Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

  • Issues
    • Direct Action
    • Environmental Justice
    • Nuclear Power
      • Chernobyl
      • Fukushima
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • On The Bright Side
    • Radiation Exposure
    • Radioactive Waste
    • Renewable Energy
    • Uranium Mining
    • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Newsletter Archives
  • Resources
    • Nuclear Heartland Book
    • Fact Sheets
    • Reports, Studies & Publications
      • The New Nuclear Weapons: $1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and Fake Cleanups
      • Nuclear Power: Dead In the Water It Poisoned
      • Thorium Fuel’s Advantages as Mythical as Thor
      • Greenpeace on Fukushima 2016
      • Drinking Water at Risk: Toxic Military Wastes Haunt Lake Superior
    • Nukewatch in the News
    • Links
    • Videos
  • About
    • About Nukewatch
    • Contact Us
  • Get Involved
    • Action Alerts!
    • Calendar
  • Donate

June 27, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Chomsky on North Korea’s Provocations & Ours

U.S. Air Force attacking railroads south of Wonsan on the eastern coast of North Korea during Korean War.

Editor’s Note: In the context of a broader discussion, M.I.T. Professor Emeritus Noam Chomsky, speaking in April in Cambridge, Massachusetts, was asked by Democracy Now news anchor Amy Goodman: “Do you think there is a possibility that the US would at­tack North Korea?” Chomsky’s answer is instructive in view of the ongoing US/South Korean wargames off the Korean coast which now involve two US air­craft carrier battle groups.

Noam Chomsky: I doubt it very much. The reason is very simple.

An attack on North Korea would unleash … a massive artillery bombardment of Seoul, the big­gest city in South Korea and right near the border, which would wipe it out including plenty of Ameri­can troops. As far as I can see, there is no defense against that.

Furthermore, North Korea could retaliate against American bases in the region where there are plenty of US soldiers. They’d be devastated; North Korea would be finished; so would much of the region. But if attacked, presumably they would respond, very likely. In fact the responses might be automatic. [National Security Advisor, General Herbert Ray­mond] McMaster at least, and [Secretary of De­fense, General James] Mattis understand this. How much influence they have, we don’t know. So I think an attack is unlikely.

But the real question is: Is there a way of dealing with the problem? There are a lot of proposals. Sanctions. A big new missile defense system—which is a major threat to China and will increase tensions there. Military threats of various kinds. Sending an aircraft carrier, the [USS Carl] Vinson to North Korea…. Those are the kind of proposals as to how to solve it.

Actually there’s one proposal that’s ignored. It’s a pretty simple proposal. Remember: the goal is to get North Korea to freeze its weapons and missiles systems.

So, one proposal is to accept their offer to do that. It sounds simple. They have made a proposal—China and North Korea—have proposed to freeze the North Korean missile and nuclear weapons sys­tems and the US instantly rejected it. And you can’t blame that on Trump. Obama did the same thing. A couple of years ago the same offer was presented, I think it was 2015, the Obama administration in­stantly rejected it.

And the reason is that it calls for a quid pro quo. It says in return the US should put an end to threaten­ing military maneuvers on North Korea’s borders, which happen to include, under Trump, sending of nuclear-capable B52s [and B1 and B2 bombers] fly­ing right near the border.

Maybe Americans don’t remember very well, but North Koreans have a memory of, not too long ago, when North Korea was absolutely flattened, liter­ally, by American bombing. There were literally no targets left.

I really urge people who haven’t done it to read the official American military histories, the Air Quarterly Review, the military histories describing this. They describe it very vividly and accurately. They say there just weren’t any targets left. So what could we do? Well, we decided to attack the dams, the huge dams—a major war crime. People were hanged for it at Nuremberg, but put that aside. And then comes an ecstatic, gleeful description of the bombing of the dams and the huge flow of water which was wiping out valleys and destroying the rice crop, “upon which Asians depend for surviv­al”—lots of racist comments—but all with exalta­tion and glee. You really have to read it to appreciate it. The North Koreans don’t have to bother reading it. They lived it.

So when nuclear-capable B52s [etc.] are flying on their border, along with other threatening military maneuvers, they’re kind of upset about it. Strange people. And they continue to develop what they see as a potential deterrent that might protect the regime, and the country in fact, from destruction. …

