Antinuclear

Australia’s Gaza hypocrisy

12 Aug 2026 The Australian government constantly talks up the international rules-based order – but its willingness to uphold the principles that underpin it is inconsistent at best.

Human rights lawyer Chris Sidoti joins Dr Emma Shortis to discuss the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry’s findings of Israel’s genocide in Gaza and how the Australian government could act in support of a genuinely rules-based international system.

Hear more on the latest episode of After America – find it now via the link or wherever you get your podcasts. Guest: Chris Sidoti, Commissioner, UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel Host: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute

August 13, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

If you’re already afraid, just wait until you hear about Manhattan Project 2.0

The nuclear startups receiving special dispensation from the DOE are part of a pilot program established under Executive Order 14301, “Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy.” The DOE selected Oklo Inc. (Energy Secretary Chris Wright formerly served on its board of directors), Aalo Atomics Inc., Antares Nuclear Inc., Atomic Alchemy Inc., Deep Fission Inc., Last Energy Inc., Natura Resources LLC, Radiant Industries Inc., Terrestrial Energy Inc. and Valar Atomics Inc. as the companies whose experimental reactor designs will be tested at locations in Texas, Kansas, Utah and Tennessee (Oak Ridge). In another attempt to dodge NRC oversight, these companies are considered DOE contractors whose reactors are subject to DOE rules no matter their location

Analysis, Kristen Thomason  |  August 10, 2026, https://baptistnews.com/article/if-youre-already-afraid-just-wait-until-you-hear-about-manhattan-project-2-0/

Summers spent at my grandparents’ house in Tennessee were hot and humid. With enough cousins piled into the porch swing, you could stir up a bit of a breeze. But when that was no longer effective, we would retreat to the air-conditioned splendor of the American Museum of Science and Energy in Oak Ridge and stroll through exhibits like “Wildcatting for Oil” and “Atoms for Autos.”

Among these varied installations, however, pride of place was given to documenting Oak Ridge’s role as the secret headquarters for the Manhattan Project and source of the Hiroshima bomb’s enriched uranium. Most of the 30,000 covert workers on that project only discovered the truth of what they had been helping to build on Aug. 6, 1945, when they awoke to the headline “Oak Ridge Attacks Japan.”

Eighty years later, on May 23, 2025, President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders to further the Department of Energy’s “Manhattan Project 2.0.” And just like the original, the second iteration of the Manhattan Project has plenty of secrets of its own.

The executive orders came at the behest of tech giants like Amazon, Meta, Google and Microsoft, who want cheap, abundant nuclear power to run their AI data centers. And according to the United Nations, these data centers will have doubled their voracious consumption of electricity and water by 2030.

Benefiting from a second Atomic Age

Nuclear industry executives who stand to benefit from a second atomic age had advance access and offered edits to the executive orders, which maximize risk-taking and profit-making over the safety of nuclear employees and the public. They stood behind Trump as he signed Executive Order 14299, “Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security,” which paves the way for private companies to construct commercially owned and operated experimental nuclear reactors on Department of Defense properties and at the DOE’s national laboratories.

The original Manhattan Project granted the military sweeping authority to bypass regulations and red tape when developing the atom bomb. Likewise, situating these new reactors on federal land allows companies to skip environmental requirements and skirt the authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the independent bipartisan body charged with granting licenses and regulating the safety of commercial nuclear reactors.

However, to achieve their goal of mass-producing portable nuclear reactors they can deploy via semi-truck to datacenters, hospitals and industrial facilities, they’ll eventually need to pass the NRC’s stringent public safety and environmental standards. That is why Trump next signed Executive Order 14300, “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” to overhaul the “structure, personnel, regulations and basic operations” of the NRC.

In 1974, Congress, weary of the Atomic Energy Commission’s reckless experimentation with atomic power at the expense of public safety, divided it into the DOE, which promotes nuclear power, and the NRC, which regulates it. Scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory were thus forced to abandon a plan to carve a second canal through Panama using 250 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs. Executive Order 14300 is a return to the wild pre-1974 days.

