaping Russia’s war and China’s growing arsenal as sitting at the high end. Today, however, there is no sense of mutual exclusivity between these domains; the continuum of conflict has collapsed. To put it in cinematic terms, when it comes to war, we see “everything, everywhere, all at once.” In Ukraine, “robot dogs” patrol the ground and autonomous drones launch missiles from the sky amid trench warfare that looks like World War I—all under the specter of nuclear weapons. In the Middle East, combatants combined sophisticated air and missile defense systems with individual shooting attacks by armed men riding motorcycles. In the Indo-Pacific, Chinese and Philippine forces face off over a single dilapidated ship while the skies and seas surrounding Taiwan get squeezed by threatening maneuvers from China’s air force and navy.

The prominence of sea-based struggles, in particular, marks a major departure from the post-9/11 era, when conflict was largely fought on land. Back then, most maritime attacks were sea-to-ground, and most air attacks were air-to-ground. Today, the maritime domain has become a major site of direct conflict. Ukraine has taken out more than 20 Russian ships in the Black Sea, and control of that critical waterway remains contested. Meanwhile, Houthi attacks largely closed the Red Sea to commercial shipping.

The multidimensional character of conflict also underscores the risk of being tempted by today’s weapon of choice, which might turn out to be a flash in the pan. Compared with the post-9/11 era, more countries now have greater access to cheaper materials and more research and development (R&D) capacity, allowing them to respond more quickly and adeptly to new weapons and technologies by developing countermeasures. This exacerbates a familiar dynamic that the military scholar J. F. C. Fuller described as “the constant tactical factor”—the reality that “every improvement in weapons has eventually been met by a counter-improvement which has rendered the improvement obsolete.”

2. The demography of war has expanded

The cast of characters shaping war has become increasingly diverse. The post-9/11 wars were defined by the outsize impact of terrorist groups, proxies, and militias. As those conflicts ground on, many policymakers wished they could go back to the traditional focus on state militaries—particularly given the enormous investments some states were making in their defenses. They should have been careful what they wished for: state militaries are back, but nonstate groups hardly left the stage. The current security environment offers the misfortune of dealing with both.

In the Middle East, multiple state militaries are increasingly fighting or enmeshed with surprisingly influential nonstate actors. The Houthis are responsible for the most intense set of sea engagements the U.S. Navy has faced since World War II and their attacks have negatively impacted the global economy. With help from Iran, the Houthis are also punching above their weight in the air by manufacturing and deploying their own drones. Meanwhile, in Ukraine, Kyiv’s regular forces are fighting alongside cadres of international volunteers in numbers likely not seen since the Spanish Civil War. And to augment Russia’s traditional forces, the Kremlin has incorporated mercenaries from the Wagner paramilitary company and sent tens of thousands of convicts to war—a practice Ukraine’s military copied.

In this environment, the task of building partner forces becomes even more complex than during the post-9/11 wars. U.S. programs to build the Afghan and Iraqi militaries focused on countering terrorist and insurgent threats with the aim of enabling friendly regimes to exert sovereignty over their territories. To help build up Ukraine’s forces for their fight against another state military, however, the United States and its allies have had to relearn how to teach. The U.S. Department of Defense built a new kind of coalition, convening more than 50 countries from across the world to coordinate materiel donations to Ukraine through the Ukraine Defense Contact Group—the most complex and most rapid effort ever undertaken to stand up a single country’s military.

Although the United States had been building militaries in fragile states since World War II, its record was lackluster. That is no longer the case. The Pentagon’s new system has demonstrated that it can move so quickly that materiel support for Ukraine has at times been delivered within days. The system has surged in ways that many thought impossible. In particular, the technical aspect of equipping militaries has improved. For example, the U.S. Army’s use of artificial intelligence has made it much easier for Ukraine’s military to be able to see and understand the battlefield, make decisions, and act accordingly. Lessons from the rapid delivery of assistance to Ukraine have also been applied to the Israel-Hamas war; within days of the attacks on October 7, 2023, U.S.-supplied air defense capabilities and munitions were in Israel to protect its skies and help it respond. Overall, the technical aspects of providing support to foreign militaries have been streamlined so that the system now consistently works in ways it did not before—particularly in terms of speed.

But even though Washington has demonstrated that it can build a foreign military with alacrity, the question will always remain as to whether it should. The cost of transferring valuable equipment to a partner involves considerations of the U.S. military’s own readiness levels and combat credibility. Moreover, such assistance is not merely a technical effort but a political exercise as well, and the system has occasionally slowed down as it wrestles with dilemmas regarding the full implications of U.S. security aid. For example, to avoid tripping Russia’s red lines, Washington has spent enormous time debating where, when, and under what circumstances Ukraine should use U.S. military assistance. This puzzle is not new, but given the destructive abilities of the rivals that Washington is now facing or preparing to confront, the stakes of solving it correctly are much higher than during the post-9/11 era.