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter Tagged With: weapon

June 26, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

North Korea and US Military and Nuclear Capability

Nukewatch chart by Kelly Lundeen

MILITARY & NUCLEAR CAPABILITY NORTH KOREA UNITED STATES
Active duty military personnel [1] 700,000 1.4 million
Military personnel near other state 0 [2] 28,500 in S. Korea;  50,000 in Japan
Military budget $7.5 billion[3] $587.8 billion[3] -to- $850 billion [4]
Number of nuclear warheads 0 confirmed, maybe 10 [5] 4,000 to 4,480 [6]
Nuclear weapon delivery systems [7] 0 450 missiles, 165 heavy bombers, [8] 12 Trident subs (1,900 total)
Number of annual military trainings carried out along the other’s borders 0 [14] 2 (South Korea)
Range of usable missiles < 2,800 miles [9] 8,000 miles [10]
Verbal threats of nuclear strike? Lots Lots
Pledge of “no first use” of nuclear weapons Yes [11] (May 7, 2016) No
Number of ballistic missile tests in 2017 9 [12] 6 [10, 12]
Number of ICBM tests in 2017 [13] 0 6 [10, 12]
Previous nuclear weapons attacks 0 2
Current shooting wars initiated 0 7: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya
Civilians killed in conflicts since 2015 0 [15] 3,800-5,800 [16, 17]

Notes

[1] Global Fire Power.com, 2016

[2] For a relative comparison, consider North Korean troops in Mexico or Cuba

[3] Global Fire Power.com, 2017

[4] War Resisters League, “Where your income tax money really goes,” March 2017

[5] Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, June 1, 2016

[6] Fed. Of Am. Scientists, “Status of World Nuclear Forces,” Apr. 4, 2017; and Bulletin of Atomic the Scientists, Dec. 14, 2016

[7] A delivery system is needed to get a warhead to its target.

[8] USAirForce.com

[9] The Atlantic, May 14, 2017

[10] Christian Science Monitor, May 9, 2017

[11] CNN, May 8, 2016; VOAnews.com, May 7, 2017

[12] ABC News, May 30, 2017

[13] An ICBM would be capable of reaching the other country’s territory.

[14] For a relative comparison, in Canada or Mexico

[15] Also, zero combatants were killed.

[16] Bureau of Investigative Journalism, May 31, 2017 (This includes coalition forces.)

[17] Airwars.com, Jan. 19, 2017.

 

 

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter

June 26, 2017 by Nukewatch 1 Comment

Counting Carriers, or, When is an F-35B not an aircraft?

Summer Quarterly 2017

In the post-fact US Navy, the USS America, left,  with up to 2,930 personnel and a compliment of 20 F-35B fighter jets, is not an aircraft carrier.

The Pentagon likes to say it has 10 aircraft carriers, the 10 Nimitz-class “super carriers” that displace 100,000 tons, and carry up to 6,000 people. But it actually has nineteen.

The 19 carriers are not for deterrence or defense, considering Russia, China, Brazil, India, France and Thailand each have exactly one. Italy and Spain have two each, but they’re NATO allies.

Not counted by the Pentagon are its Tarawa-class carriers with 2,800 people onboard. Three football fields long, and 20 stories high, the Tarawa ships “have the general profile of an aircraft carrier,” as the website GlobalSecurity.org notes. They carry 35 fighter aircraft, including Harrier fighter jets, Harrier jump jets, helicopters, reconnaissance aircraft and thousands of tons of langing vehicles for invasions.

The eight other giant carriers are 45,000-ton Wasp-class behemoths, known instead as “amphibious assault ships” that the Navy calls “the largest amphibious ships in the world.” They launch helicopters, jump jets, hovercraft, landing craft and assault vehicles, and carry up to 2000 Marines. Used for waging war “forward…from the sea,” and “assault by air,” each of the eight Wasps have a 600-bed hospital.

Two of the newest carriers—the $3.5 billion USS America and USS Tripoli—are “considerably larger than recent aircraft-carrying ships constructed for the Korean, Japanese, and Australian navies,” according to Robert Farley of the University of Kentucky’s Patterson School. The America-class will carry up to 20 Marine Corps F-35B fighter jets, plus Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, and helicopter gunships.

Not satisfied with a 19-to-one advantage, the Navy is sea testing the biggest carrier on Earth, the Gerald R. Ford, a 100,000-ton, $10 billion giant that has a crew of 4,300 and carries a fleet of 90 aircraft.

—Lockheed Martin; The Diplomat, April 17, 2014; GlobalSecurity.org, “World Wide Aircraft Carriers – 2014”

Filed Under: Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter Tagged With: nuclear weapons, Pentagon, war, weapon

June 26, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Remember Yucca Mountain? Cancelled and Shutdown in 2010, Some Want a Revival

Update 6/26/17: Legislation to restart the Yucca Mtn dump licensing process is moving forward in the House. Voice your opposition!

The common language in our struggles is understanding each link in the nuclear chain.