The order first directs the NRC to rubber stamp approval for those reactors developed under the auspices of the DOE and DOD without any additional testing. It then reduces the responsibilities and size of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, an independent group that once provided technical guidance about reactor safety to the NRC but now can only voice concerns when specifically asked. The president also replaced Democrat and NRC Chair Christopher Hanson and installed a steering board staffed by DOE officials to oversee the NRC reforms.

Next, Executive Order 14300 loosens radiation exposure restrictions for nuclear workers and the general public. To implement this order, on July 1, the NRC proposed a series of changes including limiting use of the linear no-threshold model, which affirms there is no threshold below which radiation is safe. The public has 45 days to comment on the changes.

Raising doubts about the dangers

The linear no-threshold model is the industry gold standard and guiding principle for radiation safety around the world. However, in a move akin to its approach to vaccines, the administration raises doubts about the science behind the model despite the myriad studies and decades’ worth of radiation data on nuclear workers that undergird it.

The 2023 International Nuclear Workers Study examined the dosimeters worn by 309,932 nuclear workers in France, the United Kingdom and the U.S. and tracked their incidents of cancer for an average of 35 years. Scientists confirmed that the greater the exposure to ionizing radiation from nuclear fission, even at low occupational levels, the greater the likelihood of death from a cancerous tumor, which often only appeared decades after exposure.

UNC Chapel Hill conducted a similar study focusing on the 22,000 workers hired at the ORNL from the early days of the Manhattan Project through the mid-1980s and found results similar to INWORKS for salaried workers and even higher rates of cancer for hourly workers. These men worked construction, laundered radioactive uniforms or, like my grandfather, laid railroad track to allow for the removal of “legacy waste” from the Manhattan Project without any protection or knowledge that they were being exposed.

Therefore, when it comes to ionizing radiation, which is invisible and difficult to measure accurately, the ethical approach is to keep the exposure level “as low as reasonably achievable,” or what is known as the ALARA standard. This might mean minimizing the time employees spend with radioactive materials, requiring protective gear or, in the case of the public, keeping radioactive emissions below legal limits.

However, protecting people doesn’t fit with the “move fast and break things” methods of tech moguls who want nuclear energy ASAP to power their AI databases. So, in its new proposed rules, the NRC is acknowledging linear no-threshold but dispensing with the ALARA standard in favor of a graded approach where safety is determined by situation with little accountability. Nuclear investors and Trump donors Peter Thiel and Mark Andreessen have been lobbying for the abolition of ALARA from the NRC, also a recommendation of Project 2025.

More DOE changes

The DOE began secretly eliminating ALARA from its own radiation protection framework in August 2025 without officially informing employees or the public until January 2026, although it did notify nuclear executives. To justify the end of ALARA, the DOE cited a report they themselves commissioned from the Idaho National Laboratory. That report said that to reduce “unnecessary economic burdens,” companies could now expose workers to five REM a year.

Roentgen Equivalent Man measures the biological effect and risk of radiation exposure to human tissue. According to the National Academies of Sciences, an exposure of five REM a year could cause cancer in one out of five career nuclear employees. The INL report proposes a future increase to 10 REM a year, which would raise the cancer rate to four out of five.

New DOE rules also double the radiation exposure level that would trigger an official investigation from two times to four times the legal limit. When Seth Cohen, the DOGE employee tasked with removing government “barriers” for nuclear companies, was asked if they should establish a fund for such workplace accidents, he said, “When SpaceX started building rockets, they sort of expected the first ones to blow up.” Andreessen called Cohen “An American hero” on X.

In addition, nuclear contractors for the DOE, including the start-up companies, now can ignore what’s known as Appendix A to Part 851 on Worker Safety and Health Functional Areas. As a result, precautions such as informing employees of possible hazards, procedures regarding possible carcinogens, requiring respiratory protection equipment or providing “comprehensive occupational medicine services” are no longer mandatory. This rule change does not apply to contractors working with other forms of energy.

