The Nuclear Explosion That Makes US Aid to Israel Illegal
President Carter noted in his White House dairy at the time, “We have a growing belief among our scientists that the Israelis did indeed conduct a nuclear test explosion in the ocean near the southern end of Africa.”
Under US law, Israel must be banned from receiving its annual package of billions of dollars and arsenal of bombs.
Americans are being deliberately lied to by their own government as to Israel’s vast and deadly nuclear stockpile, largely built with nuclear materials stolen from the United States.
At the same time that US administrations were failing to enforce the ban on nuclear weapons testing by Israel, they also deliberately engaged in a campaign of censorship, lies, and disinformation to hide the truth from the American public
Israel’s nuclear program has been in violation of international law for decades, rendering it ineligible for American assistance.
JAMES BAMFORD, 1 April 24 https://www.thenation.com/article/world/israel-nuclear-weapons/
The researchers were startled as they looked up and saw the coal-black sky suddenly turn into a brilliant, multicolored aurora. As geophysicists with Tokyo’s Earthquake Research Institute, they were wintering over at an isolated ice station near Antarctica’s Queen Maud Land, a place where the temperature has dropped to as low as minus-50 degrees Fahrenheit. At about the same time, half the earth away in Puerto Rico, the giant 1,000-foot Arecibo radio telescope picked up an unusual disturbance. An odd and powerful electromagnetic ripple appeared on the lower surface of the ionosphere. And 1,200 miles to the north on the Atlantic coast of Florida, in a secret US government lab, long thin styluses like a spider’s legs began swinging back and forth tracing two hump-shaped images on a rolling sheet of graph paper.
The computer’s action was triggered by a signal from a satellite in the frigid blackness of deep space, 67,000 miles above Earth. Shaped like a giant, 26-sided Christmas tree ornament and hanging weightlessly in the empty void, VELA 6911 was one of a series of satellites designed to act as America’s sentinels in space, watching for signs of nuclear detonations on any part of the planet. And in the early morning of September 22, 1979, at 00:52:43 UTC, VELA 6911’s sensitive instruments recorded what appeared to be a very bright flash, followed quickly by a second. They were the classic indicators of a powerful nuclear explosion. Somewhere down below, as close as someone can come to terra incognita, a rogue country had set off a nuclear bomb. A rogue country that was hoping not to get caught. It was the first and only time in history that a clandestine nuclear blast has taken place. And based on its analysis, US intelligence agencies concluded that the rogue country was Israel.
Now, 45 years later, that explosion could play a significant role in bringing an end to Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza by using American lawfare to halt Israeli warfare—finally enforcing US laws that would cut off all aid, including the billions and billions of dollars and the tons and tons of weapons Israel now receives. For decades, these laws, enacted by Congress to halt harmful and destructive actions by rogue actors, have been deliberately ignored with regard to Israel. Clearly, they must now be enforced.
Just this week, Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, issued a report titled, “Anatomy of a Genocide.” It declared that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating the commission of the crime of genocide against Palestinians as a group in Gaza has been met.” A few days earlier, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights had warned that “any transfer of weapons or ammunition to Israel” could violate international humanitarian law. This week, a Gallup poll indicated that most Americans disapprove of Israel’s war in Gaza as well as of sending them military aid to fight it.
Hours after the sky lit up from the blast, confirmation that it was a nuclear explosion came from another US government facility, this one on remote Ascension Island. A bleak and rugged volcanic speck in the middle of the South Atlantic Ocean, it lies near the equator between Africa and South America and is one of the most secret places on the planet. No one is allowed on the island without the approval of the US and British governments. In addition to a massive British eavesdropping base that targets countries on both continents, the island is also home to an American facility that monitors all undersea activity throughout the Atlantic. And because, at a certain depth, hydroacoustic signals travel through the water at about 5,000 feet per second, the sound of the massive blast was detected about 110 minutes after it took place.
In the netherworld of US intelligence, the rogue atomic explosion was shocking. The Jimmy Carter White House was quickly notified, and, following a series of highly classified meetings, spy agencies became unanimous in their view. “The Intelligence Community has high confidence, after intense technical scrutiny of satellite data, that a low yield atmospheric nuclear explosion occurred in the early morning hours of September 22,” said a Secret/Sensitive Department of State document.
Attention, as a result, turned immediately to Israel. Its nuclear facility in the desert at Dimona had long since ceased to be a secret, and the question wasn’t whether Israel could construct a nuclear weapon but how many it had already built. However, while constructing them secretly inside a building is one thing, secretly testing them out in the open without getting caught is much more difficult. Addressing the issue of “A Secret Test by Israel,” another CIA document outlined a number of reasons the state might have wanted to carry out a hidden nuclear test. Among them was “developing the fission trigger [an atom bomb] for a thermonuclear weapon [an hydrogen bomb]…. A low-yield nuclear test conducted clandestinely at sea could have enabled them to make basic measurements of the device’s performance.”
The report concluded, “Indeed, of all the countries which might have been responsible for the 22 September event, Israel would probably have been the only one for which a clandestine approach would have been virtually its only option.” And President Carter noted in his White House dairy at the time, “We have a growing belief among our scientists that the Israelis did indeed conduct a nuclear test explosion in the ocean near the southern end of Africa.”
The VELA satellite system was designed in particular to watch for rogue tests by nuclear pariah states like Israel, one of the very few countries that had refused to sign both the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 1975 Biological Weapons Convention, in spite of the fact that it had an illegal hidden arsenal of nuclear weapons and a secret biological weapons program. The problem for Israel—and a key reason for the secrecy involving the tests—was the Glenn Amendment to the US Arms Export Control Act. Passed by Congress in 1977, the amendment aimed particularly at the nuclear pariah states. It mandated an end to arms assistance, and an automatic application of extensive US sanctions, if the president determined that any state (other than the nuclear states authorized by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) detonated a nuclear explosive after 1977. The nuclear test was also a clear violation of the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty, to which Israel was a party.
Under US law, Israel must be banned from receiving its annual package of billions of dollars and arsenal of bombs. In a 2016 Haaretz column, Victor Gilinsky, a physicist and former commissioner of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, laid out the penalties: “The sanctions for detonating a nuclear explosion are tough: termination of assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act, termination of sales of defense equipment and military financing, prohibition of loans from US banks, and more. In other words, if the U.S. government were to conclude Israel detonated a nuclear explosion after 1977, the law, unless waived, would effectively end all US aid to Israel.” Newell Highsmith, who spent three decades with the State Department and was responsible for legal issues related to nonproliferation, agrees. “Glenn Amendment sanctions for detonation or receipt of a nuclear explosive device have been viewed as a ‘death sentence’ because of the breadth of sanctions and because there is no presidential waiver,” he wrote last year for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
In addition to the violation of the Glenn Amendment, Israel is also in violation of the Symington Amendment, which has similar penalties for any country that delivers nuclear materials and technology to another country. Israel had a long history of friendship and cooperation with apartheid South Africa, and in addition to supplying millions of dollars worth of weapons to help violently suppress the country’s Black majority population, it also provided nuclear weapons materials and offered to sell the racist regime nuclear warheads to keep it in power. In return, Israel received uranium from South Africa to develop its weapons.
For decades, US presidents and members of Congress have willfully turned a blind eye to Israel’s extensive violations of American laws. Earlier this month, Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen and seven other senators, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, sent a strong letter to President Joe Biden. It urged him to enforce section 6201 of the Foreign Assistance Act by requiring Israel to stop restricting humanitarian aid access to Gaza or forfeit military aid from the US. The law prohibits the sale and transfer of military weapons to any nation that restricts the delivery of US aid, precisely what Israel is doing in its deliberate war of starvation against Palestinian civilians in Gaza. “We need the president and the Biden administration to push harder and to use all the levers of US policy to ensure people don’t die of starvation,” Van Hollen told The Guardian.
At the same time that US administrations were failing to enforce the ban on nuclear weapons testing by Israel, they also deliberately engaged in a campaign of censorship, lies, and disinformation to hide the truth from the American public. The Clinton White House even promulgated a regulation that threatens past and present government employees with harsh actions, including firing, if they publicly acknowledge that Israel has nuclear weapons. “All US government employees are forced to pretend they know nothing about Israeli nuclear weapons,” former NRC commissioner Gilinsky wrote in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. “Since everyone knows it’s not true, the pretense hobbles America’s policy on restraining the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.”
Because of this official gag order, Americans are deliberately kept in the dark regarding the dangerousness of Israel’s illegal stockpile of nuclear weapons—weapons that have never been subject to international inspection and are therefore of questionable safety. And then there is the problem of that secret cache of nuclear weapons being controlled by a number of top Israeli officials whose extreme positions would sanction their use. Last November, Israeli Minister Amichai Eliyahu said one of Israel’s options in the war is to drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza. “That’s one way,” he said. Another Israeli official, Revital “Tally” Gotliv, urged her government to use “everything in its arsenal,” including “doomsday” weapons, against Hamas. “Who would have imagined that, just as we have been worrying about Pakistani weapons falling into the hands of Islamic fanatics, we would come to the point where we have to fear Israel’s nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Israeli fanatics?” said Gilinsky.
