Sen. Blumenthal: US Getting Its ‘Money’s Worth’ in Ukraine Because Americans Aren’t Dying.
“We’re losing no lives in Ukraine, and the Ukrainians are fighting heroically against Russia,” Romney said. “We’re diminishing and devastating the Russian military for a very small amount of money … a weakened Russia is a good thing.”
By Dave DeCamp / Antiwar.com https://scheerpost.com/2023/08/31/sen-blumenthal-us-getting-its-moneys-worth-in-ukraine-because-americans-arent-dying/
Sen. Romney recently called the proxy war the ‘the best national defense spending’ the US has ever done.
Fresh from a trip to Kyiv, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) is arguing that the US is getting its “money’s worth” in Ukraine because Russia is taking losses and no Americans are dying, showing a lack of concern for Ukrainian lives.
“Even Americans who have no particular interest in freedom and independence in democracies worldwide, should be satisfied that we’re getting our money’s worth on our Ukraine investment,” Blumenthal wrote in the Connecticut Post.
“For less than 3 percent of our nation’s military budget, we’ve enabled Ukraine to degrade Russia’s military strength by half … All without a single American service woman or man injured or lost,” he added.
The argument has become a common talking point among hawks in Washington who want the US to keep fueling the proxy war against Russia. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) recently called the conflict “the best national defense spending I think we’ve ever done.”
“We’re losing no lives in Ukraine, and the Ukrainians are fighting heroically against Russia,” Romney said. “We’re diminishing and devastating the Russian military for a very small amount of money … a weakened Russia is a good thing.”
The hawkish senators’ comments came amid Ukraine’s faltering counteroffensive. Despite the lack of success on the battlefield, the Biden administration and most members of Congress want to keep funding the war, which they acknowledge would not continue without US support.
“As Zelensky is frank and forthcoming to say, Ukraine could not have survived without America and our allies,” Blumenthal said. “But his counteroffensive is far from an assured success. In the end, the only way he loses is if America pulls the plug.”
The Washington Post recently reported that US intelligence has determined Ukraine’s counteroffensive will fail to meet its main objective of severing Russia’s land bridge to Crimea. Despite the conclusion, the US is pushing Ukrainian commanders to go harder on the battlefield and complaining that Ukraine has become too “casualty averse.”
Leading up to the counteroffensive, the Discord leaks and other media reports showed that the US did not believe Ukraine could regain significant territory. But the Biden administration still pushed for the assault and rejected the idea of a ceasefire.
Ukrainian drone attacks Russian town near major nuclear plant
- Summary
- Drone attacks nuclear town
- No damage to nuclear power station
- Kursk power station is one of biggest
- Ukrainian drone shot down near Moscow
MOSCOW, Sept 1 (Reuters) https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-drones-attack-russian-town-home-nuclear-plant-2023-09-01/–
A Ukrainian drone attacked a town in western Russia which is home to one of the country’s biggest nuclear power stations, though there was no damage reported to the plant, Russian officials said.
Governor Roman Starovoit said a Ukrainian drone had damaged the facade of a building in the town of Kurchatov, just a few kilometres from the Kursk nuclear power station, early on Friday. He had earlier said there were two drones but clarified his remarks.
“There are no casualties,” Starovoit said. Starovoit did not mention any potential damage to the Kursk nuclear power plant.
The Soviet-era Kursk nuclear power station has the same graphite-moderated reactors as the Chernobyl nuclear plant.
An explosion and fire at the Chernobyl plant in 1986, in then Soviet Ukraine, was the world’s worst nuclear accident, spreading radiation across Europe.
Currently three RBMK-1000 reactors in Kursk are operational with one shut down, according to Russia’s state nuclear corporation.
Russia and Ukraine have in the past accused each other of plotting to attack the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station in Ukraine. Russian troops seized the station, Europe’s largest nuclear facility with six reactors, in the days after the Kremlin ordered the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Another drone was shot down approaching Moscow on Friday morning, said Mayor Sergei Sobyanin. That briefly disrupted flights to Moscow’s Vnukovo airport.
In the western Russian region of Belgorod another drone was shot down, according to Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov.
Writing by Guy Faulconbridge; Editing by Clarence Fernandez and Michael Perry
Australian Financial Review gets it not quite right about why nuclear power is the wrong solution.
31 Aug 23
The Australian Financial Review says the question of why nuclear power isn’t the right solution for Australia deserves a serious answer.
Fair enough.
The Financial Review argues the rest of the world is moving to nuclear. An odd claim, when the world added 295GW of wind and solar last year but just 1.5GW of nuclear power. The International Energy Agency predicts that “only a small number of units are likely to start operating this decade”.
In fact, there are five serious answers to why nuclear is the wrong solution for Australia.
When thinking about the conundrum of how we manage this massive transformation to a lower-emissions energy grid, it is hard to think of a more ill-fitting solution for Australia than going down the nuclear road.
No.1 issue: cost. Proponents of nuclear energy simply dismiss the multitude of evidence that nuclear power is the most expensive form of energy available. Or, worse, seek to undermine the rigorous independent analysis that finds it so.
GenCost, independently prepared by the CSIRO and Australian Energy Market Operator, is one of many studies which find nuclear the most expensive form of energy. Despite the political attacks on AEMO and CSIRO in recent weeks, it is a robust report and their analysis stands up to scrutiny.
As AEMO has said: “Recent media commentary that AEMO’s Integrated System Plan (ISP) does not include transmission and storage, as well as generation costs associated with providing electricity to Australian customers, is wrong.” And the finding is clear: renewables (including the cost of transmission and storage) are cheaper than nuclear by several multiples.
If you don’t like the work of AEMO and CSIRO, sure, look around for an alternative report. Take a recent report by Lazard on the levelised cost of energy in the US. It found that between 2009 and 2021, utility-scale solar costs came down 90 per cent and wind 72 per cent, while new nuclear costs increased by 36 per cent.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) can supply up to 300 megawatts per plant. They are conservatively costed at $5 billion each. You need quite a few 300MW SMRs to replace say a 2GW coal-fired power station like Eraring. That is an extremely expensive transaction. The leader of the Nationals has said nuclear power wouldn’t cost Australia “a cent”. How can an alternative government make such a ridiculous claim with a straight face?
2. Second, the much-vaunted small modular reactor technology is unproven. There is no commercial SMR operating anywhere in the world. There are two demonstration plants: one floating around on a barge in Russia and one in China.
Last week’s Financial Review editorial lauds Ontario’s plans. Really? Ontario Power Generation has not released any costings for its proposed SMRs and it is yet to receive (or even apply for) environmental approvals. Are we to hang our hat on this technology for our national energy plan?
3. Third, nuclear is notoriously slow to build. Can anyone credibly claim that Australia could have a nuclear plant operating by the early or even mid-2030s, when we need no-emissions technology to be supplying the vast bulk of our power? The answer to that question, reasonable observers would agree, is “no”.
4. inflexibility. The fourth serious answer to the Financial Review’s suggestion of a nuclear path is that it is not a flexible source of energy. As we move to more renewables, we need peaking and firming that can be tuned on and off at short notice to fill gaps in renewable supply. Coal-fired power stations can be turned down, but not off. Likewise, a nuclear power station cannot easily be turned off once it is running.
Nuclear power is largely useless as peaking and firming support for renewables. This is where gas-fired power stations are a useful back-up to renewables. The latest technology allows gas-fired power stations to be turned on with two minutes’ notice.