Without occupational medical services to track and document radiation exposure and any subsequent disease, it will be difficult for employees to later obtain the care and compensation they’re owed in the event of an accident or overexposure. Such was the case for victims of the partial meltdown of Three Mile Island, who had no way to prove in a court of law that they had received excessive doses of radiation.

The nuclear startups receiving special dispensation from the DOE are part of a pilot program established under Executive Order 14301, “Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy.” The DOE selected Oklo Inc. (Energy Secretary Chris Wright formerly served on its board of directors), Aalo Atomics Inc., Antares Nuclear Inc., Atomic Alchemy Inc., Deep Fission Inc., Last Energy Inc., Natura Resources LLC, Radiant Industries Inc., Terrestrial Energy Inc. and Valar Atomics Inc. as the companies whose experimental reactor designs will be tested at locations in Texas, Kansas, Utah and Tennessee (Oak Ridge). In another attempt to dodge NRC oversight, these companies are considered DOE contractors whose reactors are subject to DOE rules no matter their location.

Participants in the Reactor Pilot Program will be testing Small Modular Reactor prototypes and experimenting with new sources of fuel which, without the necessary regulations, have the potential to jeopardize public safety. The most expensive element to build in a nuclear power plant is the lead-and-concrete containment shield designed to keep radioactive vapors from escaping in the event of a nuclear meltdown. Shielding is what failed 40 years ago during the 1986 Chernobyl Unit 4 power plant disaster in Ukraine and what held when Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island suffered a partial meltdown in 1979.

Supporters of SMR say their new high-assay, low-enriched uranium fuel called TRISO is so safe that physical containment isn’t necessary. But X-energy, a nuclear reactor and fuel company funded by Amazon, released an accident analysis that said TRISO could exceed safe temperatures by several hundred degrees Celsius.

“The problem is that, with new reactors, they introduce new safety concerns and new technical issues,” said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Every design I have looked at has potential safety and security vulnerabilities, which are not being addressed to the extent that they need to be.” The DOE also has jettisoned the requirement to have a cognizant system engineer monitoring each of the reactor’s safety systems, calling it an “unnecessary burden.”

Yet, new types of fuel produce new types of nuclear waste. Every few years, a traditional nuclear power plant removes the highly radioactive spent fuel rods, which are now a mixture of uranium and plutonium, and leaves them to cool in pools of water before they’re sealed in concrete casks for what is supposed to be interim storage. Today, 100,000 metric tons of spent fuel are sitting in limbo because the federal government has failed to find a permanent storage solution for high-level nuclear waste.

Unbeknownst to most, fully one third of all Americans live within 50 miles of nuclear waste storage.

The waste problem

SMRs face the same long-term waste disposal conundrum, only they produce a more chemically and physically reactive waste and two to 30 times more of it than traditional reactors. This waste is not compatible with current nuclear waste disposal technologies, so engineers are experimenting with ways to manage the output and radiation. In response, the DOE replaced its former 59-page waste removal manual with 25 pages of bullet points.

Entirely missing from the abridged version are the sections on waste packaging and monitoring. Last July, Trump dismissed all but one member of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an independent federal agency charged with reviewing the science behind the DOE actions regarding spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste.

Executive Order 14301 also orders the DOE to “reform its rules” regarding the National Environmental Policy Act by excluding SMRs from a full environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Previously, nuclear reactors had to address their potential impact on water, air and ecosystems at specific locations.

Now, in a possible violation of the Clean Water Act, the DOE says the release of radioactive water and steam into the environment should be “avoided” but is not strictly prohibited. Companies no longer “must” protect groundwater from radioactive contamination. “Avoiding” or “minimizing” is sufficient. Monitoring for contamination is optional.

But because cleaning up radioactive spills is expensive, the INL report also recommends abandoning the ALARA standard for the public. Both the NRC and the DOE are following this directive. However, the NRC has decided not to change the .1 REM public exposure limit, while the DOE is raising the limit from .1 REM to .5 REM.