With hundreds of drone attacks in the region and missiles flying back and forth, there is also the danger of one of them deliberately or accidentally hitting Israel’s Dimona nuclear weapons plant and setting off a nuclear catastrophe. Last October, according to Israeli reports, “Incoming rocket sirens are sounding in the Southern Negev region, close to the southern city of Dimona.” Adding to the danger is more than half a century’s worth of volatile nuclear waste, numbering hundreds of tons, in shallow trenches at the nuclear weapons complex—material that, unless carefully disposed of, could turn Dimona into another Chernobyl.
Americans are being deliberately lied to by their own government as to Israel’s vast and deadly nuclear stockpile, largely built with nuclear materials stolen from the United States. For those on Capitol Hill and in the White House, the incentive for keeping Israel’s secret—and thus allowing it to avoid US laws—is money and power. Millions in campaign donations from wealthy pro-Israel supporters and PACs, and power from lobbies like AIPAC. In 1979, rather than take any actions against Israel, President Carter, like those in the White House before and after him, did nothing. Carter has acknowledged this in years since, writing that the “reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts” of AIPAC.
The strength of AIPAC is something CNN’s Wolf Blitzer knows a great deal about. Before his gig with cable news, he was a top propagandist for AIPAC. There is, he noted, “a widely held attitude among Israeli officials that Israel can get away with the most outrageous things. There is a notion among many Israelis that their American counterparts are not too bright, that they can be ‘handled.’”
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders apparently agrees, having repeatedly warned that Israel is violating both international and US laws. “To pretend that Israel is not violating international law or interfering with US humanitarian aid is absurd on its face,” he said this week. “The State Department’s position makes a mockery of US law and assurances provided to Congress.” Nevertheless, he concluded that “relatively few Democrats are prepared to pull the trigger and say, ‘You know what, hey, Mr. Netanyahu. You continue that and you’re not getting another nickel in American aid.’ Why’s that so? I guess it has a lot to do with AIPAC.”
Sanders then pointed his finger at the White House. “And it’s a lot to do with the president,” he said. Indeed, Joe Biden, during his time in the Senate, was the number-one recipient in Congress of pro-Israel millions—which apparently put him at the top of Israel’s list of “not-too-bright American politicians” that can be “handled” with bags of cash. While vice president in 2011, Biden gave an address to a group of fundraisers and supporters of the Yeshiva Beth Yehuda school in Detroit. “I’ve raised more money from AIPAC than some of you have,” he said to applause. “You think I’m kidding, don’t you,” he added. “I’m not.”
For the White House and Congress, it’s time to rip off the gag, stop being “handled,” reject the cash, and enforce the law with Israel—including the Glenn and Symington amendments. If its leaders want to secretly explode nuclear weapons, sell nuclear materials to racist countries, violate treaties, commit war crimes, and engage in ethnic genocide, America’s billions, bombs, and backing should not be making it possible.
“Nuclear comes last”
the tail-between-legs exit of the Nuclear Summit conferees declared in a headline: “Taxpayers are needed to foot the bill to achieve 2050 targets.”
Banks reject nuclear funding, stocks nosedive and the industry says it should, believe it or not, slow down
By Linda Pentz Gunter https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/03/31/nuclear-comes-last/
NuScale, the company whose small modular reactor project collapsed so spectacularly last November, is “burning cash at the rate of $185 million per year”. On March 22, the company’s CEO, John Hopkins, sold 59,768 of his shares in the company. This is the same CEO who declared NuScale’s SMR project, aptly named VOYGR, “a dead horse.” It’s clearly on a journey to nowhere.
Wells Fargo, with an eye on prudent investments, has declared, “We think investor enthusiasm for SMR is misguided”. As The Motley Fool reported, “NuScale’s VOYGR nuclear power product has ‘no secure customers’ and is ‘not cost competitive’ says the analyst.”
The splashy cheerleading Nuclear Energy Summit organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Brussels on March 21 proved to be just that. The participants arrived floating on the hot air of their misplaced enthusiasm but “left humbled by the tepid reaction of bankers assessing the price tag of their ambitions”.
European Investment Bank Vice President Thomas Ostros, told Summit attendees to their face that “The project risks, as we have seen in reality, seem to be very high”. Representatives from the European and Latin American banking worlds said that “their lending priorities lean toward renewables and transmission grids” and that “nuclear comes last”.
Even the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission couldn’t quite bring itself to slam down its rubber stamp on Oklo’s chalet-in-the-woods micro reactor, the Aurora, which remains about as real as its namesake fairy tale princess.
In January 2022, the NRC denied Oklo’s license application outright because it “continues to contain significant information gaps in its description of Aurora’s potential accidents as well as its classification of safety systems and components,” wrote the NRC.
Oklo reapplied nine months later but according to the NRC docket there is “no further action”.
Nevertheless, Oklo brags on its website that it “made history” simply by developing “the first advanced fission combined license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission”, which sums up the second nuclear “renaissance” perfectly: Make a drawing. Hit ‘send’.
Meanwhile, the US military canceled its contract for an Aurora reactor originally intended for the Eielson Air Force Base near Fairbanks, Alaska.
And finally, an executive from the industry that has consistently delivered its latest new reactors decades late and billions over the original budget — in one case $20 billion over — suggested they should all just slow down. Said Ian Edwards, chief executive of Canadian reactor producer, Atkins Realis, “we all become too optimistic. We have this optimism bias towards being able to deliver faster. Really we should probably slow things down a little bit.”
But nuclear power is the answer to our current climate crisis! Ya think?
It’s tempting to ask whether things can get any worse for the nuclear power industry, but they almost certainly will. Unless we end up paying for it all. As the Bloomberg article that related the tail-between-legs exit of the Nuclear Summit conferees declared in a headline: “Taxpayers are needed to foot the bill to achieve 2050 targets.”
At the moment, a majority in the US Congress seem intent on making sure that is exactly what will happen. Because after all, why should multi-billionaire, Bill Gates, be forced to pay for his own nuclear toys when he can milk (read ‘bilk’) US taxpayers instead?
The US government has already pledged $2 billion of our money to Gates for his proliferation-friendly liquid sodium-cooled molten salt fast reactor produced by his company, TerraPower (more properly, TerrorPower). Gates can’t wait to export it the United Arab Emirates. Nuclear weapons anyone?
The strokey-white-beard-named ADVANCE Act, has been passed by the US House with 365 voting in favor and only 36 Democrats-with-a-conscience voting against it. By its own description, the ADVANCE ACT aims to “advance the benefits of nuclear energy by enabling efficient, timely, and predictable licensing, regulation, and deployment of nuclear energy technologies.” In other words, do away with burdensome — and expensive — safety regulations.
Indeed, New Mexico Democrat, Senator Martin Heinrich, told E&E News in January that “These regulatory timelines do not lend themselves to fighting the climate crisis.” Oh those wascally wegulations!
Meanwhile, Democratic senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia doesn’t want to seat any new NRC commissioners who might be “too focused on safety.”
The NRC’s motto is “protecting people and the environment,” a mandate it demonstrably endeavors to avoid already, but even some vestige of interest in safety is probably better than none. Not that safety oversight will be needed of course because, hey, SMRs are “walkaway safe” and “meltdown proof” and any new light water reactors are too “advanced” to be a safety risk.
This makes the insistence by SMR manufacturers that they must be covered by the Price-Anderson Act (PAA) all the more curious. Price-Anderson, due to expire in 2025, was culled out of the ADVANCE ACT, now moving out of Senate committee and working its way through the reconciliation process, and handled separately. The Senate adopted the House version of the PAA, giving it a 40-year extension to 2026, and expanded limited liability for a major accident to just over $16 billion per reactor.
President Biden duly signed it into law, marking another misstep on what is becoming an increasingly problematic presidency.
Ed Lyman, Nuclear Power Safety Director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Nuclear Intelligence Weekly that “The nuclear industry’s push for a 40-year Price-Anderson Act extension is a sure sign that it doesn’t believe its own messaging about how safe the next generation of nuclear reactors is going to be.”
But in a joint statement, Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.) declared that “The extension of the Price-Anderson Act in the minibus sends a clear message that we are committed to the advancement of this safe and reliable power source.”
The “clear message” this actually sends is that, in the event of a major nuclear accident, US taxpayers will be thrown under that minibus. The $16 billion coverage will be chicken feed and we will all be stuck with the bill. Let’s remember that the Chornobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters are each racking up costs in the hundreds of billions of dollars and counting. We have been warned.
But a bi-partisan group of Representatives and Senators think it’s perfectly fine for all of us to pay for such an eventuality. Meanwhile, if you own a home and are forced to abandon it in the path of a nuclear accident, you cannot claim a dime off your homeowner’s insurance. It will just be a total loss. Think about that for a moment.