5. Finally, there’s the matter of nuclear waste. Small modular reactors would produce no small amount of waste. A Stanford University study finds that “… most small modular reactor designs will actually increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal, by factors of 2 to 30 for the reactors …”
For 235 years, Australia has searched for comparative advantage. We have found one. It is renewable energy. Imagine having abundant resources of the cheapest form of energy available and choosing, as a matter of policy, to deploy a source of energy much more expensive and slower to build instead? That’s what advocates of nuclear power are arguing for.
After 10 years of denial and delay on climate action, I’m not interested in more years of distraction by a debate on an energy source which clearly doesn’t stack up for our country.
‘Ignorance, Incompetence and Cynicism’ -military and scientific authorities attitudes to Aboriginal rights and safety‘
29th August 2023
NFLA Policy Briefing 274: ‘Ignorance, Incompetence and Cynicism’: The attitudes the military and scientific authorities adopted to Aboriginal rights and safety during and after the testing of British atomic weapons in South Australia 29 Aug 23 https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/briefings/nfla-policy-briefing-274-ignorance-incompetence-and-cynicism-the-attitudes-the-military-and-scientific-authorities-adopted-to-aboriginal-rights-and-safety-during-and-after-the-tes/
Teachers in boycott of nuclear submarine project
The Australian: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/teachers-to-ban-indoctrination-on-nuclear-submarines/news-story/d7d7c434d3f4ec2982fb52063eecf1a3?amp
The Australian Education Union will meet to discuss boycotting a science experiment that would see students design nuclear-powered submarines.
By natasha bita. August 29, 2023 The Australian: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/teachers-to-ban-indoctrination-on-nuclear-submarines/news-story/d7d7c434d3f4ec2982fb52063eecf1a3?amp
Pacifist teachers are boycotting a Defence Department “brainwashing’’ program that asks children to design nuclear-powered submarines.
The Australian Education Union federal executive will meet this week to consider a national boycott of the science project, which requires high school students to design a nuclear-powered propulsion system for a submarine.
The union is furious that the Albanese government is spending $368bn on AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines at a time when most public schools are receiving less money than they were supposed to under the Gonski needs-based funding deal.
At a grassroots level, some teachers are boycotting the Nuclear-Powered Propulsion Challenge, which was launched by Deputy Chief of Navy Rear Admiral Jonathon Earley in June as a science, technology, engineering and maths competition.
The controversial STEM challenge asks students to work in teams to submit engineering plans for submarine nuclear propulsion.
Defence devised the program “to inspire students to discover how nuclear propulsion works and how it makes submarines more capable’’.
Winning students from each state and territory will visit HMAS Stirling in Western Australia, tour a Collins-class submarine, dine with submariners and use a training simulator to “drive” a submarine through Sydney Harbour.
AEU branch meetings in Victoria have resolved to block the project in schools, and environmental group Friends of the Earth is now pushing for a national boycott.
Friends of the Earth nuclear-free co-ordinator Sanne de Swart said the Defence Department had made a “blatant attempt to normalise nuclear power and indoctrinate children into building instruments of death’’.
She said the STEM project was “indoctrinating” students and failed to address the health and environmental risks of nuclear power.
“It fails to acknowledge Australia’s significant and devastating history with nuclear, including the atomic bomb tests, uranium mining and the attempts to impose nuclear waste dumps,’’ she said.
Union members at Virtual School Victoria voted to condemn the program.
“We resolve to refuse to refer students to this program or others like it, and we will refuse to promote it within our schools,’’ the branch stated.
A union meeting of public school teachers in the regional Victorian town of Benalla also called on the state’s Education Department to “cease all involvement in this and similar programs’’.
“The government spending of $368bn on AUKUS nuclear submarines will require whole new industries in Australia, and beginning to draw our brightest teenage students into a war industry is outrageous,’’ their motion states. “A politicised pro-AUKUS curriculum has no place in our schools.’’
Melbourne primary school teacher Emma Kefford is planning to vote for a boycott at a meeting of the AUE’s inner-city branch on Thursday. She said she was “pretty disturbed’’ that the Defence Department was providing curriculum material to schools.
“I think it contradicts some of the other values in the Australian curriculum,’’ she said. “These inventions seem pretty exciting to young people, but they’re often removed from the realities of war and the horrors it entails.’’
The Victorian Education Department promotes the challenge on its website, saying: “We’re encouraging schools to register teams of 3 to 5 students to work together on the project.’’
The South Australian government also promotes the program on its website, as a way to “get young Australian minds thinking like engineers and scientists, by completing activities based on nuclear submarine engineering’’.
A spokesman for federal Education Minister Jason Clare said he did not share the concerns. The Defence Department was asked how many schools were participating but did not respond.
OPENING THE FLOOD GATES AT FUKUSHIMA
Discharging radioactive water from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is avoidable, risky and potentially illegal
By Sarah Hachman and Associate Professor Tilman Ruff AO, University of Melbourne, 29 Aug 23 https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/opening-the-flood-gates-at-fukushima
The Japanese government intends to discharge all 1.34 million tonnes of wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, an operation that began on 24 August 2023. Presumably, it also plans to discharge the wastewater that will continue to accumulate over the coming decades.
This decision is not only harmful to human and environmental health but is also in direct violation of international law.
The original announcement, made in 2021, came 10 years after a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami struck Japan’s east coast, damaging the cooling mechanisms at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (FDNPS) and causing three nuclear reactors to meltdown.
The destruction of the FDNPS released an estimated 520 Peta Becquerels (520 x 10¹⁵ nuclear decays per second) of various radionuclides (radioactive elements) into the atmosphere, including cesium, carbon-14, iodine-129, and tritium. However, this figure excludes noble gases such as xenon-133, of which the Fukushima release was the largest since atmospheric nuclear bomb tests.
AN INCOMPLETE CLEAN-UP
Following the incident, the Japanese government worked with the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) on a plan to decommission the plant, efforts which continue to this day.
The first step of this process was to ensure the reactors remained stable. As such, ocean water was pumped into the reactors as a replacement for the now-defunct cooling mechanisms. Though necessary, this process, along with extensive groundwater leakage, has produced over one million tonnes of irradiated wastewater, which continues to accumulate daily.
This wastewater is being decontaminated using an Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS), a filtration process intended to remove 62 radionuclides from water using a series of chemical reactions. However, this system’s consistent effectiveness, even with repeated treatment, has not yet been demonstrated, and ALPS is incapable of eliminating tritium and carbon-14.
As of July 2023, the ALPS-treated wastewater was being stored on-site in 1,046 storage tanks that are nearing capacity, hence the claimed need for ocean discharge.
The Japanese government plans to incrementally discharge the treated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean over the next 30 to 40 years. Though presented with other disposal options, such as long-term storage in purpose-built, seismically-safe tanks and solidifying the water in a leakproof form such as mortar or concrete, the task force declined to explore these avenues due to complexity and cost.
Even after initial cleaning, 70 per cent of the stored wastewater contains levels of radionuclides above regulatory standards, in some cases up to 20,000 times higher. And it’s not just tritium (more on this substance below) in this water, there are other, more toxic, substances, such as cesium-137, strontium-90 and cobalt-60.
However, the IAEA found that Japan’s plans “are consistent with IAEA Safety Standards” and that the levels of tritium, carbon-14, and other potential radioactive contaminants will be within international standards when discharged, without TEPCO having demonstrated its water cleaning can consistently achieve this.
Dilution of the wastewater as planned to meet regulatory limits will not alter the total amount of materials released, which is the key factor.
TEPCO estimates the annual radiation dose to people from the discharged water would be lower than that of a dental x-ray or a round-trip flight from New York City to Tokyo.