This is in addition to the average .62 REM of “background radiation” Americans receive from sources like the sun and air travel. The DOE increase will be the equivalent of 50 X-rays a year per person, which will result in one in 57 people who live near a DOE nuclear facility developing a fatal cancer. Women and children, especially girls, will feel the effects even more severely.

When exposed to radiation within the current legal limit, women are 50% more likely to die of radiation-induced cancer than men, and girls are seven times as likely as men and twice as likely as boys of the same age to develop cancer. The DOE also has cut the Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, the agency’s internal team of health experts who study radiation safety, so it’s unclear who would monitor for this potential danger.

And yet another danger

Executive Order 14302, “Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base”, further endangers the safety of nuclear workers and the wider public by providing the nuclear industry with Cold War-era plutonium-239 harvested from dismantled nuclear warheads. Because the U.S. doesn’t currently have enough uranium for Manhattan Project 2.0, Oklo, Standard Nuclear, Exodys Energy, SHINE Technologies and Flibe Energy plan to convert plutonium into SMR fuel.

Plutonium is highly toxic if inhaled and requires special ventilation to handle. Other countries that have attempted to use plutonium have found converting it not worth the expense. It’s also highly sought after for bomb-making and requires heightened security measures. With a half-life of more than 24,000 years, managing plutonium is not a short-term commitment. And yet, because companies complained about the cost of security, the DOE jettisoned hundreds of pages of security regulations for reactors, including specifications for storage and requirements for firearms training and emergency drills.

Instead, Executive Order14302 encourages the reprocessing of nuclear waste, a practice discontinued during the Carter administration because it produces excess plutonium. In February, the Trump administration awarded $19 million to five companies that will experiment with nuclear fuel “recycling,” which is a misleading moniker. The reprocessing of spent fuel creates its own high-level radioactive waste, albeit with a half-life of a thousand years rather than tens of thousands of years.

Enabling these changes to the country’s nuclear regulations is Executive Order 14303 “Restoring Gold Standard Science,” which is less about rigorous science than it is about “doubt science,” the strategy utilized by the tobacco industry to raise doubts about the dangers of smoking and dodge regulation. MAGA officials and DOGE staffers are cherry-picking data that supports their agenda and discarding evidence that does not.

They are quite fond of citing fringe scientist Edward Calabrese, who, from his work with fruit flies, thinks a little radiation might be beneficial for people. My great, great, great grandfather said something similar while hawking “Dr. Kister’s Radium Charged Water” in the 1900s, until the government ordered him to cease and desist.

Who should we trust?

Industry executives promise their new SMR technology is safe, but Trump has disbanded the independent boards that might hold them accountable. Furthermore, given the disregard Amazon has shown to warehouse worker safety in the name of profit, why would anyone believe that Amazon-owned X-energy would be any more considerate to its nuclear employees or the general public?

The DOE also has a horrific history when it comes to protecting people and the environment from nuclear waste and ionizing radiation. In 2005, radioactive contaminants from deteriorating waste disposal facilities at the Oak Ridge nuclear plant infiltrated the Clinch River, a source of drinking water in East Tennessee.

Summer in Tennessee is demonstrably hotter than it was 40 years ago. Even folks who deny the reality of climate change can’t ignore that tomato planting time is earlier than ever. Some experts say nuclear energy must be a part of America’s renewable energy portfolio if we are to cut carbon emissions and reduce global warming. China, our stated AI nemesis in the Manhattan Project 2.0, also has developed SMR but is relying heavily on solar and wind farms to power its data centers.

The Biden administration also had a plan in place to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050, which called for adding staff to the NRC to speed up licensing, rather than repealing safety regulations. Following the lead of Canada and Finland, they sought to build trust with local communities through a multi-year consent-based process.

In contrast, Trump vows to quadruple the country’s nuclear capacity, enticing states to volunteer sites as “Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses.” Selected cities will enrich uranium, create fuel, generate nuclear power, reprocess spent fuel and store nuclear waste all in one location, although without the local buy-in, trust building or necessary geological prescreening present in the Biden plan.