The role of defense industrial bases in rival countries has also shaped the new contours of war-making. In the dozens of countries supporting Ukraine, domestic defense industries have not been able to keep up with the demand. Meanwhile, Russia’s defense industrial base has been revived after speculations about its demise proved to be greatly exaggerated. Although China’s support to Russia appears to exclude lethal assistance, it has nevertheless involved Beijing providing Moscow with critical technologies, representing a stronger partnership. And both Iran and North Korea support their defense industries by selling munitions and other wares to Moscow. The United States is not the only power to recognize the value (both on the battlefield and back home) of supplying partner forces and building up their capacities; its adversaries have, as well.

3. The return of deterrence

During the two decades of the post-9/11 era, the concept of deterrence was rarely invoked in Washington since the idea seemed largely irrelevant to conflicts against nihilistic nonstate actors such as al-Qaida and ISIS. What a difference a few years make: Today, almost every debate about U.S. foreign policy and national security boils down to the challenge of deterrence. This change in conversation is because the global threat environment has evolved such that states like China now pose the biggest threat to U.S. national security interests.

In this new environment, traditional approaches to deterrence are regaining relevance. One is deterrence by denial—the act of making it difficult for an enemy to achieve its intended objective. Denial can quell escalation even if it fails to prevent an initial act of aggression. In the Middle East, Israel was unable to stop Iran’s major conventional attacks on Israeli territory, but it largely denied Iran the benefits it hoped to gain. Israel’s military repulsed almost all of the Iranian missiles and drones thanks to its sophisticated air and missile defense systems and the collaboration of the United States and countries across the Middle East and Europe. (Shoddy Iranian equipment also played a role.) The limited repercussions of the attack enabled Israel to wait to respond and to do so in more limited ways than would have been likely had Iran’s operations been more successful. But the wins were costly: the United States and Israel may have spent 10 times more in responding to Iran’s April 2024 attack than Iran did in launching it.

Another traditional means of deterrence that resurfaced is punishment, which requires credibly threatening an adversary with severe consequences if it takes certain actions. At a few key junctures, Vladimir Putin’s saber-rattling brought the risk of nuclear weapons use to its highest point since the Cold War. During one fraught period in October 2022, experts worried there was a 50% chance that Putin would employ his nuclear arsenal. In calls with Russian counterparts, senior American leaders made stern and timely warnings of “catastrophic” consequences if Moscow made good on its threats. Those warnings worked, as did a broader effort to persuade key Indo-Pacific and European countries, most notably China and India, to publicly and prospectively condemn any role for nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Tugging Putin down the escalation ladder required a baseline understanding of how he viewed threats, serious attention to the signals and noise being sent across the entire U.S. government, and active feedback loops to ensure those assessments were accurate—all paired with robust diplomatic engagements.

A third approach to deterrence is through resilience, which the 2022 U.S. National Defense Strategy (NDS) described as “the ability to withstand, fight through, and recover quickly from disruption.” Resilience is the ration­ale behind the historic and ongoing dispersal of U.S. military bases in the Indo-Pacific, which will allow American forces to absorb an attack and continue fighting. The presence of increasingly capable dispersed U.S. military assets (alongside those of allied and partner militaries) complicates Chinese planning by creating potential pathways to preclude Chinese efforts to overturn the status quo, increases the complexity of those contingencies, and induces uncertainty about which may be the most relevant. It’s true that it will be difficult to know whether any particular U.S. ally or partner will prove willing to use or allow the use of military assets from its territory in a conflict. But that uncertainty is a feature, not a bug, of this approach. Simply put, although the United States may not have full clarity about what role specific allies and partners will play should a conflict erupt, neither does China.

Tackling global threats

To best protect U.S. national security interests amid the most turbulent global security environment in decades, the United States should focus on:

Prioritizing China but not ignoring other threats

No other country has the will, and increasingly the capability, to fundamentally reshape the global security order—a global security order that has benefited U.S. national security interests for 80 years. The tricky strategic question isn’t whether the United States should prioritize the threat posed by China—the answer to that is undoubtedly yes—but instead, how and in what ways to best address other major threats, including Russia, North Korea, Iran, and terrorism. Increasingly, this presents less of a binary choice than previously given the increasing cooperation between and among adversaries. That offers opportunities—such as both Russia and Iran losing strategic ground with the fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad—but also challenges, as demonstrated by Iranian and North Korean military support to Russia. And of course, there is a ceiling and limits to these relationships among U.S. adversaries. The United States has finite resources, including time, attention, and capabilities, and must take that into account when juggling security challenges; but ignoring threats is shortsighted and nonstrategic. Put simply, the United States cannot do it all nor is it some middling power that can only focus on one issue.