However, TEPCO’s checkered history gives little grounds for confidence in its assurances.
NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE OF SAFETY
Despite reassurance from the IAEA, the scientific community remains divided on the decision, citing growing evidence of how tritium may impact human and environmental health.
Moreover, environmental scientists have argued that the amount considered to be an environmentally safe level of radiation is more political than scientific. National standards invariably lag behind the science, and regulatory limits for tritium in water vary from as much as 7000 Bq/L (Becquerels per litre) in Canada to 15 Bq/L in California.
Tritium is a naturally occurring, radioactive form of hydrogen also produced by nuclear reactors and explosions. It is the largest radioactive byproduct of nuclear power plants. It reacts with oxygen to create tritiated water, which is why ALPS is unable to filter it. Tritium exposure has been largely considered to be harmless in low concentrations and, when ingested, tritiated water is processed in the body identically to water.
There is strong evidence, however, that tritium, particularly organically-bound forms, may have lasting health effects similar to other forms of radiation exposure, such as decreased lifespan, developmental delays and cognitive deficits, immunodeficiency, infertility and birth defects, and cancer and DNA mutations among humans, land animals and aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates who experienced high or prolonged exposure.
The International Commission on Radiological Protection considers tritium’s beta radiation overall to be twice as biologically damaging as X-rays, and organically-bound tritium three times as damaging as tritium incorporated into water.
Though the task force has committed to monitoring tritium exposure in aquatic animals, TEPCO noted that “fish tritium measurement is very difficult and there are only a few analysis agencies that are capable of performing this measurement,” and that reports from these agencies are often conflicting, making this an insufficient risk mitigation strategy.
ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
Japan joined both the 1972 London Convention to prevent marine pollution by waste dumping, and also the 1996 Protocol which specifically prohibits the marine dumping of radioactive waste. In 1996, Japan ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), an international agreement that established a framework for maritime activities.
By ratifying UNCLOS, Japan committed itself to “protect and preserve the marine environment” and abstain from polluting waterways from “land-based sources”.
Additionally, in 1992 Japan committed to the Rio Declaration, a collection of goals created by the UN targeting sustainable development and environmental protection that heavily emphasises the precautionary principle. Article 15 states: “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
Though there is still debate within the scientific community surrounding the effects of tritium and what constitutes an acceptable level of radiation exposure, two truths remain. One, Japan has committed itself to environmental protection, and two, the contaminated wastewater is a land-based source of pollution.
Furthermore, the very existence of the debate on tritium’s safety and the knowledge that the discharged water will contain other, more harmful radioactive pollutants, requires Japan to employ the precautionary principle just as they agreed to in 1992.
The Japanese government moving forward with the discharge plan, disregarding its commitments to the global community and international efforts for environmental protection sets a precedent for how the global community responds to modern nuclear crises.
Approving this plan means approving a compromise on human and environmental health, inflicting a transboundary and transgenerational problem on peoples around the Pacific with no offsetting benefit or say in the decision, and a failure to engage state and non-state actors with stakes in the nuclear industry to question what’s acceptable.
As such, the Japanese government must follow through on its commitments to the international community and critically consider alternatives for wastewater disposal. The discharge is planned to go on for 30-40 years and radioactive wastewater will continue to accumulate.
Even though it has already started, it can still be stopped and a better alternative implemented.
Young Vietnamese Diplomat Envisions Nuclear-Free World
She is proud that Viet Nam has ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and is currently at accession level with the NPT.
- Lê Nguyen An Khanh is a young diplomat with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Viet Nam. She is passionate about the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and world peace.
- UNITAR Division for Prosperity trains government officials in Asia to learn about international nuclear disarmament processes and build their communication and negotiation skills.
28 August 2023, Hiroshima, Japan – Lê Nguyen An Khanh is a young official from Viet Nam, working at the Department of International Organisations at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. She believes that diplomats like her have the responsibility to advocate for nuclear disarmament. But it’s not always easy to keep abreast of the intricacies of the field. “We are constantly having [to] research all the issues, of which nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation is a huge part”, she says………………………………………………………………………………….
Lê has had to learn how to take the uncertainties of global politics and turn them into something surmountable. She is proud that Viet Nam has ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and is currently at accession level with the NPT. She wants to make sure her country’s voice is heard on the international stage, that it is seen as a world player. (Plus, she enjoys meeting, learning and working with like-minded people from different backgrounds and cultures.)
Being a young diplomat can come with its challenges: her views and opinions may not be granted the same weight as her older, perhaps more experienced, colleagues. But Lê challenges other young diplomats to be passionate and work hard.
“If you work hard enough, stick to your ideals and you are passionate about what you do and want to do in the future, people will recognize you – especially the seasoned diplomats who have already been there. You have to demonstrate that you are willing and have the capability to deliver. [If] you have a passion, you will be able to overcome challenges”. -Lê Nguyen An Khanh, Vietnamese diplomat and 2023 alumna, UNITAR Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Training Programme
Looking to the Future
Lê will incorporate into her work all that she learned in the UNITAR training and expects to share her knowledge with colleagues in other departments and ministries as well. She applauds the UNITAR Hiroshima Office for putting together a well-organized and resourced training programme that she calls “an epitome of a good training programme”.
In the next 20 years, Lê says she wants to see more UNITAR offices around the world and for more people to learn about nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. “I want to see UNITAR bring people from different regions with different cultures, race, genres to show the similar yet different experiences of their lives.”
Her personal goal is to make sure that she contributes to global peace.
Peace is a universal value. Everybody wants peace. I think peace is the motivation for every country to move towards development and stability. It is only when we have peace that we can move forward and make ourselves stronger.” -Lê Nguyen An Khanh, Vietnamese diplomat and 2023 alumna, UNITAR Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Training Programme
About UNITAR
The United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) is a dedicated training arm of the United Nations. In 2022, UNITAR trained 396,046 learners around the world to support their actions for a better future. In addition to our headquarters in Geneva, we have offices in Hiroshima, New York and Bonn and networks around the world.
The Division for Prosperity is based in the Hiroshima Office and Geneva. We seek to shape an inclusive, sustainable and prosperous world through world-class learning and knowledge-sharing services on entrepreneurship, leadership, finance and trade, digital technologies, and nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. We empower individuals from least-developed countries, countries emerging from conflict, and small-island developing states – especially women and young people – to bring about positive change.
United Nations Volunteer Ruhiya Yousuf contributed to this article.
Only Idiots Believe The US Is Protecting Australia From China
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, AUG 29, 2023 https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/only-idiots-believe-the-us-is-protecting?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
The Economist has taken a keen interest in Australia lately, which if you know anything about The Economist is something you never want to see happen to your country. Two articles published in the last few days by the notorious propaganda outlet have celebrated the fact that Australia appears to be the most likely nation to follow the United States into a hot war with China as it enmeshes itself further and further with the US war machine.
In “How Joe Biden is transforming America’s Asian alliances,” The Economist writes the following:
Meanwhile, the ‘unbreakable’ defence relationship with Australia is deepening, following the AUKUS agreement struck in March, amid a flurry of equipment deals and military exercises. Should war break out with China, the Aussies seem the most willing to fight at America’s side. Australian land, sea and air bases are expanding to receive more American forces. Under the AUKUS deal, Australia is gaining its own long-range weapons, such as nuclear-powered (but not nuclear-armed) submarines to be developed jointly with America and Britain. The three partners want to work on other military technologies, from hypersonic missiles to underwater drones.