Are we outraged yet?
Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear
Biden claims binding UN Security Council Gaza ceasefire resolution is ‘non-binding.’
Walt Zlotow, 31 Mar 24 https://heartlandprogressive.blogspot.com/
After 4 tries the UN Security Council Monday passed a binding resolution demanding “an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire.” While the US didn’t veto it, their abstention allowed the other 14 Security Council member to pass the resolution with yea votes.
But the US abstention now required the US to follow the binding resolution and cease its 6 month long enabling of the Israeli genocide in Gaza.
What to do? Since the Biden administration has no intention of ending its genocidal support, it unilaterally declared the binding resolution was non-binding.
America’s UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who cast the abstention, said “We fully support some of the critical objectives in this nonbinding resolution.”
White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby followed Thomas-Greenfield by calling the resolution “nonbinding” four times. “Number one, it’s a nonbinding resolution. So, there’s no impact at all on Israel and Israel’s ability to continue to go after Hamas.”
A short time later State Department spokesperson Matt Miller also called the resolution “nonbinding” three times.
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres denounced Biden’s disreputable, illegal and disheartening abrogation of international law. “This resolution must be implemented. Failure would be unforgivable.” UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq added, “All the resolutions of the Security Council are international law. They are as binding as international laws.”
Pedro Comissario UN envoy of Mozambique, a non-permanent Security Council said “All United Nations Security Council resolutions are binding and mandatory. It is the hope of the 10 (non-permanent members) that the resolution adopted today will be implemented in good faith by all parties.”
Even America’s foreign policy poodle Great Britain abandoned America’s trashing of international law. Their envoy stated “We expect all Council resolutions to be implemented. This one is not any different. The demands in the resolution are absolutely clear.”
President Biden is so obsessed with supporting Israel’s genocide in Gaza, he’s descended into Orwellian rhetoric to erase international law from the US diplomatic toolbox.
Copernicus online portal offers terrifying view of climate emergency
Looking at the mass of information, there is only one conclusion: we are running out of time
Paul Brown, 29 Mar 24, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/mar/29/copernicus-online-portal-offers-terrifying-view-climate-emergency
here is so much information on the newly launched Copernicus Climate Change Service atlas that my laptop started to overheat trying to process it all. As well as all the past data, it predicts where the climate is going and how soon we will breach the 1.5C “limit”, and then 2C. You can call up the region where you live, so it is specific to what is happening to you and your family – and all the more disturbing for that.
A separate part called Climate Pulse intended particularly for journalists is easier to operate. The refreshing bit is that the maps, charts and timelines from 1850 to the present day on the main atlas are entirely factual measurements, so there can be no argument on the trends. It then follows those trends into the likely scenarios for the next few years. Examining current temperature increases, it seemed to this observer that scientists have been underestimating for some time how quickly the situation is deteriorating.
Looking at the mass of information all pointing one way makes the current political arguments about how soon the UK should reach net zero seem trivial. We are clearly running out of time. Still, the idea is that people can use the atlas to make up their own minds.
Nuclear news for the last week of March
Some bits of good news. More Teens Than You Think Understand the Positive and Negative Aspects of Smartphones–Survey. India makes significant progress on malaria. Renewables blew gas away in the UK.
TOP STORIES
UK Court Gives Biden Chance to Dodge Assange Appeal by “Assuring” His Rights .
Spending Unlimited – The Pentagon’s Budget Follies Come at a High Price.
Air attacks on Ukraine have again put the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant(ZNPP), under Russian control, in danger. ALSO AT ………
Nuclear waste clean-up company to be prosecuted over alleged cyber blunders, lax security.
THE R.A.F’S NUCLEAR FLIGHTS OVER BRITAIN AND THE ATLANTIC.
Is Nuclear Fusion Really The Ultimate Solution to AI’s Crazy Power Use?
Climate. Oil company chief urges investment in fossil fuels, as world heats at a record pace. Antarctic sea ice ‘behaving strangely’ as Arctic reaches ‘below-average’ winter peak. Copernicus online portal offers a terrifying view of climate emergency.
Noel’s notes. Sellafield scandals – a case study in why the nuclear industry must be shut down. A world run by 11 year-old boys? The tiresome spin of the nuclear lobby in Australia.
******************************************************************
AUSTRALIA.
- Australian government seeks top quality PR team to persuade Aborigines that a nuclear waste dump is a good thing.
- The AUKUS Cash Cow: Robbing the Australian Taxpayer. Australia’s move on nuclear submarines raises concern.
- Nuclear ranks last on list of good investments by big institutions. IFM Investors steers clear of nuclear projects.
- Liberal Coalition twisting itself into knots over nuclear policy. Opposition’s nuclear policy must be based on facts. ‘They don’t have a plan’: Chris Bowen slams Opposition push for nuclear.
- UN Security Council ceasefire resolution a turning point in Gaza war.
NUCLEAR ISSUES
ART and CULTURE. Decades of Dissent: Anti-Nuclear movement explored in LSE Library exhibition, London.
CIVIL LIBERTIES. The Empire Slowly Suffocates Assange Like It Slowly Suffocates All Its Enemies.
Arrested for peaceful protest against Israeli-owned military technology company.
ECONOMICS.
- UK’s ever more expensive nuclear submarines will torpedo spending plans for years to come.
- ‘Nuclear Dinosaurs’ Roam New Brunswick, Ontario as ‘Jurassic’ Partnership Looms.
- Nuclear energy everywhere costs an arm and a leg.
- EDF Names New Head of Nuclear Plant Projects Amid Cost Overruns.
- United Arab Emirates signals interest in European nuclear energy investments.
- Famous UK seaside town ‘decimated’ by £46bn nuclear power station and huge Pontins change.
| EDUCATION. Nuclear and weapons industry propaganda to schools. Missing Links in Textbook History: War | EMPLOYMENT. Sellafield’s head of information security to step down. | ETHICS and RELIGION. A Genocide Foretold. |
EVENTS. The First Annual Plutonium Trail Caravan is on Saturday April 6th – Join Us!
| LEGAL. Assange Extradition Delayed Unless US Provides ‘Assurances’ He Won’t Be Executed for Revealing the Truth. Chris Hedges: The Crucifixion of Julian Assange. Purgatorial Torments: Assange and the UK High Court. Now there are three court challenges against Ontario nuclear waste disposal facility. The Decision That Wasn’t A Decision. The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) will prosecute Sellafield Ltd on charges of security offences. British nuclear site Sellafield to be prosecuted for cybersecurity failures. Court Allows Ageing Japanese Nuclear Plants to Continue Operations. | MEDIA. This is how nuclear war would begin – in terrifying detail. ‘My jaw dropped’: Annie Jacobsen on her scenario for nuclear war. Review: Annie Jacobsen’s ‘Nuclear War: A Scenario’ Will Make You Start Worrying And Hate The Bomb. The Rising Nuclear Threat: Readers respond to the “At the Brink” series of Opinion articles Einstein’s vision for peace. Oppenheimer: Monaghan man, Daniel A. McGovern, who captured nuclear devastation. |
| OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . Scotland’s National Party attacks £200m extra for nuclear deterrent and industry. | POLITICS. Whaat! Romania’s state-owned Nuclearelectrica to partner with NuScale to build small nuclear reactors- U.S, government to give $1.52 billion loan guarantee to Holtec to resuscitate Palisades Nuclear Plant. IAEA Warns Of Iraq-Like Scenario For Iran Without Transparency |
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. New NATO member Finland admits US pact ‘restricts sovereignty’. Biden claims binding UN Security Council Gaza ceasefire resolution is ‘non-binding.’ | PUBLIC OPINION. Most Americans now disapprove of Israel’s military action in Gaza new poll reveals as tensions rise between allies. | SAFETY. Atomic blackmail – Russia-Ukraine war and Ramberg’s theory of vulnerability. NRC admits San Onofre Holtec nuclear waste canisters are all damaged. Special nuclear flights between the US and UK: the dangers involved. Security concerns as UAE Eyeing Investments in Europe’s Nuclear Energy Sector. |
| SECRETS and LIES. IAEA Unaware Of Secret Iranian Nuclear Site Targeted By Israel. | SPINBUSTER.ChatGPT’s boss claims nuclear fusion is the answer to AI’s soaring energy needs. Not so fast, experts say. Cancer “epidemic” in the Young as Radioactive Wastes are Increasingly Dispersed to the Environment meanwhile Nuclear given “green” status in Brussels.. | TECHNOLOGY. Weaponizing Reality: The Dawn of Neurowarfare. New nuclear reactor types will not solve waste and safety issues. |
| WASTES. UK nuclear watchdog takes Sellafield nuclear waste operator to court over alleged IT breaches. Experts from Japan and China held talks on treated radioactive wastewater. Decommissioning. How much will extra decades of nuclear decommissioning work at Dounreay cost? Dounreay decommissioning date ‘never achievable’ says Caithness councillor Also at https://nuclear-news.net/2024/04/01/1-b1-dounreay-decommissioning-date-never-achievable-says-caithness-councillor/. | WAR and CONFLICT. Putin says Russia will not attack NATO, but F-16s will be shot down in Ukraine. Atrocities. Israel Remains Intent on Genocide Despite World Court Orders. Michigan Republican congressman says Gaza should be destroyed with nuclear bomb ‘like Nagasaki and Hiroshima’, as he slams US for sending humanitarian aid. | WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES.Biden Is Quietly Funding Nuclear Weapons Upgrades That Could Imperil the Planet. The Nuclear Explosion That Makes US Aid to Israel Illegal. US secretly sending more bombs to Israel – Washington Post.. U.S., Germany Supplied 99% of Israel Weapons Import Despite Pressure: Data.France will help Brazil develop nuclear-powered submarines, Macron says.Nabbed Australian Protestors Stopping Military Shipment to Israel.UK to test new ‘Astraea’ nuclear warheads without detonation. |
Melissa Parke: The nuclear threat Australia is ignoring
In its 2018 policy platform, Labor committed to signing and ratifying the TPNW in government, after taking account of a number of factors, including the new treaty’s interaction with the longstanding non-proliferation treaty.