The United States should smartly apply its resources to those other threats in a sustainable manner. For example, 2024 was the most dynamic year for the Middle East since 1979, which thrust Iran into its most vulnerable position in nearly 50 years. This weakness provides a crucial opportunity to establish criteria for serious negotiations on its nuclear program. Outside of the Middle East, the terrorist threat has metastasized, particularly across the Horn of Africa and broader West Africa. Tackling it requires continuing to work with partner militaries and civilian institutions. And in Europe, where Russia’s military has suffered 700,000 casualties without any American servicemembers engaged in direct fighting, support to Ukraine’s institutions has had a massive impact on a rogue actor seeking to upend the security environment. In these examples, and in many more, the United States should work with other countries and use all its tools of statecraft to press advantages so that it can focus on China.

Strengthening America’s military and other tools of statecraft

The United States must be able to deter threats and, if that fails, to prevail in war. That requires a lethal, resilient, sustainable, and agile military; one that can effectively balance between responding to today’s threats while maintaining the capability to counter tomorrow’s threats. It must take a strategy-driven and resource-informed approach when doing so.

Today, the defense budget is both at the highest level in U.S. history and a historically low level as a percentage of GDP (approximately 3%, which is around the same as the mid-1990s). However, it is more important to focus on what should and should not be funded rather than a single top-line number. Overall, the military must continue modernizing and more quickly integrating and fielding capabilities, particularly by incentivizing innovation to increase in pace and scale. Investments should include nuclear modernization (particularly given the unprecedented nuclear threat environment); undersea platforms; uncrewed systems across domains; resilient space architecture; cyber; artificial intelligence; munitions (a traditionally orphan issue where congressional leadership has been particularly crucial); the submarine industrial base; and R&D. Creating a focused “deterrence fund” to support operations, posture, readiness, and security cooperation in the Indo-Pacific, for example, would make it easier to target resources related to the pacing challenge of China. Big bet investments strengthen the U.S. defense industrial base, invest in the American workforce, and ensure American technological competitive edge in critical areas to hopefully deter conflict and prevail in war if it erupts.

Even with more funding, the military requires cuts to maintain its strategic focus and evolve in line with the security environment. Those include relooking excess infrastructure—particularly since it has been almost two decades since the last serious effort to close bases—older ships and aircraft (including A-10s and littoral combat ships), and compensation costs, including personnel and benefits. And as this committee knows well, the Department of Defense (DOD) has gone nearly a decade and a half without on-time appropriations. Continuing resolutions make it very difficult to realize strategy; they are an “own goal” that weakens the U.S. military.

Beyond resources and platforms, there are two key areas of DOD to reexamine. First, talent management. It is often said that the people who serve are our military’s greatest asset. That is indeed true; at its core, our military prowess is an extension of its servicemembers’ capabilities. As the security environment grows more complex, having a force whose members have varied backgrounds and experiences is a strategic and warfighting advantage vis-à-vis adversaries like China and Russia. Second, organizational structures in DOD are unwieldy. Relooking the increasingly sprawling structures, including consolidating combatant commands and military department components, can better align DOD’s objectives and resources.

This committee has a crucial role to play in ensuring DOD is tracking, assessing, and enabling the United States to navigate and thrive in this dynamic security environment. Indeed, the secretary of defense is required to give Congress an update this month assessing the National Defense Strategy. Having led the last NDS and contributed to many others, I recommend the committee ask hard questions about risk—including risk to strategy and risk to force—and seek mitigation; push for assessments on the wars in Europe and the Middle East; request an update on threats to deterrence in the Indo-Pacific; and seek details regarding the use of U.S. troops on the border, the impact on the military’s ability to prioritize China, and broader administration plans to empower the Department of Homeland Security to fulfill its statutory obligations rather than relying on the U.S. military to do so.

But relying solely on the U.S. military to address global threats is a recipe for disaster. The United States has historically had several tools in its statecraft toolkit, including diplomacy, development, and economic carrots and sticks. Dismissing, under-funding, or degrading U.S. soft power means the United States will rely on hard power. Ultimately, that approach is not only inefficient, but it will cost more—in American treasure and American lives. The military is often not the most appropriate tool or fit for purpose. Indeed, during the post-9/11 wars, the military was at times used in ways that did not play to its competitive advantages. Moreover, there is an opportunity cost inherent in using the military in nonstrategic ways; it is unable to focus and prioritize and can lose readiness. That means the military takes its eyes off the most serious threats and at a minimum, cedes the playing field to adversaries like China and Russia; at a maximum, it means the military does not have the capabilities or the readiness to address those threats.

Collaborating with allies and partners

America’s unparalleled network of allies and partners sets it apart from every other great power in history. When international challenges or opportunities arise, many countries turn to the United States to share their assessments and to collaboratively plan the way forward. Today, many U.S. allies and partners across Europe and the Indo-Pacific are turbocharging their defense budgets. Sustaining these investments will be critical given the multiple and varied threats ahead. U.S. diplomacy has brought countries within the Indo-Pacific together and created connections between regions. The former is illustrated by the historic U.S.-brokered progress between Japan and South Korea and by the Quad (composed of the United States, India, Australia, and Japan). The latter is represented by the creation of AUKUS (a major military partnership joining Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), and by the inclusion of four of America’s Indo-Pacific allies in the last three NATO summits. These tighter relationships are a net positive, and increasing the size, scope, and scale of collaboration is a crucial deterrent and an asset. More broadly, working by, with, and through allies and partners to tackle global threats—those of today and tomorrow—is ultimately more effective and less pricey.