“Taken together the ‘latticework’ of security agreements, shows how America’s long-heralded pivot to Asia is accelerating.”
In “Australia is becoming America’s military launch-pad into Asia,” The Economist elaborates upon this war partnership with tumescent enthusiasm, calling it a “mateship” and likening it to a “marriage”, and calling for a rollback of US restrictions on sharing military technology with Australia.
“If America ever goes to war with China, American officials say the Aussies would be the likeliest allies to be fighting with them,” The Economist gushes, adding, “Australia’s geographical advantage is that it lies in what strategists call a Goldilocks zone: well-placed to help America to project power into Asia, but beyond the range of most of China’s weapons. It is also large, which helps America scatter its forces to avoid giving China easy targets.”
The Economist cites White House “Asia Tsar” Kurt Campbell reportedly saying of Australia, “We have them locked in now for the next 40 years.”
“Equally, though, Australia may have America locked in for the same duration,” The Economist hastens to add.
Well gosh, that’s a relief.
“How the world sees us,” tweeted former Australian foreign minister Bob Carr when sharing the Economist article.
“Historians will be absolutely baffled by what’s happening in Australia right now: normally countries never voluntarily relinquish their sovereignty and worsen their own security position out of their own accord. They normally have to lose a war and be forced to do so,” commentator Arnaud Bertrand added to Carr’s quip.
As much as it pains me to admit it, The Economist is absolutely correct. The Australian government has been showing every indication that it is fully willing to charge into a hot war with its top trading partner to please its masters in Washington, both before and after the US puppet regime in Canberra changed hands last year.
This sycophantic war-readiness was humorously mocked on Chinese state media back in 2021 by Impact Asia Capital co-founder Charles Liu, who said he didn’t think the US will actually fight a war with China over Taiwan, but the Australians might be stupid enough to fight it for them.
“US is not going to fight over Taiwan,” Liu said. “It’s not going to conduct a war over Taiwan. They may try to get Japanese to do it, but Japanese won’t be so stupid to do it. The only stupid ones who might get involved are the Australians, sorry.”
He had nothing to be sorry about; he was right. Australians are being very, very stupid, and not just our government. A recent Lowy Institute poll found that eight in ten Australians believe the nation’s alliance with the United States is important for Australia’s security, despite three-quarters also saying they believe the alliance makes Australia more likely to be drawn into a war in Asia.
That’s just plain stupid. A war with China is the absolute worst case security scenario for Australia; anything that makes war with China more likely is making us less secure. Making bad decisions which hurt your own interests is what stupid people do.
That’s not to say Australians are naturally dimwitted; we’re actually pretty clever as far as populations go. What’s making us stupid in this case is the fact that our nation has the most concentrated media ownership in the western world, a massive chunk of which is owned by longtime US empire asset Rupert Murdoch. This propaganda-conducive information environment has been distorting Australia’s understanding of the world so pervasively in recent years that on more than one occasion I’ve had total strangers start babbling at me about the dangers of China completely out of nowhere within minutes of striking up conversation with them.
This artificially manipulated information ecosystem has made Australians so pants-on-head idiotic that they think the US empire is filling their country up with war machinery because it loves them and wants to protect them from the Chinese. That’s as stupid as it gets.
The single biggest lie being circulated in Australia right now is that our government is militarising against China as a defensive measure. China has literally zero history of invading and occupying countries on the other side of the planet. You know who does have a very extensive history of doing that? The United States. The military superpower that Australia’s military is becoming increasingly intertwined with. The belief that we’re intertwining ourselves with the world’s most aggressive, destructive and war-horny military force as a defensive measure to protect ourselves against that military force’s top rival (who hasn’t dropped a bomb in decades) is transparently false, and only a complete idiot would believe it.
We’re not militarising to defend ourselves against a future attack by China, we’re militarising in preparation for a future US-led attack on the Chinese military. We’re militarising in preparation to involve ourselves in an unresolved civil war between Chinese people that has nothing to do with us. China has been sorting out its own affairs for millennia and has managed to do so just fine without the help of white people running in firing military explosives at them, and Taiwan is no exception.
The imperial media talk nonstop about how the People’s Republic of China is preparing to seize control of Taiwan using military force, without ever mentioning the fact that that’s exactly what the US empire is doing. The US empire is preparing to wrest Taiwan away from China to facilitate its long-term agenda to balkanize, weaken and subjugate its top rival.
Only a complete blithering imbecile would believe any part of this is being done defensively. It’s being done to secure unipolar planetary domination for the world’s most powerful and destructive government, and only an absolute moron would agree to risk their own country’s security and economic interests to help facilitate it.
TEACHERS ACT AGAINST SCHOOLS NUCLEAR SUBMARINES PROGRAM
the normalisation of militarisation and downplaying of nuclear risks in schools is a grave concern.
“Nuclear and military aspects in the curriculum fail to address health and environmental risks associated with both, as well as the drive to war,”
Education. 28 Aug 2023 https://www.nationaltribune.com.au/teachers-act-against-schools-nuclear-subs-program/
Children being taught to make weapons
Teachers are moving to boycott a new pro-nuclear-fuel brainwashing program being introduced into schools.
There’s growing momentum within unions to ban the Nuclear-powered Submarine Propulsion Challenge, which is a Defence Department initiative backed by the Federal and Victorian governments.
In a blatant attempt to normalise nuclear power and indoctrinate children into building instruments of death, the challenge asks students from years 7 to 12 to design a nuclear-powered propulsion system for a submarine.
Friends of the Earth (FoE) understands that motions calling for a boycott have already been passed in some chapters of the Australian Education Union.
One motion, passed at a recent branch meeting said: “We resolve to refuse to refer students to this program or others like it, and we will refuse to promote it within our schools. We call on the Department of Education to cease all involvement in this and similar programs.”
Another said: “We don’t intend to refer students to this program or others like it, or to promote it within our schools. We call on the Department of Education to cease all involvement in this and similar programs.”
Friends of the Earth is supporting the ban and has written to the Australian Education Union asking them to impose a nationwide boycott.
FoE Nuclear Free Coordinator Sanne De Swart said the normalisation of militarisation and downplaying of nuclear risks in schools is a grave concern.
“Nuclear and military aspects in the curriculum fail to address health and environmental risks associated with both, as well as the drive to war,” Sanne De Swart said.
“It fails to acknowledge Australia’s significant and devastating history with nuclear, including the atomic bomb tests, uranium mining and the attempts to impose nuclear waste dumps, all which have and continue to affect First Nations communities disproportionately .”
‘Peaceful Atom’ Sparks Fierce Debate In Kazakh Village Slated To Host Nuclear Power Plant
By Petr Trotsenko, August 28, 2023 Radio Free Europe
ULKEN, Kazakhstan — Plans are under way to build a nuclear power plant (NPP) scheduled to be online by 2035, to supply Kazakhstan’s soaring energy needs.
In Ulken, where the plant is likely to be built, opinions among the village’s 1,500 residents on what a nuclear future for their impoverished lakeside village would look like are split.
Ulken is located 330 kilometers northwest of Almaty on the shores of Lake Balkhash. The village was created in the 1980s to house workers for a planned hydroelectric power plant. That project was unfinished when the Soviet Union collapsed and high-rise apartments are the only completed constructions from the period.
Officially, Ulken is a village, but it feels like an urban settlement. There are no houses here, only apartments. There is no livestock, and no gardens grow in the rocky soil…………………………………………………………………………….
Khairulina wants to increase the population of Ulken, renovate the village, and give life to the abandoned apartments. For these reasons she supports the construction of an NPP. “If the project starts, civilization will come,” she said. The villager is concerned for the environment, but said, “We are not afraid of environmental problems, now everything is made with modern technology.”