It was Albanese who moved the motion, stating at the time, “Nuclear weapons are the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. Today we have an opportunity to take a step towards their elimination.”
The motion was seconded by the now defence minister, Richard Marles, and adopted unanimously.
The Saturday Paper, 30 Mar 24
In August 1939, a month before the outbreak of World War II, Albert Einstein wrote to then United States president Franklin D. Roosevelt advising that a large mass of uranium could be used to make “extremely powerful bombs of a new type”.
Fearing Nazi Germany would be the first to develop such weaponry, he implored Roosevelt to speed up experimental work aimed at harnessing the destructive power of the atom.
It was, he later said, the “one great mistake” of his life.
Like J. Robert Oppenheimer, Einstein became increasingly alarmed at the implications of the Manhattan Project. In just a few years, the human species had acquired the means to destroy itself, along with most other living organisms on Earth.
Horrified by the high death toll from the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, which killed more than 200,000 people, mostly civilians, Einstein reflected, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”
Shortly before his death in 1955, Einstein signed a manifesto with other renowned intellectuals, including the mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell, warning “a war with H-bombs might quite possibly put an end to the human race”.
Their growing concern stemmed, in part, from the discovery that nuclear weapons could spread destruction over a much wider area than had initially been supposed.
A year earlier, at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, America’s infamous Castle Bravo nuclear weapons test had poisoned not only the people of nearby Rongelap but also Japanese fishermen hundreds of kilometres from the blast site.
It was the largest of more than 300 US, French and British nuclear test explosions carried out in the Pacific between 1946 and 1996, with devastating consequences for local populations and the environment.
The British government also tested nuclear weapons on Australian soil in the 1950s and 1960s, poisoning the environment, dislocating and irradiating Aboriginal communities, and affecting many of the 20,000 British and Australian service personnel involved in the testing program.
The toxic legacy of these experiments – in Australia, the Pacific and other parts of the world – persists to this day. Those exposed to radiation and their descendants suffer from birth defects and cancers at much higher rates than the general population.
Still, the nuclear arms race continues apace. The dire warnings articulated so powerfully in the Russell–Einstein manifesto seven decades ago remain just as relevant today.
Our world is teetering on the brink of catastrophe, with close to 13,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of nine countries. The risk of their use – whether by accident or design – is as high as ever……………………………………………………………
Australia’s plan to acquire nuclear-powered submarines under AUKUS has only exacerbated tensions, eroding well-established non-proliferation norms.
Last year, more than 150 medical journals, including The Lancet and the Medical Journal of Australia, put out a joint call for urgent action to eliminate nuclear weapons. They identified the abolition of nuclear weapons as a public health priority. “Even a ‘limited’ nuclear war involving only 250 of the 13,000 nuclear weapons in the world,” the warning stated, “could kill 120 million people outright and cause global climate disruption leading to a nuclear famine, putting two billion people at risk.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
This week, as I walked the halls of Parliament House to advocate for Australia’s signing of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), a landmark accord adopted at the United Nations in 2017 with the backing of 122 countries, I was reminded of the power that people in government have to make real and long-lasting change, and also how all too often they let opportunities slip by.
During my nine years as the Labor member for Fremantle, I saw how government action and policy change could make positive differences for people and the environment, but also how inaction could have devastating consequences.
The Albanese government has an opportunity to leave a powerful legacy and help secure the future of all life on Earth. To do so, Australia must step out from under the shadow of the nuclear umbrella and sign the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Wespons (TPNW)
The sticking point for Australia has been the doctrine of extended nuclear deterrence, a feature of our defence strategy for decades. In theory, Australia relies on US nuclear weapons to defend us against nuclear attack. Washington, however, has never made a public commitment to that effect. Furthermore, since nuclear deterrence is based on the willingness and readiness to commit the mass murder of civilians, it is morally and legally unacceptable, even by way of retaliation.
Deterrence theory also assumes complete rationality and predictability of all actors, including one’s enemies, all of the time, which is a bold assumption.
There are many things that cannot be deterred, including accidents, miscalculations, unhinged leaders, terrorist groups, cyber attacks and simple mistakes. There have been many nuclear near-misses over the decades and we have been on the brink of catastrophe more than once, most famously during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.
The TPNW provides a pathway to the elimination of nuclear weapons. It is a new norm in international law that delegitimises and stigmatises the most destructive and inhumane weapons ever created. It also includes groundbreaking provisions to assist communities harmed by nuclear use and testing and to remediate contaminated environments.
Indonesia, New Zealand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and nine of the Pacific Island states have signed up. We are clearly out of step with our region.
Australia has a proud history of championing nuclear disarmament, particularly under Labor governments. The late Tom Uren, a Labor luminary and mentor to Anthony Albanese, was one of the party’s most passionate critics of nuclear weapons and war.
It was under the Whitlam government, with Uren serving as a minister, that Australia ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1973. Bob Hawke worked with Pacific neighbours to develop the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty in 1985. Paul Keating established the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons in 1995. Kevin Rudd established a follow-up commission in 2008.
In its 2018 policy platform, Labor committed to signing and ratifying the TPNW in government, after taking account of a number of factors, including the new treaty’s interaction with the longstanding non-proliferation treaty.
It was Albanese who moved the motion, stating at the time, “Nuclear weapons are the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. Today we have an opportunity to take a step towards their elimination.”
The motion was seconded by the now defence minister, Richard Marles, and adopted unanimously.
Albanese argued the most effective way for Australia to build universal support for the TPNW – including, ultimately, bringing nuclear-armed states on board – would be for our country to join the treaty itself.
He also said that doing so would not jeopardise Australia’s alliance with the US, noting Australia had joined other disarmament treaties to which the US isn’t a party, including those banning anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions.
New Zealand, the Philippines and Thailand have all ratified the TPNW, with no disruption to their ongoing non-nuclear military cooperation with the US. Indeed, the Philippines recently almost doubled the number of its military bases available to US forces and conducted joint military exercises with the US in the South China Sea.
Labor reaffirmed its commitment to signing the TPNW at its 2021 and 2023 national conferences, but the Albanese government has not yet inked the accord. It is time for the prime minister to act.
The rising, existential danger of nuclear war makes it all the more important for Australia to get on the right side of history.
We need to change our modes of thinking – to use Einstein’s phrase – and dispense with old ideas about what makes us safe and secure. We must remember that disarmament is essential for our collective survival.
In their manifesto, Einstein and Russell appealed as human beings to human beings: “Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.”
This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on March 30, 2024 as “The nuclear threat Australia is ignoring”. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/comment/topic/2024/03/30/the-nuclear-threat-australia-ignoring#mtr
.
Missing Links in Textbook History: War
According to the Institute for National Strategic Studies: “The most highly prized attribute of private contractors is that they reduce troop requirements by replacing military personnel. This reduces the military and political resources that must be dedicated to the war.”
By Jim Mamer , ScheerPost, 28 Mar 24
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military- industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
— President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address (1961)
n the late 1980s I had a student in an American history class who said that the United States won the war in Vietnam. I felt dizzy. Maybe I had misunderstood. So, I asked him to explain. “My father,” he told the class, “said that we had won the war because we won most of the battles and we killed more of them than they killed of us.”
My instinct was to attempt to impose logic on the discussion. American aircraft, I said, dropped millions of tons of bombs on Vietnam – more than twice what the U.S. dropped in all of World War II. That, of course, killed a lot of people, but it did not win the war.
That student was not convinced and I quickly realized that I would not change his mind. Not long after, I discovered that he and his father were not alone.
Ignorance or Amnesia?
The late Gore Vidal famously referred to this country as the “United States of Amnesia.” He had a point. As a society, we don’t seem to learn much from past experiences and even what we think we remember is often blurry.