In conclusion, for the United States to prevail in an era of comprehensive conflict requires a sense of urgency and vigilance and, above all, a wide aperture about how threats are evolving—and what we must do to effectively respond to them.

Author

Mara KarlinVisiting Fellow – Foreign Policy, Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology

---

Thanks for reading All Things Nuclear! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Subscribed

ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO LLAW’s ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA

(Please note that the Sunday and Saturday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS are also added below by category, following Monday’s news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)

There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:

1. All Things Nuclear
2. Nuclear Power
3. Nuclear Power Emergencies
4. Nuclear War Threats
5. Nuclear War
6. Yellowstone Caldera & Other Volcanoes (Note: There are two Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in today’s Post.)
7. 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.

TODAY’s NUCLEAR WORLD’s NEWS, Thursday, (02/13/2025)

All Things Nuclear

NEWS

As coal plants close, Colorado towns consider nuclear waste storage – NPR

NPR

All Things Considered · Fresh Air · Up First. Featured. The NPR Politics … “There’s a lot of great things about nuclear power,” he says. ” I mean …

Solutions Series: Nuclear – 350

350

Unlike burning fossil fuels, nuclear reactions do not produce carbon emissions. However, every other step in the process causes carbon emissions due …

Utah may soon be generating power with nuclear energy

Utah Public Radio

All Things Considered. Next Up: 6:30 PM Marketplace. 0:00. 0:00. All Things … “So this started out as a nuclear facility bill to study nuclear …

Nuclear Power

NEWS

As coal plants close, Colorado towns consider nuclear waste storage – NPR

NPR

That’s adding pressure to the decades-long effort to find a place to store the radioactive waste U.S. nuclear power plants produce. One place …

Our Energy Crisis Has a Nuclear Solution | The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation

Trump must modernize America’s regulatory approach by updating the current nuclear reactor permitting process, which is outdated, slow, expensive, and …

Investment in US nuclear power ready to expand: Guggenheim – S&P Global

S&P Global

Nuclear power in the US is on the cusp of significant capital investment as hyperscalers push deployment of more reactors and regional utility …

Nuclear Power Emergencies

NEWS

Quake-resistant home ratios near nuclear plants below average | The Asahi Shimbun

asahi.com

Under the guidelines, residents within 5 km of a nuclear plant must immediately evacuate beyond a 30-km radius in the event of a “general emergency,” …

Emergency proclamation signed for Hilo wastewater plant upgrades – MSN

MSN

Emergency proclamation signed for Hilo wastewater plant … India and France sign declaration for modular nuclear reactor partnership – Thomson Reu

Nuclear War Threats

NEWS

Russia pins nuclear threat on Ukraine after militarizing atomic power station – VOA

VOA

Russia pins nuclear threat on Ukraine after militarizing atomic power station … war crimes, further risk nuclear catastrophe in other parts of …

Protecting American interests in a convergent global threat environment

Brookings Institution

… warfare in Ukraine as residing in the middle; and the nuclear threats shaping Russia’s war and China’s growing arsenal as sitting at the high end.

NTI at the Munich Security Conference: Reducing Nuclear and Biological Risks Together

The Nuclear Threat Initiative

… Nuclear War.” More than 60 individuals from 21 countries … Sign up for our newsletter to get the latest on nuclear and biological threats

Nuclear War

NEWS

US Intelligence Warns Israel To Launch Strikes On Iran’s Nuclear Sites By Midyear

YouTube

US Intelligence warns Israel will launch preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites by midyear. Washington Post reported on Wednesday, …

Iran says it can build new nuclear facilities if enemies strike | Reuters

Reuters

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Thursday that Tehran’s enemies may be able to strike the country’s nuclear centres but they cannot …

NTI at the Munich Security Conference: Reducing Nuclear and Biological Risks Together

The Nuclear Threat Initiative

… nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” Since that time, the reality of, and potential for, wars involving nuclear-armed nations has …

Yellowstone Caldera & Other Volcanoes

NEWS

Hawaii volcano erupts: Kilauea spews lava 330 feet into the air as island on alert

The Mirror US

Earlier episodes have lasted 13 hours to eight days, with pauses in between. Activity detected beneath Yellowstone volcano – could it erupt again?

Kilauea Volcano (Hawai’i): 9th Eruption Ceased | VolcanoDiscovery

Volcano Discovery

… caldera from vents along the SW margin of Halema’uma’u … List and interactive map of current and past earthquakes near Yellowstone volcano.