Fishermen in Ulken are largely against the NPP project because they fear that Lake Balkhash will be affected and that fishing there could eventually be banned.
It’s not difficult to find fishermen. In front of one abandoned apartment, fish hang in the breeze.
The owner of the property is a young man named Rinat. The 34-year-old fisherman has devoted half of his life to the profession and works the lake every day. Rinat firmly opposes the construction of an NPP.
“The lake sustains us,” he said. “This year the water level in the Balkhash dropped severely, and the fish population decreased. If an NPP is built, there will be no water left in the lake,” Rinat claimed.
At the grocery store, I met another resident, Aleksei Losev. The 35-year-old moved to Ulken six years ago to live with his future wife. He’s not a fisherman, but does not expect anything good from the construction of the NPP.
“On one hand I support its construction, because new jobs will be created, people will come from abroad, and the village will develop. On the other hand, it’s about ecology,” he said, before referencing a troubled Soviet-era NPP in western Kazakhstan that is currently being decommissioned. “Three kilometers from Aqtau there is the Manghystau NPP. The environmental situation there is bad. Why? Wastewater! Both fish and seals are dying…. It will be the same here,” he said……………………………………………………………………………….
In the small assembly hall of the Ulken high school where the August 21 meeting to discuss the NPP took place, it was standing room only. Environmental activists who had travelled from Almaty for the meeting unfurled posters calling to put a stop to the project as residents chanted, “we support the peaceful atom!”
When the discussion on the planned NPP got under way it was clear that there would be little constructive conversation. The emotions of the crowd boiled over.
“We are against the nuclear power plant, it will destroy Balkhash Lake!” activists shouted.
“You’re not a nuclear specialist, how do you know it will be harmful? You don’t live in Ulken” responded some residents.
“It is not only an Ulken problem, this topic should be discussed by all of Kazakhstan!” the activists countered.
…………………………………………………………………… Another local man hoped to work in the future energy sector.
“We residents have been waiting for this construction for 40 years,” he said. “We started with the construction of the power station, we spent days without heat and electricity, we went through many different events together. Ulken needs this energy, this is the center of Kazakhstan. Our region is seismologically stable! There are 15 nuclear power plants in Japan, which has an earthquake every month. Energy is scarce and very expensive in our country. We all need electricity. We support the peaceful atom!” he said.
People in the hall clapped and someone asked, “What about solar energy?” nobody seemed to hear the question amid chants of “Peaceful atom! Peaceful atom!”
Then environmentalist Svetlana Mogilyuk spoke. Like many others, Svetlana came to Ulken to take part in the discussion.
“Dear residents, we have now listened very carefully to what was said,” Mogilyuk said. “No basic, truthful information was provided to you. In contrast to the claim that nuclear energy is not harmful to health, there are qualified studies showing that nuclear energy is still harmful! Numerous studies also confirm that children who live near nuclear power plants are more likely to develop leukemia, and deaths from cancer increase by 24 percent.”
As she made these claims, her microphone cut off. She continued without it.
“Nuclear power plants are harmful, they are accompanied by radioactive emissions. Citizens! You are now being told a lie! Hearings must be accompanied by basic information! You must understand that apart from the NPP, you have other opportunities, you have the opportunity to develop other types of electricity. They will be no less powerful, no less effective, but safer!”
……………………………………………………………………… many in Kazakhstan feel the construction of an NPP is a done deal for the government and that far more depends on its decision than the prospects for locals of a small village on the banks of the Balkhash. https://www.rferl.org/a/kazakhstan-nuclear-power-plant-debate-construction/32563042.html
French energy regulator: Nuclear alone not enough for carbon neutrality
“renewable energies to be brought on stream as quickly as possible, as there will be no new reactors in operation by 2035” to meet the need to decarbonise the energy mix.
By Clara Bauer-Babef and Paul Messad | EURACTIV.fr 27 Aug 23 https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/french-energy-regulator-nuclear-alone-not-enough-for-carbon-neutrality/
If France is to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, it must integrate renewables into its energy mix, according to the head of the country’s energy regulator, RTE, who believes nuclear power alone will not be enough.
As part of its EU targets, France has pledged to become carbon neutral by 2050 and contribute to the bloc’s efforts to cut greenhouse gases by 55% by 2030.
“To achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, nuclear power alone will not be enough,” said Xavier Piechaczyk, Chairman of RTE, on France Inter radio on Saturday.
Instead, France needs to diversify further its energy mix, which is currently 40% nuclear, 28% oil, 16% natural gas, 14% renewables and 2% coal, according to the French Ministry for Ecological Transition.
All the more so as “energy consumption will fall, but electricity consumption will rise to replace fossil fuels”, with a 25% increase in decarbonised electricity, writes RTE in its reference report on the French energy mix in 2050.
As such, Piechaczyk calls for “renewable energies to be brought on stream as quickly as possible, as there will be no new reactors in operation by 2035” to meet the need to decarbonise the energy mix.
France plans to build six new small nuclear reactors (EPR), although these will not be operational until 2035. Construction for the first reactor is only set to start in 2027.
“France is struck by a pathology, which is to spend its time arguing between nuclear versus renewable: it’s not the first question to be asked”, Piechaczyk said.
Piechaczyk referred in particular to the conflict between the radical left and ecologists, who are opposed to nuclear power, and the presidential majority and the right, supported by the Communists, who favour the development of nuclear power.
(Paul Messad & Clara Bauer-Babef | EURACTIV.fr)
Respect for hibakusha, and hope in younger generations
Hibakusha, atomic bombing survivors, have been tirelessly exerting themselves toward a world free of nuclear weapons, with their only wish that no one else should go through the sufferings they have experienced
The Bulletin, By Masako Toki | August 22, 2023
For too long, nuclear weapons narratives have been dominated by those who saw the mushroom cloud from afar or above. Or maybe just in photos, TV, or videos. Most absurdly, the voices of people who suffered the most under the mushroom cloud have often been marginalized.
There have been numerous efforts to raise awareness of the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons among hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors), people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and more broadly, in the international community. One of the most important milestones came when the 2010 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference adopted a final document that included, for the first time “the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons.” Since then, the humanitarian initiative for nuclear disarmament has been gaining momentum.
Three conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons contributed to the start of the negotiation of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and to adoption of the treaty. Through this process, a wide range of civil society members, along with like-minded governments, energized the humanitarian initiatives and tenaciously supported bringing humanitarian dimensions to nuclear weapons policy discussion.
The adoption of the TPNW has brought a glimmer of hope to nuclear disarmament advocates, although they are fully aware that this is a first step of the long process. Still, this is considered to be one of very few positive developments in recent nuclear disarmament efforts. The world is currently moving backward on nuclear disarmament. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has caused unspeakable human suffering and raised the risk of nuclear war. Today, nuclear threats are at the highest level since the end of the Cold War,
Hibakusha, atomic bombing survivors, have been tirelessly exerting themselves toward a world free of nuclear weapons, with their only wish that no one else should go through the sufferings they have experienced.
As the memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are further fading away every year given the advanced age of hibakusha, it is urgent for younger generations to learn more. Time is of the essence. Earlier this year, the average age of hibakusha reached 85.01 years, according to Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. In addition, the number of hibakusha decreased by 5,286 to 113,649 this year. As the A-bomb survivors continue to age, the issue of how to pass on the message of the catastrophic impact of nuclear weapons to the next generation becomes increasingly pressing. Informing and educating the next generation is how we can ensure that nuclear weapons will never be used again, and eventually, achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.