In a 2003 episode of “Democracy Now!” Vidal reported that George W. Bush had managed to have a number of presidential papers put beyond the reach of historians for a great length of time. Making historical records unavailable, he predicted, will worsen America’s amnesia: “There will be no functioning historical memory … we are creating a lobotomized nation wherein the connections between essential parts of our history are severed from what is taught.”…………………………………………………………..
Glenn Greenwald blames some of the misunderstanding on journalists. He began a recent edition of System Update by talking about how journalists report on war. “One of the most important parts of journalism, when it comes to war, is to scrutinize, and investigate and debunk propaganda that comes from every side in every war.” Unfortunately, he concludes, journalists often fail to scrutinize, investigate and debunk.
I have argued some of the blame should be put on state approved textbooks which often fail, in Vidal’s words, to make the vital connections, due to what I call “missing links.
The Often-Invisible Agenda of Corporate Media
In 2005, Norman Solomon wrote an article titled “The Military-Industrial-Media Complex,” where he describes the connections of the military-industrial complex to corporate media.
“Firms with military ties routinely advertise in news outlets. Often, media magnates and people on the boards of large media-related corporations enjoy close links—financial and social—with the military industry and Washington’s foreign-policy establishment. Sometimes a media-owning corporation is itself a significant weapons merchant.”
Because so much of the media is now tied to corporate sponsors or serves the agenda of one political party most Americans are never exposed to real debate. Highly paid broadcasters may be fearful of offending their corporate paymasters when they report on a war involving the United States, especially when their reports have been given a veneer of credibility from “experts” drawn from the ranks of retired military officers, retired CIA personnel and former FBI officials.
As a result, there is virtually no media coverage of weapons manufacturers and the profits they make. Just imagine the impact it would make if reports from war zones that we are deeply involved with, like Gaza or Ukraine, were followed by listings of the profits made by various weapon-making conglomerates like Lockheed Martin, Mitsubishi, Boeing, General Dynamics or Raytheon?
How much do we know about American Wars?
To understand the gravity of the situation it helps to have a sense of how many American wars have been fought and how many conflicts we are currently involved with. The numbers differ according to the source largely because wars are sometimes grouped under umbrella terms like the Caribbean wars, the Cold War or the War on Terror.
According to Wikipedia, the United States has been involved in 107 wars since its founding and 41 of these were fought against the Indigenous peoples of North America. Most of these wars are ignored by schools, textbooks and the media, but the pressure to become involved in additional conflict is ever-present and comes from a variety of sources.
When Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense for President George Bush Sr., he contracted engineering company Kellogg, Brown & Root (then part of Halliburton) to identify traditional military jobs that could be taken over by private sector contractors. It turned out there were a lot of jobs for the private sector and ever since the use of contractors has grown in positions like conducting intelligence, training local military, handling security and assisting in drone warfare.
At times the number of private contractors has been larger than that of enlisted troops……………………………
According to the Institute for National Strategic Studies: “The most highly prized attribute of private contractors is that they reduce troop requirements by replacing military personnel. This reduces the military and political resources that must be dedicated to the war.”
Public Citizen reports that “Every year, the defense industry donates millions of dollars to the campaigns of members of Congress, creating pressure on the legislative branch to fund specific weapons systems, maintain an extremely high Pentagon budget, and add ever more military spending.”
They also report that the pressure to spend more is constant, even though “nearly 50% of the Pentagon budget” already goes to private contractors. According to the report, in 2022 the weapons/defense industry donated $10.2 million to the 84 members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.
Even the language employed to report on war is structured to confuse. Invented phrases resemble Orwell’s Newspeak, from the novel 1984, meant to prevent too much thought. How else to explain the birth of misleading terms like “protective reaction strike” (an attack) “enhanced interrogation techniques” (torture), “extraordinary rendition” (kidnapping), “collateral damage” (extra dead), or “targeted killings” (usually with a lot of collateral damage).
The Art of Promoting Misunderstanding
What you do in this world is a matter of no consequence. The question is,
What can you make people believe that you have done?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. High school textbooks all discuss early American wars, but usually without analysis. What follows are examples of how three early wars are discussed in textbooks………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Are we headed toward Forever Wars?
Republicans and Democrats disagree today on many issues, but they are united in their resolve that the United States must remain the world’s greatest military power. This bipartisan commitment to maintaining American supremacy has become a political signature of our times.
— Andrew J. Bacevich, American Imperium 2016
……………………………..describing our history as one damn war after another.
How else to respond to the Wikipedia list of 107 wars involving the United States since 1787. And the wars continue. In his book “The United States of War,” David Vine reports that, “In the nearly two decades since U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. military has fought in at least 22 countries.”
In his analysis of American wars Andrew Bacevich writes that “the constructed image of the past to which most Americans habitually subscribe prevents them from seeing other possibilities.” This “constructed image” is basically one of the United States as largely innocent of aggression, but forced by circumstance to defend itself.
In order to identify the missing links in the textbook treatments of American wars, it is important to look beyond the minutiae of single events and the unique characteristics of each conflict and look for common threads in the motivations towards engaging in war.
We have a government financed and influenced by Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex idea, and a population which seems either uninformed or uninterested.
The combination invites a future of permanent war.
Common threads include the ever-present assertion that the United States is defending itself whenever it goes to war and that includes wars engaged in while assembling a nation that would span the continent, as the song goes, “from sea to shining sea.”
How accurate were American claims of self-defense regarding American participation in the three early wars I reviewed?
…………………………………………………… If Andrew Bacevich is correct in saying we in the U.S. have a bipartisan congressional commitment to maintaining American supremacy, then more wars are inevitable. If we are to escape a future of forever wars, all justifications for war should be questioned and debated before the killing starts. https://scheerpost.com/2024/03/28/missing-links-in-textbook-history-war/
Starvation in Gaza: The World Court’s Latest Intervention
March 30, 2024, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/starvation-in-gaza-the-world-courts-latest-intervention/
Rarely has the International Court of Justice been so constantly exercised by one topic during a short span of time. On January 26, the World Court, considering a filing made the previous December by South Africa, accepted Pretoria’s argument that the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was applicable to the conflict in so far as Israel was bound to observe it in its military operations against Hamas in Gaza. (The judges will determine, in due course, whether Israel’s actions in Gaza meet the genocidal threshold.) By 15-2, the judges noted that “the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the Court renders its final judgment.”
At that point 26,000 Palestinians had perished, much of Gaza pummelled into oblivion, and 85% of its 2.3 million residents expelled from their homes. Measures were therefore required to prevent “real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found by the Court to be plausible, before it gives its final decision.”
Israel was duly ordered to take all possible measures to prevent the commission of acts under Article II of the Genocide Convention; prevent and punish “the direct and public incitement to genocide” against the Gaza populace; permit basic services and humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip; ensure the preservation of, and prevent destruction of, evidence related to acts committed against Gaza’s Palestinians within Articles II and III of the Convention; and report to the ICJ on how Israel was abiding by such provisional measures within a month. The balance sheet on that score has been uneven at best.
Since then, the slaughter has continued, with the Palestinian death toll now standing at 32,300. The Israelis have refused to open more land crossings into Gaza, and continue to hamper aid going into the strip, even as they accuse aid agencies and providers of being tardy and dishonest. Their surly defiance of the United States has seen air drops of uneven, negligible success (the use of air to deliver aid has always been a perilous exercise). When executed, these have even been lethal to the unsuspecting recipients, with reported cases of parachutes failing to open.
On March 25, the UN Security Council, after three previous failed attempts, passed Resolution 2728, thereby calling for an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan “leading to a lasting sustainable” halt to hostilities, the “immediate and unconditional release of all hostages”, “ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs” and “demands that the parties comply with their obligations under international law in relation to all persons they detain.”
Emphasis was also placed on “the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance to and reinforce the protection of civilians in the entire Gaza Strip.” The resolution further demands that all barriers regarding the provision of humanitarian assistance, in accordance with international humanitarian law be lifted.
Since January, South Africa has been relentless in its efforts to curb Israel’s Gaza enterprise in The Hague. It called upon the ICJ on February 14, referring to “the developing circumstances in Rafah”, to urgently exercise powers under Article 75 of the Rules of Court. Israel responded on February 15. The next day, the ICJ’s Registrar transmitted to the parties the view of the Court that the “perilous situation” in the Gaza Strip, but notably in Rafah, “demands immediate and effective implementation of the provisional measures indicated by the Court in its Order of 26 January 2024.”
Throughout the following month, more legal jostling and communication took place, with Pretoria requesting on March 6 that the ICJ “indicate further provisional measures and/or to modify” those ordered on January 26.
The application was prompted by the “horrific deaths from starvation of Palestinian children, including babies, brought about by Israel’s deliberate acts and omissions … including Israel’s concerted attempts since 26 January 2024 to ensure the defunding of [the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and Israel’s attacks on starving Palestinians seeking to access what extremely limited humanitarian assistance Israel permits into Northern Gaza, in particular.”