“End Nuclear Insanity Before Nuclear Insanity Ends Humanity” ~llaw

Lloyd A. Williams-Pendergraft

Feb 12, 2025

Share

(See image description and photo credits in the “Al Jazeera” article below.)

LLAW’s NUCLEAR WORLD NEWS TODAY with the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES of TOMORROW

Trump just can’t leave well enough alone. In one breath he mentions cooperation and in the next he serves up threats — or whatever opposing thoughts are rattling around in his own mind. That means that he can never be trusted to do what he says he will do, or even what he might do. And it’s not just to Iran that he provokes these double standards.

His contradictory statements are everywhere, including issues in the country of his own so-called presidency. The truth is that he is a deranged pathological liar who doesn’t mentally understand facts from fiction so he is continuously contradicting himself, meaning that Trump is —to misquote Shakespeare’s view of life in “Macbeth”— “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” ~llaw

(Read the “Al Jazeera” article in today’s Post to see why Iran is so upset with Trump’s new U.S. presidency and what they intend to do about it . . .)

News|Donald Trump

‘Go forward’: Iran’s Khamenei urges military growth amid Trump threats

Trump has suggested using force to stop Iran’s nuclear programme, in statements condemned by Tehran at UN.

Published On 12 Feb 202512 Feb 2025

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has called for the country to further develop its military capabilities after United States President Donald Trump threatened to use force if Tehran does not negotiate on its nuclear programme.

Speaking on Wednesday after visiting an exhibition in the country’s capital showcasing the latest defence sector developments, Khamenei said “progress should not be stopped”.

“We cannot be satisfied,” Khamenei said. “Say that we previously set a limit for the accuracy of our missiles, but we now feel this limit is no longer enough. We have to go forward.”

“Today, our defensive power is well known, our enemies are afraid of this. This is very important for our country,” he said.

The statements come after Iran’s representative to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, condemned what he called Trump’s “reckless and inflammatory statements” and warned that “any act of aggression will have severe consequences”.

In a letter to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Iravani referred to Trump’s recent media interviews, in which the US leader suggested stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons could be achieved either “with bombs or with a written piece of paper”.

“I would much rather do a deal that’s not gonna hurt them,” Trump told Fox News on Monday, adding that “I’d love to make a deal with them without bombing them.”

Tensions have ratcheted since Trump took office in January and reinstated his “maximum pressure” policy against Iran over concerns the country was seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 items

With ‘maximum pressure’ back on the table, what will Iran do next?

list 1 of 4

Iran’s Pezeshkian accuses US of fake diplomacy

list 2 of 4

Iran ready to negotiate with US but not under ‘maximum pressure’ policy

list 3 of 4

Iran dismisses talks with US as it blasts new sanctions

list 4 of 4

end of list

---

(Thanks for reading All Things Nuclear! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Subscribed

ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO LLAW’s ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA

(Please note that the Sunday and Saturday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS are also added below by category, following Monday’s news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)

There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:

1. All Things Nuclear
2. Nuclear Power
3. Nuclear Power Emergencies
4. Nuclear War Threats
5. Nuclear War
6. Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There is one Yellowstone Caldera bonus story available in today’s Post.)
7. 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.

TODAY’s NUCLEAR WORLD’s NEWS, Wednesday, (02/12/2025)

All Things Nuclear

NEWS

Inside an underground facility where the U.S. tests nuclear weapons | WRVO Public Media

WRVO

Rachel Carlson (she/her) is a production assistant at Short Wave, NPR’s science podcast. She gets to do a bit of everything: researching, sourcing, …

Dutch nuclear new build timeline set to slip

World Nuclear News

“All things considered and with a view to the advice of the State Advocate, the cabinet concludes that it is unfortunately not possible to exclude …

This revolutionary tech could be the key to next-gen nuclear reactors: ‘[It] might … accelerate …

The Cool Down

If it were powered by nuclear energy, one person would die roughly every 33 years. … What’s the reward system all about? Once you send back your Take …

Nuclear Power

NEWS

Constellation Makes Big Investment in Calvert Cliffs to Power Customer Growth, Ensure …

Constellation Energy

Nearly $100 million investment for equipment and electrical system upgrades will prepare the nuclear facility for license renewal and increased …

Japan to increase nuclear power as new crisis overshadows Fukushima | RNZ News

RNZ

A 2011 earthquake and tsunami killed 20.000 and sparked the partial meltdown of a nuclear power plant.

‘An act of betrayal’: Japan to maximise nuclear power 14 years after Fukushima disaster

The Guardian

Tokyo wants to drop attempts to lessen its reliance on nuclear power, according to a draft energy plan.