The time to learn from hibakusha directly is limited and is getting shorter and shorter. The peace declaration this year read by Nagasaki Mayor Shiro Suzuki quoted Sumiteru Taniguchi, one of the late hibakushas who dedicated his life to nuclear disarmament. Taniguchi admonished that “[p]eople appear to be gradually forgetting the suffering of the past. This forgetfulness terrifies me. I fear that forgetfulness will lead to the acceptance of further atomic bombings.”
Keiko Ogura, a Hiroshima hibakusha and an English-Japanese interpreter for peace activities, shared her testimonials with world leaders in May this year at the G7 Hiroshima Summit. She asked the leaders to “relive the struggles in the hearts of hibakusha” that have been felt for so long, and to imagine the invisible wounds, traumas, sorrows, and unspeakable secrets through her eyes and heart. One of the most important abilities you need when you work for nuclear disarmament is to be able to empathize with other’s suffering. Ogura asked the G7 leaders to do precisely this. She also sent a message to Russian President Vladimir Putin through a reporter for one of her numerous interviews, saying, “You don’t know what a nuclear weapon is, the reality of a nuclear weapon. So come here and see.”
Earlier this summer, at a civil society event, Ogura calmly started her atomic bombing testimonial by encouraging the audience to imagine how it feels like to be under the mushroom cloud at the time of the bomb’s detonation. “I was at that time under the mushroom cloud you can see there,” while showing the picture of the mushroom cloud after the bomb was dropped.
Nothing is more powerful and effective than hibakusha testimonials in helping others to understand the horrific reality of the use of nuclear weapons. It is very important to imagine what really happened under the mushroom cloud. When you hear about the Hiroshima bombing or the Nagasaki bombing, the first image that comes to your mind may be the mushroom cloud. But we need to understand that people were under the mushroom cloud. Most of the victims were civilians, including small children.
Every year, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki remembrance days come. These are the days that we have to make efforts to remember and renew our resolve to work for nuclear disarmament. Soon, we will not be able to listen to hibakusha directly. As the hibakusha are aging in the middle of increasing nuclear risks, we cannot do business as usual every year, or think about nuclear disarmament only on these remembrance days……………………………………………………………….more https://thebulletin.org/2023/08/respect-for-hibakusha-and-hope-in-younger-generations/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMedia&utm_campaign=FacebookPost082023&utm_content=NuclearRisk_HibakushaAndHope_08222023&fbclid=IwAR0hzzEqc_dLq2NN_fF9F4OQl0uI31cz7QW9BA5nL5TPKrLpASBAUt9dRDg
Week to 28 August – nuclear news
A bit of good news. Welcome to the world’s first zero-waste island. Ecuador voted to just stop oil.
TOP STORIES
At Fukushima Daiichi, decommissioning the nuclear plant is far more challenging than water release. Fukushima waste-water decision disregards scientific evidence, violates the human rights of Pacific region communities.
Lauding Lise Meitner, Who Said ‘No’ to the Atomic Bomb. #StepUp4Disarmament on International Day against Nuclear Tests. NASA joins the lunatic fringe. Elon Musk’s Shadow Rule
Ukraine Providing an Important Testing Ground For Space-Based Weapons. Sustainability has lost its meaning as the nuclear lobby triumphs.
Climate. Why Scotland must get real on climate crisis: The time has passed for protecting the public from reality. China’s summer of climate destruction.
Nuclear. I felt a bit desperate, watching all the rejoicing about India sending a rocket to the moon. Don’t people realise that all this space research, (at tax-payers’ expense) is geared towards weaponry in space? Another upsetting news item today – intrepid journalist Ronan Farrow, in a terribly long article, explores and exposes the powerful influence of Elon Musk over the American government. It is a scary thought.
Christina notes. The nuclear lobby is gearing up for a takeover of COP 28.
AUSTRALIA. Rex Patrick demolishes Richard Marles’ slick lies about AUKUS and the nuclear submarines. All the way with Anthony A – Labor locks in AUKUS support despite union opposition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MlVW8qJ-TEACHERS ACT AGAINST SCHOOLS NUCLEAR SUBS PROGRAM.
Green light for nuclear ships, submarines in Tasmanian port. South-east Australia marine heatwave forecast to be literally off the scale.
Coalition’s campaign for nuclear energy implausible, experts say. Ontario nuclear model may not suit Australia. Australian Financial Review’s sloppy journalism makes a nonsense of its case for nuclear SMRs.
ARTS and CULTURE. What ‘Downwinders inherited at Trinity.
CLIMATE. EDF Warns of French Nuclear Output Cuts in Weekend Heat Wave. France issues ‘red alert‘ over heatwave in south. France heatwave curbs cooling water supply to St Alban nuclear plant.
ECONOMICS. French Winter Power Twice as Pricey as Germany’s on Nuclear Woes. Georgia’s new nuclear reactors a cautionary tale. Why the US and Europe Still Buy Russian Nuclear Fuel.
China bans Japanese seafood after Fukushima wastewater release.
ENERGY Degrowthers Gain Support as Planet Cooks. Power-starved North Korea turns to solar energy to keep the lights on. French energy regulator: Nuclear alone not enough for carbon neutrality
ENVIRONMENT. Japanese fishing industry leader is “greatly concerned” over the pending disharge of Fukushima radioactive water into the ocean. Japan’s nuclear wastewater – should we be worried?. ‘Animals could become MUTATED’ from the 1.3 million tons of radioactive waste dumped from Japan’s nuclear power plant in the Pacific. Endless fallout: the Pacific idyll still facing nuclear blight 77 years on. Marshall Islands sea turtle found to have nuclear contamination.
Hinkley Point C: Millions of fish under threat after permit change.
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety Urges State Legislature to Protect the Española Aquifer from LANL Pollutants.
ETHICS and RELIGION. Nuclear deterrence is a dangerous fraud . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH6xkjMNdnk&t=116s
HEALTH. Exposure to Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation Linked to Solid Cancer Mortality.
LEGAL. Texas nuclear waste storage permit invalidated by US appeals court.
MEDIA. Chicago Tribune should support Vivec Ramasramy’s call for end to perpetual war in Ukraine
NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY. The ageing nuclear reactors. How to keep them going for decades, (best to forget coming climate extremes). On the warpath: AI’s role in the defence industry.
OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . Fukushima: What are the concerns over waste water release? For the sake of Suffolk, Nuclear Free Local Authorities urge Centrica to ‘Say Non to Sizewell C’. Calls for West Sussex to be made a nuclear free zone.
PERSONAL STORIES. Respect for hibakusha, and hope in younger generations
POLITICS. Much hype, enthusiasm, tax-payers’ largesse, for Britain’s “new nuclear”. (What could possibly go wrong?) The role of nuclear in the UK’s energy mix. Sizewell C project descends into farce. Kudankulam Nuclear plant will destroy Southern Tamil Nadu, warns Vaiko.
Senate extends nuclear liability-limiting law without public scrutiny. Here’s why we should care.
POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY.
- China outraged at water release from wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant. Seafood war looms after Japan releases nuclear plant water.
- Bibi Isn’t Serious About Preventing a Regional Nuclear Arms Race. Saudi Arabia weighs nuclear power offers from China and France in bid to sway US. Israel will not agree to Saudi nuclear program: Netanyahu.
- UK financially props up Ukraine’s nuclear industry, while renewable sources there grow.
- The Last Time A Foreign Military Threat Was Placed Near The US Border, The World Almost Ended.