Gov. Bill Lee of Tennessee applied to make Oak Ridge one of these nuclear campuses, although with 230 nuclear lifecycle companies operating between Oak Ridge and Knoxville, plus ORNL and the secretive Y-12 National Security Complex, it’s practically one already.

One of the joys of those summer visits to Tennessee as a child was seeing my uncle who worked at Y-12 as a chemist. When asked about his latest classified projects, he would sigh, fold his hands across the bib of his overalls and say, “Well, if I told ya, I’d have to kill ya,” and we kids would laugh. But the serious, sobering truth is the total impact of the radiation from these facilities is itself a secret. It’s been called the “perfect crime” because low doses of ionizing radiation can inflict cell damage and cause cancer decades after exposure.

Remnants of the original Manhattan Project are still around in Oak Ridge, whispering about its secret past. The impact of ionizing radiation lingers like the abandoned guard towers at the edge of town. Residents of Oak Ridge and the surrounding rural towns have more incidents of cancer than the national average due to exposure from this radiation.

On July 4, four of the pilot program SMRs had achieved nuclear criticality. No doubt the relaxation of safety and environmental regulations helped make this possible. This achievement marks a significant milestone in the Manhattan Project 2.0’s quest for cheap electricity to power Silicon Valley’s data centers.

However, just like the original Manhattan Project, America won’t know the full cost for at least another generation. Thanks to Trump’s deregulation spree, that cost to the health and well-being of Americans could be high indeed.

Kristen Thomason is a freelance writer and journalist living outside Edinburgh in the United Kingdom. She has produced educational and promotional media for national and international religious organizations and public television. Kristen also worked with local churches in Metro D.C. and Toronto, Canada. With a master’s degree in communication and undergraduate degrees in media studies and classics, she is interested in the intersection of politics, religion, history and the arts.

August 13, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Small Reactor That Isn’t So Small: Why the SMR Dream Deserves Much Greater Scrutiny

National Herald, https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid02vhW9RCrQdNjmM9VLxerw1cHa3awLJ9KFFyQDnpDjYzakRJW577vxCQcf6iJd97hAl&id=100063537605071&rdid=i8qv8opWWLIfSevN#

For years, the nuclear industry has promoted Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) as the technology that will finally overcome the traditional objections to nuclear power. They are marketed as smaller, cheaper, faster to build and safer than conventional nuclear power stations. The implication is that they represent a revolutionary new generation of nuclear energy.

As Noel Wauchope argues in the Australian Independent Media Network (AIMN), reality appears far more complicated.

The first point worth making is almost semantic, yet enormously important. While SMRs are indeed modular—constructed from factory-built components that are transported and assembled on site—they often cease to be genuinely small once deployed commercially.

Individual reactor modules may produce between 50 and 300 megawatts of electricity, but commercial operators are rarely proposing to build just one module. Instead, they intend to cluster multiple reactors together to create generating stations approaching the size of today’s conventional nuclear plants.

The “small” reactor quickly becomes a very large power station.

The American lesson: NuScale

NuScale has long been presented as the flagship of Western SMR development. It became the first SMR design to receive certification from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and attracted more than US$1 billion in federal support.

The original Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems project planned to build twelve reactor modules producing around 924 megawatts—comparable to a conventional nuclear station.

As costs escalated, the project was scaled back to six modules generating approximately 462 megawatts. Yet even after halving its size, estimated costs continued rising dramatically.

Eventually, in late 2023, the project was cancelled altogether.

For many observers, this was a significant setback. The project intended to prove that SMRs could be commercially competitive instead demonstrated how difficult it remains to deliver nuclear projects within acceptable cost limits.

NuScale continues promoting its VOYGR design internationally, but it still has no operating commercial reactor producing electricity for customers.

Britain now hopes to succeed where America stumbled

The United Kingdom is pursuing a different technological pathway through X-energy’s Xe-100 reactor.

Rather than using conventional light-water technology, the Xe-100 is a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor employing TRISO fuel particles contained within pebble-bed fuel assemblies.