Nuclear Power Emergencies

NEWS

Switzerland : Emergency shutdown of Beznau Reactor 2 after human error – energynews

energynews

Reactor 2 of the Beznau nuclear power plant in Switzerland was shut down in an emergency after an operational error, with no safety risks, …

PM Modi Seeks Small Nuclear Reactors Deals with US, France: Why SMRs Are Crucial

Down To Earth

… nuclear power reactors … Additionally, microreactors could be used as backup power sources in emergencies or replace diesel generators in remote …

Russia, Ukraine trade strikes on energy sites | The Daily Star

The Daily Star

… emergency power supply restrictions … A routine inspection at Europe’s oldest nuclear power plant Monday inadvertently triggered an emergency …

Nuclear War Threats

NEWS

Iran alerts UN to Trump threat of force, says it will defend itself | Reuters

Reuters

… nuclear weapon over bombing the country. “These reckless … Iran’s Khamenei cites need to further develop Iran’s military after Trump threats.

‘Go forward’: Iran’s Khamenei urges military growth amid Trump threats – Al Jazeera

Al Jazeera

IAEA chief Rafael Grossi on nuclear threats, global tensions, and the future of atomic security. … Iran warns any attack on its nuclear sites would …

EFIS 2025: Russia’s nuclear threat is a tool to influence the West – news | ERR

news | ERR

Russia primarily uses nuclear threats to deter Western countries from supporting Ukraine and plans to revive the Soviet “nuclear winter” campaign

Nuclear War

NEWS

Don’t Let American Allies Go Nuclear – Federation of American Scientists

Federation of American Scientists

More allies are asking now, just as they did during the Cold War if America would really risk Boston to protect Berlin, or Seattle to protect Seoul.

The fires of Hiroshima and Los Angeles: Apocalypse redux – Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Postol, T. A.: Possible Fatalities from Superfires Following Nuclear Attack. Medical Implications of Nuclear War, F. Solomon and R. Q. Marston (eds), …

Message To the US and Russia: Don’t Think About Nuclear War – IDN-InDepthNews

IDN-InDepthNews

Some of us believed that at the end of the Cold War in 1991 American and Soviet nuclear rockets would be left to rust and rot in their silos. Indeed, …

Yellowstone Caldera

NEWS

Santorini targeted by fake volcano eruption videos – Yahoo News UK

Yahoo News UK

Hawaii’s Kilauea volcano shoots lava 330 feet into the air. Fox Weather. KBZK· 9 days ago. Will the Yellowstone volcano erupt any time soon?

End Nuclear Insanity Before Nuclear Insanity Ends Humanity” ~llaw

Lloyd A. Williams-Pendergraft

Feb 11, 2025

1

Share

US President Donald Trump (2L) and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin wait ahead a meeting in Helsinki, on July 16, 2018. (Photo credit ALEXEY NIKOLSKY/AFP via Getty Images)

LLAW’s NUCLEAR WORLD NEWS TODAY with the RISKS and CONSEQUENCES of TOMORROW

This “Breaking Defense” article is another look at Trump and his “Iron Dome for America” (or more of the same) from yesterday’s Post as well as my personal opinion that it won’t work beyond the ridiculous “deterrence” hope of “eternal delay” by keeping up with the Jones’s, which cannot go on forever. And we have proven over and over again that pacts, agreements, etc., aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

The strictly defensive “Iron Dome for America” is far too late to avoid the possibility of avoiding nuclear war from Russia or any other country and too expensive — I have seen estimates of $3 trillion — as a “nuclear deterrence” defense effort and may even prompt our enemies to attack us sooner rather than later while we are still arguing back and forth whether to build the system, but it would take unavailable years to build anyway.

My question, then, is why are we even talking about this potential “white elephant” as some kind of immediate savior for America when in reality it may never be built and may prove to more likely work as an early invitation to nuclear armed countries to no longer delay an all-out nuclear war.

So, as I see it, there is no solution to the potential of a global nuclear war other than some kind of unknown and unlikely intervention or a change of heart by the very nature of collective humanity about our present depravity of ethnic borders, racial and religious hatred, social and financial inequality, and world peace instead of war — none of which which, in all probably, is likely to happen . ~llaw

Twin political paths President Trump can take to ensure nuclear deterrence

“The fundamental point, though, at least in the short term, would be for Trump to send a political message to Russia via allied consultations that American security is indivisible from NATO,” writes Kyle Balzer of AEI in this op-ed.

By Kyle Balzeron February 11, 2025 at 10:20 AM

US President Donald Trump (2L) and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin wait ahead a meeting in Helsinki, on July 16, 2018. (Photo credit ALEXEY NIKOLSKY/AFP via Getty Images)

President Donald Trump enters office at a possible inflection point in the ongoing nuclear competition with China and Russia. Though it is a moment of great peril for the US nuclear modernization program, it is also one of great opportunity — should Trump choose to seize it.

Both China and Russia have exploited America’s glacial effort to modernize its aging nuclear arsenal and atrophied defense-industrial base by rapidly expanding their own. Beijing has grown the world’s largest fleet of nuclear-capable land-based missile launchers. And Moscow has locked in a glaring theater nuclear advantage in Europe that helped constrain former President Joe Biden’s support for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. Compounding these developments is the fact that Washington, due to its deficient defense-industrial capacity, cannot reverse these trends in the near term by simply accelerating its troubled nuclear modernization program.