SAFETY. French nuclear watchdog ASN issues first lifespan extension to 40-year-old reactor. Cattenom nuclear plant reports ‘significant safety event‘.
SECRETS and LIES. Why we cannot trust the International Atomic Energy Agency.
SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS. Threat from the skies: India steps up the fight against a major space danger.
WASTES. The Fukushima nuclear plant will start releasing treated wastewater. Here’s what you need to know.. Fukushima: wastewater from ruined nuclear plant to be released from Thursday, Japan says. Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station is still continuing to release radioactive materials. More nuclear challenges await Japan after Fukushima water release. More countries take actions to handle Japan’s nuclear-contaminated water dump, while US ‘double-standard exposed hypocrisy’.
North County Report: What’s the Deal with San Onofre’s Nuclear Power Plant? . Decommissioning. Dismantling of deactivated Fort Greely nuclear power plant to resume.
WAR and CONFLICT. US derides wimpy Ukrainians that have become ‘casualty adverse’. US and Ukraine ‘at odds’ over counteroffensive tactics – WSJ . Ukraine’s Counteroffensive Has Failed—It’s Time to Reevaluate.
Ukraine will ‘capitulate unconditionally’ – Scott Ritter. Zelensky Cracks Down on Draft Dodgers, Forces Men to Fight & Die in This War . German officials believe Ukraine destroyed Nord Stream – media. UN warns Ukraine over attacks on Russian civilian targets.
WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. Biden’s rival, Robert F. Kennedy Junior, labels F-16s for Ukraine ‘a disaster for humanity’. ‘Powerful’ Ukrainian brigade loses US-made demining vehicles – Forbes, (but plenty more available) US to reduce military aid to Ukraine in 2024 – WSJ.
End Nuclear testing Forever, Says Secretary-General in Message for International Day. Neocon Dark Money Front Launches Desperate Ad Blitz, as Support for Ukraine Forever War Craters. Japanese students urge end to nuclear weapons in 1st visit to U.N. Geneva in 4 years.
South-east Australia marine heatwave forecast to be literally off the scale.
Australia’s south-east could be in for a marine heatwave that is literally
off the scale, raising the prospect of significant losses in fishing and
aquaculture. The Bureau of Meteorology has forecast a patch of the Tasman
Sea off Tasmania and Victoria could be at least 2.5C above average from
September to February, and it could get hotter.
Guardian 27th Aug 2023
Elon Musk’s Shadow Rule
In the past twenty years, against a backdrop of crumbling infrastructure and declining trust in institutions, Musk has sought out business opportunities in crucial areas where, after decades of privatization, the state has receded. The government is now reliant on him, but struggles to respond to his risk-taking, brinkmanship, and caprice.
Musk was asked whether he has more influence than the American government. He replied immediately, “In some ways.”
“We are living off his good graces,” a Pentagon official said of Musk’s role in the war in Ukraine. “That sucks.”
How the U.S. government came to rely on the tech billionaire—and is now struggling to rein him in.
New Yorker, By Ronan Farrow, August 21, 2023
Last October, Colin Kahl, then the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy at the Pentagon, sat in a hotel in Paris and prepared to make a call to avert disaster in Ukraine. A staffer handed him an iPhone—in part to avoid inviting an onslaught of late-night texts and colorful emojis on Kahl’s own phone. Kahl had returned to his room, with its heavy drapery and distant view of the Eiffel Tower, after a day of meetings with officials from the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. A senior defense official told me that Kahl was surprised by whom he was about to contact: “He was, like, ‘Why am I calling Elon Musk?’ ”
The reason soon became apparent. “Even though Musk is not technically a diplomat or statesman, I felt it was important to treat him as such, given the influence he had on this issue,” Kahl told me. SpaceX, Musk’s space-exploration company, had for months been providing Internet access across Ukraine, allowing the country’s forces to plan attacks and to defend themselves. But, in recent days, the forces had found their connectivity severed as they entered territory contested by Russia.
More alarmingly, SpaceX had recently given the Pentagon an ultimatum: if it didn’t assume the cost of providing service in Ukraine, which the company calculated at some four hundred million dollars annually, it would cut off access. “We started to get a little panicked,” the senior defense official, one of four who described the standoff to me, recalled. Musk “could turn it off at any given moment. And that would have real operational impact for the Ukrainians.”
Musk had become involved in the war in Ukraine soon after Russia invaded, in February, 2022. Along with conventional assaults, the Kremlin was conducting cyberattacks against Ukraine’s digital infrastructure. Ukrainian officials and a loose coalition of expatriates in the tech sector, brainstorming in group chats on WhatsApp and Signal, found a potential solution: SpaceX, which manufactures a line of mobile Internet terminals called Starlink. The tripod-mounted dishes, each about the size of a computer display and clad in white plastic reminiscent of the sleek design sensibility of Musk’s Tesla electric cars, connect with a network of satellites.
The units have limited range, but in this situation that was an advantage: although a nationwide network of dishes was required, it would be difficult for Russia to completely dismantle Ukrainian connectivity. Of course, Musk could do so. Three people involved in bringing Starlink to Ukraine, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they worried that Musk, if upset, could withdraw his services, told me that they originally overlooked the significance of his personal control. “Nobody thought about it back then,” one of them, a Ukrainian tech executive, told me. “It was all about ‘Let’s fucking go, people are dying.’ ”
In the ensuing months, fund-raising in Silicon Valley’s Ukrainian community, contracts with the U.S. Agency for International Development and with European governments, and pro-bono contributions from SpaceX facilitated the transfer of thousands of Starlink units to Ukraine. A soldier in Ukraine’s signal corps who was responsible for maintaining Starlink access on the front lines, and who asked to be identified only by his first name, Mykola, told me, “It’s the essential backbone of communication on the battlefield.”
Initially, Musk showed unreserved support for the Ukrainian cause, responding encouragingly as Mykhailo Fedorov, the Ukrainian minister for digital transformation, tweeted pictures of equipment in the field. But, as the war ground on, SpaceX began to balk at the cost. “We are not in a position to further donate terminals to Ukraine, or fund the existing terminals for an indefinite period of time,” SpaceX’s director of government sales told the Pentagon in a letter, last September. (CNBC recently valued SpaceX at nearly a hundred and fifty billion dollars. Forbes estimated Musk’s personal net worth at two hundred and twenty billion dollars, making him the world’s richest man.)
Musk was also growing increasingly uneasy with the fact that his technology was being used for warfare. That month, at a conference in Aspen attended by business and political figures, Musk even appeared to express support for Vladimir Putin. “He was onstage, and he said, ‘We should be negotiating. Putin wants peace—we should be negotiating peace with Putin,’ ” Reid Hoffman, who helped start PayPal with Musk, recalled. Musk seemed, he said, to have “bought what Putin was selling, hook, line, and sinker.” A week later, Musk tweeted a proposal for his own peace plan, which called for new referendums to redraw the borders of Ukraine, and granted Russia control of Crimea, the semi-autonomous peninsula recognized by most nations, including the United States, as Ukrainian territory. In later tweets, Musk portrayed as inevitable an outcome favoring Russia and attached maps highlighting eastern Ukrainian territories, some of which, he argued, “prefer Russia.” Musk also polled his Twitter followers about the plan. Millions responded, with about sixty per cent rejecting the proposal. (Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s President, tweeted his own poll, asking users whether they preferred the Elon Musk who supported Ukraine or the one who now seemed to back Russia. The former won, though Zelensky’s poll had a smaller turnout: Musk has more than twenty times as many followers.)