Israel responded on March 15 to the South African communication, rejecting the claims of starvation arising from deliberate acts and omissions
“in the strongest terms.” The logic of the sketchy rebuttal from Israel was that matters had not materially altered since January 26 to warrant a reconsideration: “the difficult and tragic situation in the Gaza Strip in the last weeks could not be said to materially change the considerations upon which the Court based its original decision concerning provisional measures.”
On March 28, the Court issued a unanimous order modifying the January interim order. Combing through the ghoulish evidence, the judges noted an updated report from March 18 on food insecurity from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification Global Initiative (IPC Global Initiative) stating that “conditions necessary to prevent Famine have not been met and the latest evidence confirms that Famine is imminent in the northern governorates and projected to occur anytime between mid-March and May 2024.” The UN Children’s Fund had also reported that 31 per cent of children under 2 years of age in the northern Gaza Strip were enduring conditions of “acute malnutrition”.
In the face of this Himalaya of devastation, the Court could only observe “that Palestinians in Gaza are no longer facing a risk of famine, as noted in the Order of 26 January 2024, but that famine is setting in, with at least 31 people, including 27 children, having already died of malnutrition and dehydration.” There were “unprecedented levels of food insecurity experienced by Palestinians in the Gaza strip over recent weeks, as well as the increasing risks of epidemics.”
Such “grave” conditions granted the Court jurisdiction to modify the January 26 order which no longer fully addressed “the consequences arising from the changes in the situation.” In view of the “worsening conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza, in particular the spread of famine and starvation”, Israel should take “all necessary and effective measures to ensure, without delay, in full cooperation with the United Nations, the unhindered provision at scale by all concerned of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance.”
The list of what is needed is also enumerated: food, water, electricity, fuel, shelter, clothing, hygiene, sanitation requirements, and “medical supplies and medical care to Palestinians throughout Gaza, including by increasing the capacity and number of land crossing points and maintaining them open for as long as necessary.”
A less reported aspect of the March 28 order, passed by fifteen votes to one, was that Israel’s military refrain from committing “acts which constitute a violation of any rights of the Palestinians in Gaza as a protected group” under the Genocide Convention “including by preventing, through any action, the delivery of urgently needed humanitarian assistance.”
In this, the Court points to the possible, and increasingly plausible nexus, between starvation, famine and deprivation of necessaries as state policies with the intent to injure and kill members of a protected group. It is no doubt something that will weigh heavily on the minds of the judges as they continue mulling over the nature of the war in Gaza, which South Africa continues to insist is genocidal in scope and nature.
TODAY The tiresome spin of the nuclear lobby in Australia.
It used to be the pro-nuclear pronouncements of Dr Adi Paterson of ANSTO – going on about the wonderful small nuclear reactors (SMRs). He made a sudden departure from ANSTO – who knows why, but possibly because SMRs are turning out to b a flop, and a shocking waste of tax-payers’ money.
But there have always been the spinners. You can’t count the Liberal and National Party politicians. They are probably an embarrassment to the nuclear lobby, as they repeatedly demonstrate their ignorance of the issues.
I don’t know who funds these sham charities, but they pop up all the time.
The latest is, of course “Nuclear for Australia”, now posing as a charity, and running a petition. It was supposedly started by a 16 year old boy – in keeping with the current enthusiasm for nuclear as “young” “new” “clean” and “lively”. But of course it is strongly backed by those youthful organisations – the World Nuclear association, the International Atomic Energy Agency – and a few somewhat less prestigious agencies.
A few of the previous sham charities:
TODAY. Sellafield scandals – a case study in why the nuclear industry must be shut down.
If you had any illusions about the nuclear industry being “clean” and “safe” and “honest”, the latest bit of news in the tawdry saga of UK’s Sellafield nuclear waste dump might cause you to stop and think.
It doesn’t seem that much – “prosecution for alleged cybersecurity offences” and “no suggestion that public safety has been compromised”.
But if you bother to do your homework on this sprawling rubbish dump, the world’s most complex nuclear site, with the world’s largest stockpile of plutonium – you will find a litany of alarming nuclear stories:
- Sellafield: ‘bottomless pit of hell, money and despair’ at Europe’s most toxic nuclear site
- secrecy valued more than public safety.
- Cracks in ponds holding highly radioactive fuel rods. wastes pumped into the seas. Irish Sea contaminated with plutonium.
- US, Norway and Ireland anxious over risk of a devastating accident.
- sudden changes in security leadership.
- Office for Budget Responsibility – site poses a “material source of fiscal risk” to the country.
- a toxic workplace culture.
- site hacked by groups linked to Russia and China. Dishonesty:
- British authorities knew it was wrong to proceed with the thermal oxide reprocessing plant (Thorp) at Sellafield.
And what does the world nuclear authority, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have to say about all this? –
“World nuclear chief praises Sellafield progress”
Wake up world!
I’m sorry to have to say this, – but you can’t depend on the world leaders and the nuclear authorities to tell you the truth about this ghastly industry. So many depend on it for their livelihood, for their local economy – etc etc. But the truth must be told.
The political and business leaders are waiting till after their retirement – hoping that the shit won’t hit the fan while they might cop the blame. Like the security bosses at Sellafield, they might have to get out in time. I wonder how long Rafael Grossi can last, can keep up the pretense.
Sellafield is arguably the worst case of nuclear danger and corruption. But then there are the horrors of the Russian nuclear industry, including City 40. Then there’s Japan, with its eternal Fukushima calamity, and its many nuclear reactors close to earthquake zones.
It’s really only thanks to Anna Isaac and Alex Lawson, of the Guardian, that we get to find out about Sellafield.
And to others, like Kate Brown. revealing the reality of the nuclear waste-plutonium disaster endangering the planet
And I wonder, as the USA prepares to lock up Julian Assange forever, how long will the powerful allow these intrepid writers to spill the beans on nuclear scandals?
Liberal Coalition twisting itself into knots over nuclear policy
Liberal MP warns Dutton on nuclear energy as Labor steps up attacks
By Paul Sakkal, March 28, 2024 , https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/liberal-mp-warns-dutton-on-nuclear-energy-as-labor-steps-up-attacks-20240326-p5ff92.html
Liberal MP Bridget Archer has issued her colleagues a caution on the political risk of the party’s nuclear energy plans, which the backbencher claims have been catapulted into political debate partly to keep climate change doubters on board with the Coalition’s net zero emissions policy.
While there is widespread support within Peter Dutton’s opposition for a conversation on nuclear energy, several Coalition MPs speaking confidentially to detail private concerns said they were worried the opposition was moving too quickly and creating an easy target for Labor attacks.
As the first Liberal to ask questions about the Coalition’s approach, Archer argued fiscally conservative opposition MPs, including herself, would be uneasy with the massive government investment required to build multibillion-dollar plants.
Nuclear energy, which Archer — a leading moderate voice within the party — says she is open to, should be pursued only if coupled with a rapid surge in renewables, she said, a contrast with Dutton and other Coalition MPs, who suggest extending the life of coal until nuclear availability in 10 or 20 years.
Dutton and the shadow cabinet MP leading the nuclear push, Ted O’Brien, are expected to detail their energy plans, including about six plant sites, by the budget in May, but Archer said the initial policy should be limited to lifting Australia’s nuclear moratorium.
“I’m very agnostic about it and I don’t think we should be afraid to just have conversations. But there are a lot of things that need to line up,” she said, noting technological and economic factors that might inhibit private investment even if the decades-old moratorium was overturned.
The opposition has spoken in favour of nuclear energy since losing government in 2022, and escalated its commitment this year as it declared support for large-scale nuclear on top of new-age small modular reactors.
Its backing of the new energy source has guaranteed that climate change and energy will be a key election issue. Voters will be presented with a choice between Labor’s renewables-heavy path to a zero emissions future and one complemented by nuclear energy, amid doubts over Labor’s emissions-reduction targets and expensive energy bills.
Signalling Labor’s future election attacks, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese compared Dutton to the contentious energy source in parliament on Wednesday, saying: “One is risky, expensive, divisive and toxic; the other is a nuclear reactor. The bad news for the Liberal Party is that you can put both on a corflute, and we certainly intend to do so.”
Dutton has been open about the potential need for government investment in nuclear plants, which Labor says have cost tens of billions overseas.
Archer, a member of an influential parliamentary inquiry into nuclear energy last term, said she would be uncomfortable with a “big government” approach to energy investment, which she said might irk Liberals with a fiscally conservative bent.
O’Brien has emphasised nuclear as a zero-emissions option to smooth Australia’s bumpy transition to net zero. However, some of the strongest voices for nuclear energy are MPs such as Barnaby Joyce, who oppose renewables and have questioned scientific orthodoxy on climate change.
Earlier this month O’Brien said, “we should not be closing our coal-fired power stations prematurely” because under Labor’s plans 90 per cent of baseload energy would exit the grid by 2034.
Archer, who Dutton this week congratulated for winning the McKinnon Prize for political leadership, said nuclear energy should not be used as an excuse to prolong fossil fuel reliance.