—Ian Zabarte, Western Shoshone

Summer Quarterly 2017

By Kelly Lundeen

If you thought the proposal to store highly radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada was dead, check out the new lineup in Washington, DC. With powerful opponents Senator Harry Reid and former President Obama out of the political picture, some Republicans are attempting to revive the licensing process for the waste repository. Trump’s budget proposal requested $120 million for the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has requested $30 million, so the agencies can reopon the licensing process. A Yucca dump would target Western Shoshone lands with the nation’s 70,000-plus tons of waste reactor fuel which would come in from over 70 locations. The nuclear industry responsible for creating the radioactive waste is promoting Yucca and other centralized dumpsites in order to transfer liability to the public from the facilities where it is currently being generated and stored.

Opposition to the Waste Repository Continues

Photo by Indigenous Action Media

Luckily, the movement of Native American and anti- nuclear organizations that stopped the licensing process in 2010 remembers all of the reasons it has always been a bad idea: as a matter of Native sovereignty, science, environment, economy and politics. Considering the site under US federal ownership is a violation of the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley, and Yucca Mountain is held sacred by the Western Shoshone. It is located on the third most seismic region on the continent, near seven cinder cone volcanoes, 26 fault lines and contains a moving water table that would corrode canisters, making it geologically unstable and unsuitable. Transportation by road, rail and barge would expose 100 million people (about a third of the country’s population) living along these routes in the case of an accident. Any accident at the site, 90 miles from Las Vegas, or along the route as it passes through “the Strip,” would devastate the local tourism industry which brought 43 million visitors in 2016. In sum, 299 legal contentions to the application as it stood in 2010 would still require adjudication, resulting in over 400 days of hearings.

Opponents to the dump have maintained their net­work, knowledge and strength. Since the November election, the Native Community Action Council, the only party to the licensing process that is not federally funded, has hosted a forum to defend Yucca Mountain. The National Grassroots Radioac­tive Waste Summit created a Yucca Working Group that gathered 80 organizational signatures on a letter to Congress objecting to any licensing of the abandoned site. All but one member of Nevada’s congressional delegation and majority of Nevadans are opposed to the dump. Lawmakers have intro­duced legislation requiring informed consent from local tribes and governments prior to licensing. The bill would codify the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendation that consent-based siting be agreed before money from the federal Nuclear Waste Fund could be dispersed.

Some proponents of the site are undeterred and insist on following through with the portions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) that made Yucca Mountain the destination for the nation’s high level radioactive waste. Dozens of disqualifying road- blocks have to be ignored to restart the process. Draft legislation to renew licensing proceedings, by amending the NWPA, has been heard in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. A few local politicians are driven by hopes of economic gain in return for accepting the waste. Commissioner Dan Schinhofen of Nye County, where Yucca Mountain is located, reportedly said, “… say give us $50 mil­lion up front, and give us $10 million a year.”

If funds for licensing are given Congressional ap­proval, get ready for years if not decades of litiga­tion and direct action.

Elsewhere on the Radioactive Waste Front

Ten million of the $120 million requested for the DOE by Trump is for so-called “interim storage” in anticipation of long delays in licensing a dump at Yucca Mt. Two applications for such “interim” sites in controversial desert areas of Texas and New Mexico have been submitted to the NRC. Neither of the sites has undergone a consent-based siting or environmental impact process.

Waste Control Specialists, Inc. (WSC) has applied to accept more high-level waste at its site in An­drews County, Texas, but in April the firm suspend­ed its application while in the process of being pur­chased by Energy Solutions, Inc. WCS has admitted to facing “enormous financial challenges.” Addition­ally, the Eddy Lea Energy Alliance and Holtec, Inc. applied in March to host 120,000 tons of high-level waste reactor in southeast New Mexico.

Meanwhile the DOE’s Deep Borehole Field Test proposal has been completely scrapped. The DOE had sought approval to test the feasibility of storing radioactive waste in boreholes three miles deep at sites in Texas, New Mexico and South Dakota, but confronted strong opposition from local communities. Although as an alternative waste site it has been suggested the newly discovered sinkhole in front of Mr. Trump’s luxury resort at Mar-a-Lago. After contractors faced resistance in every meeting with area residents in four potential locations, the agency announced, “Due to changes in budget priorities, the Department of Energy does not intend to continue supporting the Deep Borehole Field Test project.”

For updates on opposing bad radioactive waste storage and transport plans, follow the “Don’t Waste America” campaign of Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

—Dakota Free Press, May 24, 2017; Department of Energy, May 23, 2017; Las Vegas Sun, May 22, 2017; Indigenous Action Media, April 27, 2017; Nuclear Information and Resource Service, April, 2017; Native Community Action Council, 2017

Filed Under: Environment, Environmental Justice, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste Tagged With: Department of Energy, environmental justice, radioactive waste, transport

June 26, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Deep Waste Dump Rewarded for Failure, Reopened with “Contaminated Environment”

One of two deep-underground tunnel roof collapses that recently caused evacuations of the military radioactive “Waste Isolation Pilot Plant” in New Mexico. Photo: Energy Dept.