Supporters argue this design offers inherent safety advantages because the reactor cannot experience the type of catastrophic core meltdown associated with accidents such as Fukushima or Chernobyl.

However, as Noel Wauchope points out, this is also effectively a first-of-its-kind commercial deployment.

The proposed Hartlepool development would consist of twelve reactor modules producing around 960 megawatts—again, hardly what most Australians would consider a “small” power station.

Like the NuScale project before it, success depends upon proving not only that the technology works but that it can attract sustained private investment while remaining commercially competitive.

Safety is only one part of the equation

Modern reactor designs undoubtedly incorporate significant safety improvements over earlier generations.

That does not mean legitimate questions disappear.

Large multi-module sites would still contain substantial quantities of radioactive material requiring long-term management and security. Operators must also protect facilities against cyber threats, physical sabotage and the consequences of natural disasters.

TRISO fuel itself remains the subject of ongoing technical debate. While advocates emphasise its resilience under extreme temperatures, critics note that manufacturing is complex, expensive and creates different waste management challenges compared with conventional reactor fuel.

These are not arguments against research.

They are arguments for careful examination rather than marketing slogans.

Economics remains the unanswered question

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing SMRs is not engineering but economics.

Almost every Western SMR project currently depends upon significant government assistance through grants, loan guarantees or direct public investment.

That reality raises an obvious question.

If the technology is destined to become a low-cost commercial revolution, why has private investment remained so cautious?

The NuScale experience suggests that once detailed engineering, financing and construction costs are fully accounted for, the economic advantages often promoted during the conceptual stage become far less certain.

Britain’s Hartlepool proposal now carries the burden of demonstrating that commercial SMRs can succeed where previous projects have struggled.

Australia’s debate should remain grounded in evidence

Australia’s discussion about nuclear energy deserves to be conducted on evidence rather than optimism or ideology.

Supporters argue SMRs could provide reliable low-emissions electricity and complement renewable generation.

Critics—including Noel Wauchope and many contributors to the Australian Independent Media Network—counter that the industry has yet to demonstrate it can consistently deliver affordable, commercially viable projects without extensive public subsidy.

That is not an anti-science position.

It is a request for proof.

Before Australians commit tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to an industry that has yet to establish a successful commercial SMR fleet anywhere in the Western world, it is reasonable to ask whether the promises match the evidence.

The central message emerging from Noel Wauchope’s analysis is simple.

Small Modular Reactors may indeed be modular.

Whether they are genuinely small, economically competitive or capable of transforming the world’s energy systems remains very much an open question.

For Australia, where abundant renewable resources already exist alongside rapidly improving energy storage technologies, those questions deserve rigorous examination before SMRs are embraced as the next great energy solution.

National Herald

My COMMENT The nuclear lobby is desperate to keep and gain technical and expert workers. It’s had a bit of a problem with aging and retiring experts. To make the industry appeal to the young, it really needs to maintain that (completely artificial) separation of “peaceful nuclear” from nuclear weapons. Not to mention that general need for community acceptance of nuclear energy as climate solution etc. So the SMRs are just really a front, a foot in the door for the nuclear weapons industry. So I think they don’t care how much it costs. So much easier in totalitarian states, democracy is such a bloody nuisance.

August 13, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

AUKUS: The Opportunity Costs

A Comprehensive Examination of Australia’s Nuclear Submarine Gamble

A Research Paper dedicated to: The Australian people – who were never asked, never consulted, and who will bear the cost of a decision made in the shadows. And to my wife, S. Klein, who sees the patterns others miss.