“There is no point even having a nuclear discussion if you don’t accept a need to decarbonise, to transition away from coal and gas,” she said. “There only is a case for nuclear if there is a fairly rapid transition to large-scale renewables, otherwise why are you doing it?”
“I think part of the reason for having the discussion is to keep people in the tent on net zero.”
Allegra Spender, a teal MP who some Liberals believe should be recruited to the party in future, said nuclear “may have a role in the distant future”.
But it is too slow, too expensive and the UK Hinkley [nuclear power station] experience shows the costs are too uncertain for it to be relevant to our current energy plans,” she said.
“AGL Energy, Alinta, EnergyAustralia and Origin Energy have all dismissed nuclear.
“The community does not trust the Coalition’s commitment to climate action, and their current stance reinforces it.”
Nuclear energy everywhere costs an arm and a leg
By Jean-François Julliard, Mar 30, 2024, https://johnmenadue.com/nuclear-energy-everywhere-costs-an-arm-and-a-leg/
The contribution of nuclear power to electricity generation is the lowest for thirty years and its price twice that of renewables.
It crackles like a Geiger counter in a uranium mine: in 2023, Emmanuel Macron announced plans for six additional EPR [European Pressurised Reactor] nuclear power plants. Hang on, no, perhaps fourteen in the long term.
In reviving nuclear in the name of the struggle against global warming, the European Union has followed suit. Japan is promising new developments on the nuclear front. The US is experimenting with miniature reactors. China is building with gusto … All these ‘ionising’ projects seem to indicate that fission-based nuclear power is in full swing.
In fact, it is to the contrary. A report of experts published in December 2023, the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2023 [549pp!], using data supplied by the International Atomic Energy Agency and national states, provides the evidence. The part of electricity generation due to nuclear power is the lowest in 30 years (9.2 percent), compared to near double that figure in the 1990s.
Over twenty years, the cost of a nuclear kilowatt hour has increased slightly, whereas the cost of solar and wind has plummeted (‘melted’), these days coming in at roughly half that of nuclear. In 2022, the report highlights, €35 billion has been invested in nuclear globally, compared to … €455 billion in renewables.
France is still trying to recover from an annus horribilis in 2022. In addition to higher costs associated with the war in Ukraine, reactor shutdowns have multiplied. In August 2023, 60 % of France’s 56 reactors were dysfunctional. During 2023, production has augmented, but it has stayed at the level of … 1995.
Showcases of French savoir-faire, the EPR reactors are not ‘making sparks’, accumulating shutdowns, delays (twelve years for Flamanville, on the English Channel, and thirteen years for Olkiluoto, in Finland) as well as cost blowouts (the bill multiplied by 1.7 [for now] at Hinkley Point, in Great Britain, by 3 at Olkiluoto and by 6 at Flamanville!).
During this time, plutonium (for which every gram is of fearsome toxicity), an essential fuel for these ‘toys’, piles up. The accumulated stock for France has reached an unprecedented level of 92 tonnes.
Small problem: how can EDF [Électricité de France], which has acquired a debt of €65 billion, finance the announced projects? This question doesn’t stop Brussels from supporting them – in spite of the industrial disaster on course. No matter that, for several years, within the EU, renewable energy (hydraulic, wind and solar) has generated the most electricity, ahead of nuclear, followed by gas and coal.
South Korea was formerly one of the principal international competitors of EDF for conquering foreign markets. These days South Korea shows itself more reluctant, especially after a calamitous 2022. Kepco, the national electrician, has lost more than €22 billion, adding to a debt of €131 billion – a record. Nuclear contributes 29.6 % to production, currently less than coal. But the promises – within ten years coal’s contribution is supposed to be cut in half and that of renewables tripled. As for nuclear, it will grow by … 5 %.
Japan only starts to pick up with the atom after the closure of several reactors following Fukushima. To the subsequent shortage of electricity add the financial dimension of the catastrophe: in 2021, the government estimated it at more than €200 billion. Thirteen years after the event, the Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida, wants to rekindle nuclear (‘accelerate the particles’) but furnishes no details on new reactors.
Last year, production in Japan was at its lowest level (equivalent to that of the 1970s), and only 6 % of electricity was of nuclear origin. In spite of announcements, distrust persists, especially since the discovery of misrepresentations (modification of results of chemical analyses, falsification of measures of resistance of materials) of Japan Steel Works, manufacturer of components for reactors, selling them worldwide and notably to France.
China is the country the most committed to the atom. On 58 reactors currently under construction globally, 23 (40 %) are in the Middle Kingdom. However, if nuclear trots, renewables gallop, flat out. Nuclear represents 5 % of electricity, whereas wind and solar furnish 15 %, progressing more quickly than coal, which remains far and away the main ‘source of the juice’. Other vexation: Beijing exports little of its savoir-faire. This because the US, among others, which have blacklisted Chinese enterprises, accused of having siphoned American technology for its military ambitions. Slanderous!
The United States remains the champion of nuclear energy but its brainpower has not kept pace (‘their neutrons are not very quick’). In 2022, the contribution of nuclear to electricity generation has fallen to 18.2 % – the lowest rate since 1987 – less than coal and renewables, the latter passed for the first time to pole position. American reactors are on average the oldest in the world (42 years), and only two reactors have been brought into service in the last twenty-five years.
And what a debut! The AP1000 (variation of the EPR) of Vogtle (Georgia) began operation in March 2023, eight years later than planned and, above all, at an estimated cost of €28.5 billion, more than double the initial estimate. Les Echos [French business newspaper] (25/1/22) has kindly described the feat as a local ‘Flamanville’. This financial debacle has much contributed to the failure of Westinghouse, giant of nuclear reactor manufacture. The event has also provoked the shutdown of the construction site (nine years work) of two other AP1000s in South Carolina. Living fossils!
As a consequence, the US is paying more attention to mini reactors, or SMR [small modular reactors]. Save that NuScale, the champion of the type, last November, cancelled a vast construction program of six of these miniatures, for which the budget had almost tripled …
Russia is the veritable world champion of the ‘civil atom’. That said, however, it produces only 20 % of the country’s electricity. Rosatom, the Russian EDF, foreshadows a small increase to 25 %, but in … 2045. It is overseas where business is booming. Russia, a nation at war, is building reactors in countries as peaceful as Iran, Egypt, India or Turkey. Without forgetting China, one of Russia’s best customers.
Russia’s commercial secret? Its discounted prices, its turnkey packages and, above all, its control of the indispensable enriched uranium. Russia furnishes much of the latter to Europe but also to the US, 31 % of its supplies coming from Russia. All this while imposing sanctions on Putin’s country, which toys with the nuclear threat, going so far as to bomb the vicinity of Ukraine’s nuclear reactor at Zaporizhzhia – the largest such in Europe.
Israel Lies About Being A Victim So That It Can Victimize
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, MAR 30, 2024, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/israel-lies-about-being-a-victim?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=143090068&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
The Washington Post reports that in recent days the Biden administration has quietly signed off on sending Israel billions of dollars worth of fighter jets and the 2,000-pound bombs that have been causing so much death and destruction in Gaza, even as Israel prepares to launch a bloody assault on the strip’s densely-populated southernmost point.
Literally just completely ignore every single thing US officials say about the need to protect civilians and how Biden’s feelings are privately “frustrated” with Netanyahu. Just ignore their entire narrative about what their goals are in Gaza. Their actions make it clear.
Protesters from Palestine Action have forced Israel-based arms dealer Elbit Systems to permanently close one of its factories in the UK as demonstrators have made it too difficult for the factory to operate. We’ll never vote the empire away, but we might someday be able to direct action it away.
Video footage has surfaced of IDF troops murdering two unarmed Palestinians in cold blood and then burying their bodies with bulldozers to conceal their crime. This is surely not anywhere close to the first time such a thing has happened in Gaza, and is yet another sign that the death toll from this onslaught is probably a massive undercount.
Israel’s assault on Gaza features heavy earth-moving equipment more extensively than any other military operation anyone’s ever seen. One reason is because it’s a great way to destroy Palestinian homes. Another reason is because it’s a great way to hide dead Palestinian bodies.
An IDF commander has told Israeli media that on October 7 he made the decision to fire on vehicles he knew could have Israelis in them because “it’s better to stop the abduction and that they not be taken,” adding more weight to the mountain of evidence that Israeli troops fired on Israelis on October 7 to prevent them from being taken hostage. Israeli bombs and blockades have been picking off the remaining hostages ever since, with Israel now estimating that only 60 to 70 of the 134 hostages are still alive.
Whenever you run into an Israel apologist who is defending against criticisms of Israel’s actions in Gaza by saying “Hamas just needs to release the hostages and this all ends,” maybe go ahead and remind them of this.
ADL chief Jonathan Greenblatt just went on MSNBC’s Morning Joe and compared wearing a Palestinian keffiyeh to wearing a Nazi armband. The mass media keep having this lunatic on as an expert analyst and he keeps saying the most bat shit insane things imaginable. Any screaming schizophrenic off the street would be just as qualified as Greenblatt.