And yet, despite the long-term structural problems with nuclear modernization, Trump still has readily available options at his disposal. Two near-term options, in particular, stand out. Both are political in nature, dealing with the “software” of nuclear alliances and the mechanics of US domestic leadership. And both would generate immediate deterrence payoffs.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/OEXZAYGx1xc?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

First, Trump should move quickly to initiate political consultations within NATO to integrate Poland, in some form, into the alliance’s nuclear mission. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the deployment of Russian short-range nuclear weapons in Belarus, Warsaw has expressed interest in joining NATO’s nuclear-sharing program — an arrangement in which forward-stationed gravity bombs remain in US custody in peacetime, but are carried by allied aircraft during crises and wartime.

Poland’s fervor to host US nuclear weapons is undoubtedly a reflection of NATO’s failure to adjust to two transformations in the post-Cold War European security environment: the migration of the alliance’s center of gravity from Germany to Poland, and Moscow’s massive theater nuclear buildup that dwarfs the hundred or so American gravity bombs based in countries far from Russia’s border, like Germany.

Integrating Poland into NATO’s nuclear-sharing system would address NATO’s changing geography and Warsaw’s growing fear of Russia’s theater buildup. Washington would not necessarily have to station gravity bombs in Poland, where they would be more vulnerable to preemptive attack. Polish pilots, after all, could always fly dual-capable aircraft based in Germany, as both nation’s pilots will soon be trained on the F-35A.

A larger wrinkle would be to bring Finland into the nuclear fold and field weapons in both Poland and Finland — whether permanently or only for temporary rotations. This alternative might appeal to Helsinki, which has expressed a nascent interest in revising its long-held prohibition of nuclear weapons transiting its territory. It would mean Poland was not the only nuclear-armed NATO member along Russia’s border. And it would have the bonus effect of creating a nuclearized perimeter on Russia’s frontier that would greatly complicate Kremlin planning.

Land Warfare, Sponsored

Accurate sensors are critical for armor units under fire

Maneuver formations face multifaceted threats that include kinetic force-on-force and non-kinetic effects such as electronic warfare.

From Breaking Defense

Of course, one can never know what, exactly, will deter Moscow. But Russia has a historic tendency to pick on the “little guy” — and a nuclear-capable NATO frontline is no small matter. The fundamental point, though, at least in the short term, would be for Trump to send a political message to Russia via allied consultations that American security is indivisible from NATO.

To be sure, this option is not a rationale for dramatically scaling back US conventional forces in Europe — which would only weaken the alliance’s overall deterrence. Nor should it be wielded as a bargaining chip in whatever negotiations Trump might pursue regarding the Russia-Ukraine war. Nuclear consultations should be treated on their own terms: as an effort to reinforce NATO via two allies who are already devoting vast resources to their own defense.

The second option readily available to Trump would be for him to get the White House back in the business of explaining to the American people the mounting threats they face — and what this means for their security. Here, Trump has a tremendous opportunity to outshine Biden, who neglected his duty to make the public case for greater defense spending. The simple act of adequately resourcing the military will have a deterrence effect by showing Beijing and Moscow that Washington is serious about defense. But sending this message will be impossible unless Americans hear from their president why they should support a larger defense budget.

Indeed, Trump can rip a page directly out of the Cold War playbook of Ronald Reagan, the last president to make the case for and oversee a military buildup to counter a nuclear-armed peer adversary. Beginning in the mid-1970s, Reagan hammered home the point that the country was on the wrong end of adverse trends in the Soviet-American strategic balance. And he clearly articulated, in speech after speech, why the country required modernized missiles and bombers to penetrate improved Soviet air defenses.

Recommended

The Weekly Break Out Ep. 5: Plans for America’s Iron Dome and Marine F-35s

In this episode of The Weekly Break Out, space reporter Theresa Hitchens takes a deep dive into her coverage of how President Donald Trump’s “Iron Dome for America” plan is beginning to form. Plus, The Marine Corps makes a surprise shift in its F-35 strategy.

By Breaking Defense Video

Reagan’s rhetoric and preparations to deploy these new capabilities ultimately had a demoralizing impact on the Soviets and yielded a landmark arms-control agreement on theater nuclear forces. Indeed, the Kremlin, as one Soviet official later recalled, was “already compromising” before the US nuclear buildup even began to pick up steam in the mid-1980s.

Fortunately for President Trump, the measures discussed above don’t require immediate solutions to America’s troubled defense-industrial base. They simply require the will to speak frankly with allies and the American people.

That nuclear modernization is beset with delays, a work-force shortage, and funding gaps is no reason to surrender to despair. President Trump, like Reagan, can achieve peace through strength if he seizes the opportunities before him.