By Arianne Peterson

Summer Quarterly 2017

On Jan. 4, 2017, the Department of Energy (DOE) reopened its Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), which had been closed since a barrel of radioactive waste stored there exploded in February 2014. The New Mexico facility is the only one accepting transuranic waste (including contaminated tools, clothing, gloves, soil, and debris) from the federal sites involved in nuclear weapons production, and its 35-month closure has caused a backlog of packaged waste to pile up above ground at cleanup sites across the country.

When the DOE opened WIPP in 1999, it touted the underground site as a “permanent” storage facility for military radioactive waste that would “start clean” and “stay clean.” Now, significant portions of the site are permanently contaminated and workers have to wear respirators and protective clothing. The ventilation system which was damaged by the radiation release following the 2014 explosion is operating at a fraction of its original capacity; the DOE is replacing it with a new system expected to be ready in 2021, at an estimated cost of $350-400 million. Citizens’ and environmental watchdog groups have expressed concerns about whether the site is safe to reopen.

Don Hancock of the Southwest Research and Information Center voiced disappointment when the facility was cleared for reopening in December 2016: “The question is how long it is going to be into the new year [before another accident happens]. People, especially workers, are likely to get hurt because they still have significant problems.”

The Mine Safety and Health Administration released a report in December warning that underground conditions have deteriorated significantly while the site was closed. The salt deposit that encloses the storage area contracts by as much as six inches per year, and keeping the dug-out waste rooms intact requires constant structural maintenance, which has been significantly interrupted by the 3-year closure.

WIPP’s reopening was delayed by two significant roof collapses in the waste storage rooms in late 2016. On Nov. 3, an eight-foot-thick section of ceiling more than 60 yards long crashed to the tunnel floor while workers were underground, causing an evacuation but no injuries. According to the Mine Safety and Health Administration Report: “Emergencies are addressed immediately while lower priorities languish until they become emergencies… As the risk level increases, so does the likelihood of unanticipated events.”

After the Jan. 4 reopening, WIPP focused on burying the waste that had been left above ground at the site since the February 2014 explosion. The site’s first shipment of off-site waste arrived April 10, and the DOE expects to accept two shipments of waste per week until it makes improvements to the damaged ventilation system later this year. A WIPP press release stated, “Initial shipments are expected from Idaho, Savannah River Site and Waste Control Specialists. Shipments from Oak Ridge and Los Alamos National Laboratory are expected later this year.”

In December, New Mexico-based groups Citizen Action New Mexico and Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Energy Department asking for documents related to preparations for reopening WIPP—including any financial incentives promised to the Nuclear Waste Partnership, the contractor that runs the facility, for speeding up the process. The DOE denied the groups’ request for an expedited return of FOIA information and they are appealing, citing a lack of transparency surrounding the reopening. While DOE officials have denied that bonuses are tied to the reopening, a 2017 Department of Energy Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plan for WIPP says the contractor could receive more than $2 million for reopening and another $2.1 million for completing a waste placement milestone within the first 90 days of resumed operations.

In fiscal year 2016, Nuclear Waste Partnership received $11.2 million (around 72%) of a possible $15.5 million in bonus funds. According to ARS Technica, the Times reported in 2016 that the DOE added $640 million to the contract for direct cleanup costs after the accident, which does not include the ventilation system replacement or the added price of keeping waste above ground at clean-up sites around the country over the past three years.

—DOE Office of Environmental Management Update, Jan. 17; Exchange Monitor, Mar. 7; ARS Technica, Apr. 25; Carlsbad Current-Argus, May 9, 2017; Albuquerque Journal, Dec. 6; Santa Fe New Mexican, Dec. 23, 2016

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste Tagged With: Department of Energy, radioactive waste

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 192
  • 193
  • 194
  • 195
  • 196
  • …
  • 266
  • Next Page »

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

Categories

  • B61 Bombs in Europe
  • Chernobyl
  • Counterfeit Reactor Parts
  • Depleted Uranium
  • Direct Action
  • Environment
  • Environmental Justice
  • Fukushima
  • Lake Superior Barrels
  • Military Spending
  • Newsletter Archives
  • North Korea
  • Nuclear Power
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Office News
  • On The Bright Side
  • Photo Gallery
  • Protect the Water Close Xcel's Monticello Reactor
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • Social Issues
  • Sulfide Mining
  • Through the Prism of Nonviolence
  • Uncategorized
  • Uranium Mining
  • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • War
  • Weekly Column

Contact Us

(715) 472-4185
nukewatch1@lakeland.ws

Address:
740A Round Lake Road
Luck, Wisconsin 54853
USA

Donate To Nukewatch

News & Information on Nuclear Weapons,
Power, Waste & Nonviolent Resistance

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

© 2026 · Nukewatch