❖
A former ranking IDF officer has told Haaretz that Israel is conducting “a war of cruel rich people” which is causing many times more destruction than necessary to accomplish its stated objectives against Hamas.
“In principle, it would be possible to arrive at similar achievements with 10 percent of the destruction we have caused,” the unnamed source told Haaretz.
Ten percent. Israel is causing ten times more damage than it needs to to achieve its stated objectives because its stated objectives are false — Israel’s real goal is not to defeat Hamas, it’s to grab a bunch of land from a Palestinian territory.
Of all the pants-on-head idiotic things Israel and its apologists ask us to believe, “The UN just hates Israel for no good reason so all its claims should be dismissed” is definitely among the dumbest.
Israel apologists constantly claiming the UN is antisemitic and treats Israel unfairly remind you of a boy who never does any homework and keeps saying his bad grades are because his teacher hates him. The UN talks about Israel a lot because Israel is a murderous criminal regime.
❖
If you still have any doubt that we live in a profoundly sick dystopia as deranged as anything that’s ever been imagined in fiction, take note of the fact that the most powerful empire in history is currently trying to propagandize you into thinking an obvious genocide is fine.
They lied about decapitated babies so that they could kill babies.
They lied about rape so that they could rape.
They lied about Hamas using civilians as human shields so that they could use civilians as human targets.
They lie about being victims so that they can victimize.
UN expert says she faces threats after Israel-Gaza genocide report
Francesca Albanese had stated there were clear indications Israel has violated three acts in the UN Genocide Convention.
A United Nations expert who published a report saying there were reasonable grounds to believe Israel has committed genocide in its war on Gaza says she has received threats throughout her mandate.
Francesca Albanese, the special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, presented a report entitled “Anatomy of a Genocide” to the UN Human Rights Council on Tuesday, which Israel said it “utterly rejects
In the report, Albanese said there are clear indications that Israel has violated three of the five acts listed under the UN Genocide Convention in its war on Gaza.
Asked whether her work on the report had caused her to receive threats, Albanese said: “Yes, I do receive threats. Nothing that so far I considered needing extra precautions. Pressure? Yes, and it doesn’t change either my commitment or the results of my work.”
Albanese, who has held the position since 2022, did not elaborate on the nature of the threats, nor did she say who had issued them.
“It’s been a difficult time,” she said. “I’ve always been attacked since the very beginning of my mandate.”
27:55
Israel has criticised Albanese, saying she was “delegitimising the very creation and existence of the State of Israel”. Albanese denied the accusation.
Albanese said one of her key findings was that Israel’s executive and military leadership and soldiers have intentionally “subverted their protection functions in an attempt to legitimise genocidal violence against the Palestinian people”.
“The only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the unveiling of this policy is an Israeli state policy of genocidal violence toward the Palestinian people in Gaza,” she said, adding that it was a “long-standing settler colonial process of erasure”.
She called for the “ongoing Nakba” to stop, referring to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948.
Israel’s diplomatic mission in Geneva said the use of the word genocide was “outrageous” and said the war was against Hamas and not Palestinian civilians.
Albanese, an Italian lawyer and academic, is one of dozens of independent human rights experts mandated by the United Nations to report on specific themes and crises.
The views expressed by special rapporteurs do not reflect those of the global body as a whole.
Purgatorial Torments: Assange and the UK High Court
Australian Independent Media, March 27, 2024, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark
What is it about British justice that has a certain rankness to it, notably when it comes to dealing with political charges? The record is not good, and the ongoing sadistic carnival that is the prosecution (and persecution) of Julian Assange continues to provide meat for the table.
Those supporting the WikiLeaks publisher, who faces extradition to the United States even as he remains scandalously confined and refused bail in Belmarsh Prison, had hoped for a clear decision from the UK High Court on March 26. Either they would reject leave to appeal the totality of his case, thereby setting the wheels of extradition into motion, or permit a full review, which would provide some relief. Instead, they got a recipe for purgatorial prolongation, a tormenting midway that grants the US government a possibility to make amends in seeking their quarry.
A sinking sense of repetition was evident. In December 2021, the High Court overturned the decision of the District Court Justice Vanessa Baraitser to bar extradition on the weight of certain assurances provided by the US government. Her judgment had been brutal to Assange in all respects but one: that extradition would imperil his life in the US penal system, largely due to his demonstrated suicidal ideation and inadequate facilities to cope with that risk.
With a school child’s gullibility – or a lawyer’s biting cynicism – the High Court judges accepted assurances from the Department of Justice (DOJ) that Assange would not face the crushing conditions of detention in the notorious ADX Florence facility or suffer the gagging restrictions euphemised as Special Administrative Measures. He would also receive the appropriate medical care that would alleviate his suicide risk and face the prospect of serving the balance of any sentence back in Australia. The refusal to look behind the mutability and fickle nature of such undertakings merely passed the judges by. The March 26 judgment is much in keeping with that tradition.
The grounds for Assange’s team numbered nine in total entailing two parts. Some of these should be familiar to even the most generally acquainted reader. The first part, comprising seven grounds, argues that the decision to send the case to the Home Secretary was wrong for: ignoring the bar to extradition under the UK-US Extradition Treaty for political offences, for which Assange is being sought for; that his prosecution is for political opinions; that the extradition is incompatible with article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) noting that there should be no punishment without law; that the process is incompatible with article 10 of the ECHR protecting freedom of expression; that prejudice at trial would follow by reason of his non-US nationality; that the right to a fair trial, protected by article 6 of the ECHR, was not guaranteed; and that the extradition is incompatible with articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR (right to life, and prohibiting inhuman and degrading treatment).
The second part of the application challenged the UK Home Secretary’s decision to approve the extradition, which should have been barred by the treaty between the UK and US, and on the grounds that there was “inadequate specialty/death penalty protection.”
In this gaggle of imposing, even damning arguments, the High Court was only moved by three arguments, leaving much of Baraitser’s reasons untouched. Assange’s legal team had established an arguable case that sending the case to the Home Secretary was wrong as he might be prejudiced at trial by reason of his nationality. Following from that “but only as a consequence of that”, extradition would be incompatible with free speech protections under article 10 of the ECHR. An arguable case against the Home Secretary’s decision could also be made as it was barred by inadequate specialty/death penalty protection.
What had taken place was a dramatic and savage pruning of a wholesome challenge to a political persecution garishly dressed in legal drag. On the issue of whether Assange was being prosecuted for his political opinions, the Court was happy to accept the woeful finding by Baraitser that he had not. The judge was “entitled to reach that conclusion on the evidence before her, and on the unchallenged sworn evidence of the prosecutor (which refutes the applicant’s case).” While accepting the view that Assange “acted out of political conviction”, the extradition was not being made “on account of his political views.” Again, we see the judiciary avoid the facts staring at it: that the exposure of war crimes, atrocities, torture and various misdeeds of state are supposedly not political at all.
………………………………………………………………………………………….. Of enormous, distorting significance was the refusal by the High Court to accept “fresh evidence” such as the Yahoo News article from September 2021 outlining the views of intelligence officials on the possible kidnapping and even assassination of Assange.
…………….Imaginatively, if inexplicably, the judges accepted her finding that the conduct by the CIA and UC Global regarding the Ecuadorian embassy had no link with the extradition proceedings. With jaw dropping incredulity, the judges reasoned that the murderous, brutal rationale for dealing with Assange contemplated by the US intelligence services “is removed if the applicant is extradited.” In a fit of true Orwellian reasoning, Assange’s safety would be guaranteed the moment he was placed in the custody of his would-be abductors and murderers.
The High Court was also generous enough to do the homework for the US government by reiterating the position taken by their brother judges in the 2021 decision. Concerns about Assange’s mistreatment would be alleviated by granting “assurances (that the applicant is permitted to rely on the First Amendment, that the applicant is not prejudiced at trial (including sentence) by reason of his nationality, that he is afforded the same First Amendment protection as a United States citizen, and that the death penalty not be imposed).” Such a request is absurd for presuming, not only that the prosecutors can be held to their word, but that a US court would feel inclined to accept the application of the First Amendment, let alone abide by requested sentencing requirements.
The US government has been given till April 16 to file assurances addressing the three grounds, with further written submissions in response to be filed by April 30 by Assange’s team, and May 14 by the Home Secretary. Another leave of appeal will be entertained on May 20. If the DOJ does not provide any assurances, then leave to appeal will be granted. The accretions of obscenity in the Assange saga are set to continue. more https://theaimn.com/purgatorial-torments-assange-and-the-uk-high-court/
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
30 July – WEBINAR (Free) – Is Nuclear Power the Solution to Climate Change? https://my.acaw.org.au/event/acaw-is-nuclear-power-the-solution-to-climate-change
18:30 – 19:45 ACST
19:00 – 20:15 AEST
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
Antinuclear 