Kyle Balzer is a Jeane Kirkpatrick Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute

---

Subscribed

ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO LLAW’s ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA

(Please note that the Sunday and Saturday NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS are also added below by category, following Monday’s news posts in order to maintain continuity of nuclear news as well as for research for the overall information provided in “LLAW;s All Things Nuclear”.)

There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:

1. All Things Nuclear
2. Nuclear Power
3. Nuclear Power Emergencies
4. Nuclear War Threats
5. Nuclear War
6. Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are three Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in today’s Post.)
7. 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.

TODAY’s NUCLEAR WORLD’s NEWS, Tuesday, (02/11/2025)

All Things Nuclear

NEWS

Inside an underground facility where the U.S. tests nuclear weapons : Short Wave – NPR

NPR

All Things Considered · Fresh Air · Up First. Featured. The NPR Politics … But there are signs the world’s nuclear powers may be readying to test …

An underground facility where the U.S. tests nuclear weapons : Short Wave – NPR

NPR

BARBER: Hey, NPR science correspondent Geoff Brumfiel. Why are you darkening my doorstep? BRUMFIEL: To talk about one of my all-time favorite topics, …

Opposition leader on DPRK, Russian envoy’s interview and US-Japan nuclear pledge

YouTube

… About the podcast: The North Korea News Podcast is a weekly podcast hosted by Jacco Zwetsloot exclusively for NK News, covering all things DPRK …

Nuclear Power

NEWS

Environmentalists raise concerns, but nuclear power bills advancing – YouTube

YouTube

Environmentalists raise concerns, but nuclear power bills advancing. 5 views · 5 minutes ago …more. FOX 13 News Utah. 302K. Subscribe.

Chris Wright Makes Unleashing Nuclear Power Priority for American Energy Abundance

Chuck Fleischmann – House.gov

President Donald Trump’s Energy Secretary is making commercial nuclear power a priority for unleashing American energy abundance and innovation.

Energy secretary explains the case for nuclear energy growth in the US – YouTube

YouTube

Energy Secretary Chris Wright discusses how he is looking to prioritize the expansion of America’s nuclear infrastructure on ‘The Will Cain Show.

Nuclear Power Emergencies

NEWS

Error Shuts Down Swiss Nuclear Power Reactor: Operator – Barron’s

Barron’s

A routine inspection at Europe’s oldest nuclear power plant Monday inadvertently triggered an emergency shutdown of one of the reactors, its Swiss …

Call for Papers: International Conference on Emergency Preparedness and Response | IAEA

International Atomic Energy Agency

Nuclear technology and applications · Energy · Health · Climate change … To ensure countries are prepared to respond to nuclear and radiological .

Translating Trump: Not An Energy Or Climate Emergency But A New Crisis: Electricity

Forbes

The Trump Solution. The Department of Energy (DOE) will focus its R&D budget on “fossil fuels, advanced nuclear, geothermal, and hydropower,” DOE …

Nuclear War Threats

NEWS

The Risks of South Korea’s Nuclear Armament Under a Troubled Democracy

United States Institute of Peace

The rationale is that Seoul should pursue nuclearization to counter North Korea’s escalating nuclear threats … nuclear attack. The threat of …

The Value of BARDA | Representative Tom Cole – House.gov

Tom Cole – House.gov

… threats. Yet, many of the products necessary to respond to a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack lack robust commercial markets.

Modi’s US visit raises industry hopes amid tariff threats – Reuters

Reuters

Modi is keen to avert a potential trade war … World · Reuters logo · North Korea says US nuclear submarine at South Korea port posing grave threat, …

Nuclear War

NEWS

Twin political paths President Trump can take to ensure nuclear deterrence

Breaking Defense

President Donald Trump enters office at a possible inflection point in the ongoing nuclear competition with China and Russia. … War European security …

I Just Found My Nuclear War Hideaway in Argentina’s Mendoza – Bloomberg

Bloomberg

Forgive me for interrupting with a macabre thought, but what’s your plan in case World War III breaks? This question is less and less theoretical: …

I Just Found My Nuclear War Hideaway in Argentina’s Mendoza – Bloomberg

Bloomberg

I Just Found My Nuclear War Hideaway. Mendoza, Argentina’s prime wine destination, has everything a refuge from an increasingly unstable and …

Yellowstone Caldera

NEWS

How Geology And Climate Control Vegetation Composition And Distribution In The …

National Parks Traveler

Editor’s note: Yellowstone Caldera Chronicles is a weekly column written by scientists and collaborators of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory.

Climate, geology control Yellowstone’s vegetation – Buckrail

Buckrail

YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK — Yellowstone Volcano Observatory’s (YVO) Feb. 10 Caldera Chronicles column reveals that Yellowstone National Park’s …

What will happen if Yellowstone’s supervolcano erupts? – MSN

MSN

‘ Although the Yellowstone caldera’s initial blast would kill thousands in a ‘super-eruption,’ showering multiple US states in ‘pyroclastic flows …