……… . One day, Ukrainian forces advancing into contested areas in the south found themselves suddenly unable to communicate…………………………………….. . The Financial Times reported that outages affected units in Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv, Donetsk, and Luhansk. American and Ukrainian officials told me they believed that SpaceX had cut the connectivity via geofencing, cordoning off areas of access.
The senior defense official said, “We had a whole series of meetings internal to the department to try to figure out what we could do about this.” Musk’s singular role presented unfamiliar challenges, as did the government’s role as intermediary……………… The Pentagon would need to reach a contractual arrangement with SpaceX so that, at the very least, Musk “couldn’t wake up one morning and just decide, like, he didn’t want to do this anymore.”
……………… To the dismay of Pentagon officials, Musk volunteered that he had spoken with Putin personally. Another individual told me that Musk had made the same assertion in the weeks before he tweeted his pro-Russia peace plan, and had said that his consultations with the Kremlin were regular……………. On the phone, Musk said that he was looking at his laptop and could see “the entire war unfolding” through a map of Starlink activity. ………….Musk told Kahl that the vivid illustration of how technology he had designed for peaceful ends was being used to wage war gave him pause.
After a fifteen-minute call, Musk agreed to give the Pentagon more time. He also, after public blowback and with evident annoyance, walked back his threats to cut off service. “The hell with it,” he tweeted. “Even though Starlink is still losing money & other companies are getting billions of taxpayer $, we’ll just keep funding Ukraine govt for free.” This June, the Department of Defense announced that it had reached a deal with SpaceX.
The meddling of oligarchs and other monied interests in the fate of nations is not new.……………………………….
But Musk’s influence is more brazen and expansive. There is little precedent for a civilian’s becoming the arbiter of a war between nations in such a granular way, or for the degree of dependency that the U.S. now has on Musk in a variety of fields, from the future of energy and transportation to the exploration of space. SpaceX is currently the sole means by which nasa transports crew from U.S. soil into space, a situation that will persist for at least another year. The government’s plan to move the auto industry toward electric cars requires increasing access to charging stations along America’s highways. But this rests on the actions of another Musk enterprise, Tesla. The automaker has seeded so much of the country with its proprietary charging stations that the Biden Administration relaxed an early push for a universal charging standard disliked by Musk. His stations are eligible for billions of dollars in subsidies, so long as Tesla makes them compatible with the other charging standard.
In the past twenty years, against a backdrop of crumbling infrastructure and declining trust in institutions, Musk has sought out business opportunities in crucial areas where, after decades of privatization, the state has receded. The government is now reliant on him, but struggles to respond to his risk-taking, brinkmanship, and caprice.
Current and former officials from nasa, the Department of Defense, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration told me that Musk’s influence had become inescapable in their work, and several of them said that they now treat him like a sort of unelected official. One Pentagon spokesman said that he was keeping Musk apprised of my inquiries about his role in Ukraine and would grant an interview with an official about the matter only with Musk’s permission. “We’ll talk to you if Elon wants us to,” he told me. In a podcast interview last year, Musk was asked whether he has more influence than the American government. He replied immediately, “In some ways.” Reid Hoffman told me that Musk’s attitude is “like Louis XIV: ‘L’état, c’est moi.’ ”
Musk’s power continues to grow. His takeover of Twitter, which he has rebranded “X,” gives him a critical forum for political discourse ahead of the next Presidential election. He recently launched an artificial-intelligence company, a move that follows years of involvement in the technology. Musk has become a hyper-exposed pop-culture figure, and his sharp turns from altruistic to vainglorious, strategic to impulsive, have been the subject of innumerable articles and at least seven major books, including a forthcoming biography by Walter Isaacson. But the nature and the scope of his power are less widely understood.
More than thirty of Musk’s current and former colleagues in various industries and a dozen individuals in his personal life spoke to me about their experiences with him. Sam Altman, the C.E.O. of OpenAI, with whom Musk has both worked and sparred, told me, “Elon desperately wants the world to be saved. But only if he can be the one to save it.”
…………………………………………………..officials expressed profound misgivings. “Living in the world we live in, in which Elon runs this company and it is a private business under his control, we are living off his good graces,” a Pentagon official told me. “That sucks.”
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Of all Musk’s enterprises, SpaceX may be the one that most fundamentally reflects his appetite for risk…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. “He has a long history of launching and blowing up rockets. And then he puts out videos of all the rockets that he’s blown up. And like half of America thinks it’s really cool,” the former nasa administrator Jim Bridenstine told me. “He has a different set of rules.”
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. There are competitors in the field, including Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin and Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, but none yet rival SpaceX. The new space race has the potential to shape the global balance of power. Satellites enable the navigation of drones and missiles and generate imagery used for intelligence, and they are mostly under the control of private companies…………………………………
Several officials told me that they were alarmed by nasa’s reliance on SpaceX for essential services. “There is only one thing worse than a government monopoly. And that is a private monopoly that the government is dependent on,” Bridenstine said. “I do worry that we have put all of our eggs into one basket, and it’s the SpaceX basket.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Officials who have worked at osha and at an equivalent California agency told me that Musk’s influence, and his attitude about regulation, had made their jobs difficult…………………………………………………………………………………. You add on the fact that he considers himself to be a master of the universe and these rules just don’t apply to people like him,” Jordan Barab, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor at osha, told me. “There’s a lot of underreporting in industry in general. And Elon Musk kind of seems to raise that to an art form.” Garrett Brown, a former field-compliance inspector at California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health, added, “We have a bad health-and-safety situation throughout the country. And it’s worse in companies run by people like Elon Musk, who was ideologically opposed to the idea of government enforcement of public-health regulations.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. On July 12th, Musk announced xAI, his entry into a field that promises to alter much about life as we know it. He tweeted an image of the new company’s Web site, featuring a characteristically theatrical mission statement: the firm’s goal, he said, was “to understand the true nature of the universe.”
……………………………………………………… Musk has been involved in artificial intelligence for years. In 2015, he was one of a handful of tech leaders, including Hoffman and Thiel, who funded OpenAI, then a nonprofit initiative. (It now has a for-profit subsidiary.)………………………………………………… Musk left the company in 2018, reneging on a commitment to further fund OpenAI……………………………. a lot of my life and time to make sure we had enough funding.” OpenAI went on to become a leader in the field, introducing ChatGPT last year. Musk has made a habit of trashing the company,
……………………..It is difficult to say whether Musk’s interest in A.I. is driven by scientific wonder and altruism or by a desire to dominate a new and potentially powerful industry.
……………………….. In March, Musk, along with dozens of tech leaders, signed an open letter calling for a six-month pause in the development of advanced A.I. technology……………………. Yet in the period during which Musk endorsed a pause, he was working to build xAI, recruiting from major competitors, including OpenAI, and even, according to someone with knowledge of the conversation, contacting leadership at Nvidia, the dominant maker of chips used in A.I. The month the letter was distributed, Musk completed the registrations for xAI.
…………… “His whole approach to A.I. is: A.I. can only be saved if I deliver, if I build it.” …………………………………. more https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/elon-musks-shadow-rule#:~:text=How%20the%20U.S.%20government%20came,struggling%20to%20rein%20him%20in.&text=Last%20October%2C%20Colin%20Kahl%2C%20then,to%20avert%20disaster%20in%20Ukraine.–
1 This month
4 November – Will AUKUS keep us safe – at what cost?
the Commissioners of the AUKUS Public Inquiry present their findings at the National Press Club of Australia in Canberra. iview.abc.net.au/show/national-press-club-address
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