Abstract

This paper examines the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement through the lens of opportunity cost, strategic realism, and the quality of advice shaping Australian defence policy. It argues that the premise upon which AUKUS is built – that China poses an existential military threat requiring nuclear-powered submarines – is seriously flawed. The paper documents the $368 billion price tag, the documented capacity constraints of the US industrial base, the lack of comprehensive costing, and the alternative capabilities foregone. It identifies the political and financial beneficiaries of the current path, the nature of the advice being received by the government, and the strategic alternatives that have been dismissed without due consideration. The paper concludes that Australia is being led down a path of strategic dependency that serves American interests first, while the Australian public pays the bill.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction: The Unasked Question
2. What Is AUKUS? A Brief Overview
3. The Cost: What Australia Is Spending
4. The Opportunity Cost: What Australia Is Forgoing
5. The Strategic Premise: Is China a Threat?
6. The Industrial Reality: Can the US Deliver?
7. The Quality of Advice: Who Is Advising the Government?
8. Who Benefits? Political and Financial Interests
9. Alternative Approaches: What Could Have Been Done
10. Conclusion: A Path Not Taken

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10. Conclusion: A Path Not Taken

AUKUS represents a fundamental decision about Australia’s future. It commits the nation to:

• A $368 billion expenditure
• Strategic dependency on the United States
• A nuclear industry that Australia has never had
• Decades of spending that will crowd out other priorities

The decision was made without:

• Public consultation
• Parliamentary debate
• Comprehensive costing
• Adequate consideration of alternatives

The result is a program that:

• 
  Serves US interests first
• May not deliver as promised
• Will crowd out other capabilities
• May not even be completed as planned

The question Australians must ask is: Who benefits?

The answer is clear: the United States, its defence contractors, and the political class that approved the deal without public scrutiny.

The Australian people will bear the cost – not just the financial cost, but the cost of lost opportunity, lost sovereignty, and lost alternatives.

References…………………….. https://theaimn.net/aukus-the-opportunity-costs/

August 12, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Jonathan Huston MLA: “HMAS Stirling pens will become a perfect open-air target”

August 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ivy Lee Patrick: “I was not only grieving AUKUS itself”

August 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Giant space radars in Pembrokeshire branded ‘instrument of evil’ as campaigners hail small victory in fight against Ministry of Defence plans

“If we put such an installation like that it makes Wales suddenly a supporter of the most provocative regime in the world at the moment. That makes enemies.”

those against it fear the US would have primary control of the dishes, helping a US-led escalation in space warfare and to turn Wales into a military target for its enemies.

The radars, which would be built by American defence company Northrop Grumman are earmarked for Cawdor Barracks, near St Davids, and are part of the AUKUS security partnership between the UK, US and Australia.

“And the argument for it bringing jobs is just ridiculous,” he added. “Because the local people won’t be involved in the operation. Jobs will be lost.”

“If we put such an installation like that it makes Wales suddenly a supporter of the most provocative regime in the world at the moment. That makes enemies.”

those against it fear the US would have primary control of the dishes, helping a US-led escalation in space warfare and to turn Wales into a military target for its enemies.

By Bronwen Weatherby, 6 Aug 2026, https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/radars-pembrokeshire-wales-campaign-5HjdfgP_2/?fbclid=IwY2xjawThW2BwZG9mAWV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkEDIyMjAzOTE3ODgyMDA4OTIAAR4xadMM94NX9NwkoA9egZO764QyF026XrpxAGhLphH2dG6lSMLNQaypWZUNuQ_aem_AryMN-WJ0muRN-wPxngdOA

Campaigners have branded the proposed installation of twenty-seven giant space radars in Pembrokeshire “an instrument of evil”, claiming it would seriously impact the health, environment and safety of the local community.

A planning decision on the DARC – Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability – project was due to take place last week, but the Welsh Government called in the decision days before the vote – in a move that could trigger a row with Westminster over the UK’s national security.

Opponents of the radar have hailed it as a small victory in the battle against the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) plans, as the newly elected Plaid Cymru government has been openly resistant to it.

However, the area’s Labour MP Henry Tufnell was scathing of Plaid ministers saying “their priorities are all in the wrong place”.

The radars, which would be built by American defence company Northrop Grumman are earmarked for Cawdor Barracks, near St Davids, and are part of the AUKUS security partnership between the UK, US and Australia.

Each 20-metre-high by 15-metre-wide radar dish is designed to find, track, and identify objects up to 22,000 miles out in space and once in place, the three sites – one in each nation – would connect to give a complete 360-degree, 24 hours a day view of space.

‘Desecration of the land’

Among those leading the campaign against it is Game of Thrones star Jerome Flynn who spoke to LBC, saying: “I see it as a desecration of the land.

“It’s not our airspace, it’s our beautiful coastal birds and their migratory space. And there is much evidence to show that they’re one of the biggest emitters of harmful EMFs [high-frequency ionizing radiation]

“So we need to think about human beings, including the ones that come and visit here and what it might do to the tourist industry.

“And the argument for it bringing jobs is just ridiculous,” he added. “Because the local people won’t be involved in the operation. Jobs will be lost.”

“I don’t think anybody feels like that installation is going to make us safer.

“If we put such an installation like that it makes Wales suddenly a supporter of the most provocative regime in the world at the moment. That makes enemies.”

Mr Flynn argued the radars were “antithetical” to what the St David’s peninsula represents, particularly as an important pilgrimage site.

The MOD states ‘the radio waves used by DARC are non-ionising radiation. They are not hazardous to health because they do not have enough energy to cause harmful ionisation.

‘Levels of non-ionising radiation in the area surrounding the DARC site would be less than or equal to that received from using a mobile phone, presenting no danger to members of the public in the area.’

It also argues the radar would protect satellites essential to GPS navigation, emergency communications, banking systems, weather forecasting and military operations from hostile military actions including missiles, hostile spacecrafts and blinding lasers as well as accidental hazards such as fast-moving space junk and orbital debris.

But those against it fear the US would have primary control of the dishes, helping a US-led escalation in space warfare and to turn Wales into a military target for its enemies.

Northrop Grumman’s director of space surveillance, Kevin Giammo, has previously stated that he sees DARC as a key asset in the US’s ‘Golden Dome’ initiative – a plan to create an air and missile defense shield over America.

Several of those LBC spoke with at a PARC Against DARC (Pembrokeshire Against the Radar Campaign) rally referenced Iran’s destruction of radar infrastructure in the Gulf in response to the US-Israel attacks and their fear Pembrokeshire would become a similar target.

Roy Jones, one of the group who successfully fought a similar proposal in the 1990s told LBC: “We often get accused of being NIMBY’s. Yes I feel passionate about my local landscape and my local community, but I wouldn’t want to see this thing put anywhere in Britain or anywhere in the world because it’s an instrument of evil.”

Such is the strength of feeling among some in the community that local Labour MP, Henry Tufnell, has come under personal attacks with protesters referring to him as ‘Toff-nell’, holding cut outs of his face at rallies while chanting “Where’s Toff-nell?”

In response to Plaid’s move to seize control of the planning decision, he told LBC: “How do we make sure there are good well-paid jobs, how do we make sure they go beyond the construction phase, how do we make sure we reap the benefits as a local community? Those are the right questions to be asking.

Outside his office in Haverfordwest, Mr Tufnell who has publicly advocated for the plans insisted he had been engaging with the MOD and Northrop Grumman to minimise the impact on the landscape and on health and ensure it benefits the local economy.

“Not shall we put into question our national security and hand ourselves to China and Russia on a plate and forget about our international partners. I think they’re priorities are all in the wrong place.”

Welsh Ministers are no longer able to comment on the application while the call-in process is active but a statement provided by some Plaid backbenchers said: “We do not support the construction of the DARC radar array and have been consistent in expressing our serious concerns about the impact of this project on Pembrokeshire’s landscape, tourism economy, and public health – none of which have been adequately assessed.

“The scale of opposition also makes it clear that many residents reject this proposal and the lack of transparency surrounding it.”

An MoD spokesman said: “The programme has worked with Pembrokeshire County Council to develop the planning application in accordance with applicable regulations in addition to Welsh national requirements. This will continue to be the case as the application is now considered by Welsh Ministers.”

Northrop Grumman and Montagu Evans, the planning agent for the project, were contacted for comment.

August 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Joseph Camilleri: “One of the saddest decisions ever made by an Australian Government”

August 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment