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
    • Workshops
  • Donate

January 22, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear Threats in Ukraine: Real and Hyped

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair
By John LaForge

Is it possible that all the press about the highly elevated the risk of nuclear weapons being detonated in Ukraine is a lot of smoke? US political and military leaders have downplayed the risk of nuclear attacks in Ukraine many times.

The United States, Russia, France, China, and the United Kingdom possess most of the world’s nuclear weapons. Last January 3rd, these five states jointly declared, “We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

Consequently the five governments should be racing to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and to redirect the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on nuclearism after defunding their vast nuclear weapons infrastructures.

Instead, most are spending enormous sums on expanding their nuclear arsenals, and publicly announcing plans for the “first use” of the devices under certain conditions. The spending and strategies flatly contradict their public pledge that nuclear weapons can’t win anything and must never be used.

Yet it is possible that the military and political authorities in control of nuclear weapons know they must not explode them. It could be that nuclear attack planners understand that the effects of such detonations boomerang and bite back, poisoning and killing their own forces, contaminating the sought-after territories and that of neutral states.

The White House, the Pentagon and other experts have repeatedly assured the world they don’t think nuclear attacks are likely.

November 30:“Why Zelensky thinks Putin won’t use nukes on Ukraine” (Axios)

November 2: “US sees no indications Russia readying nuclear weapons, White House says.” (Reuters)

October 24: “No indication Russia has decided to use nuclear weapon in Ukraine, says senior US official.” (The Guardian & Financial Times)

October 9: “White House Sees No Indication Russia Is Preparing Nuclear Attack After Biden’s ‘Armageddon’ Warning.” (Forbes)
October 9: “…the White House emphasized on Friday that the United States has seen no signs that Russia is gearing up to use nuclear weapons.” (New York Times)

October 9: “Pentagon spokesperson tamps down concerns over nuclear ‘Armageddon.’” (The Guardian)

October 7: “Pentagon: No sign Putin is planning to use nukes after Biden’s ‘Armageddon’ comment.” (Politico)

Sept. 30: “US has not seen acts indicating Russia contemplating nuclear attack.” (Reuters)

Sept. 28:“US believes it’s unlikely Putin will use a nuclear weapon but threat has ‘elevated.’” (CNN)

Sept. 24: “The US says Russia isn’t preparing to use nuclear weapons, yet.” (New York Times)

Sept. 16: “I don’t see Putin using nuclear weapons” [says] British military strategist Sir Lawrence Freedman. (Euromaidan Press)

When asked about it on October 28, 2022 before the Valdai Discussion Club in Moscow, even Russian President Vladimir Putin himself made clear that it’s useless to detonate nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Putin answered, “There is no point in that, neither political, nor military.”

The truly terrifying threat from nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war is the risk of an accidental or unintentional detonation. Nearby nuclear weapons are in the hands of Russia, France, Britain, and the United States, which deploy them on submarines, bombers, fighter jets and in “nuclear sharing” with NATO members Germany, Holland, Belgium, Italy, and Turkey — which station US B61 H-bombs at six separate bases. Computer glitches, false alarms, mistakes identifying shooters (as happened November 15 when Ukraine blamed Russia in error for a blast caused by one its own air-defense missiles striking Poland), or panicked commanders misreading communications, could all lead to catastrophe; a good reason to demand universal denuclearization.

The other truly consequential nuclear threats in Ukraine stem from the country’s 15 operational nuclear power reactors, those sitting-duck time bombs in this first-ever reactors-in-a-war zone conflict. These radiation grenades with their pins ready to be pulled should spark global anti-nuclear militancy — as did the Chernobyl reactor catastrophe in the same place 36 years ago.

 

— A version of this opinion ran at Counterpunch.org on November 21, and at L.A. Progressive December 2, 2022

Filed Under: Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, War

January 22, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear Bomb Profiteers Create Their Market

By John LaForge

According to a recent news release from “ResearchandMarkets.com,” worldwide sales of nuclear bombs and missiles is a growth market expanding by leaps and bounds. The report, “Nuclear Bombs and Missiles Market,” claims the field was worth $72.64 billion in 2020, and will reach $126.34 billion by 2030, “growing at a compound annual growth rate of 5.4%.” While the United States “dominated the global nuclear bombs and missiles market share in 2020,” this year the Asia-Pacific dominates, followed by Europe, North America and Latin America, Middle East and Africa. The report reads like the profiteers’ version of recent research by Don’t Bank on the Bomb, a project of PAX in The Netherlands that tracks nuclear weapons funding.
Sounding upbeat, the report says donations to “think tanks” from the weapons industry result in white papers about the urgent need for new weapons. It describes the corruption without irony: “Think tanks are research and analytical bodies that demonstrate future needs and reasons to have nuclear arsenals. … Twelve think tanks across the globe have disclosed funding of [$]5.5 million to [$]10.2 million in 2020 from corporate giants who are manufacturing nuclear weapons.” The cynicism extends to the current war in Ukraine, as the report shamelessly says: “Factors such as the rise in geopolitical conflicts … are expected to support the nuclear bombs and missiles market growth.” “Key market players” named in the document are familiar: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Boeing, Airbus, and BAE. — PR Newswire, News from Research and Markets, Sept. 20, 2022

Lockheed Martin stock plunged by 5.5 percent, and its capitalization decreased by more than $7 billion, after a fake Twitter account posted this faux announcement.

Economic Times, Sept. 12, 2022

Filed Under: Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, War

January 22, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

“Fallout”: Investigative Series on Cancer Connection to Nuclear Weapons Production

By Lindsay Potter

Over two years in the making, Cincinnati, Ohio’s TV station WKRC Local 12 has produced a 12-part investigative series on radioactive contamination from the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS) near Piketon, Ohio. The giant complex processed uranium for nuclear weapons for decades. The hard-hitting news reports are available online and come with startling headlines including, “Was [Mr.] Farmer’s cancer death connected to PORTS?” “Kids dying and middle school closed,” “Pike county tops state with ‘alarming’ cancer rates,” “Is radiation on our doorstep?,” “Scientists concerned with radioactive fallout from America’s nuclear plants,” “The cancer connection to Cold War plants,” and “Researcher connects radioactive contamination to PORTS.”
WKRC pitches the series online noting: “Our Local 12 Investigation has revealed children dying from rare cancers, air monitors around PORTS capturing dangerous radioactive particles, and confirmation from scientists that PORTS is causing the contamination…” — To see all 12 segments in the series “Fallout,” go to: https://local12.com/news/investigates/congressman-demands-answers-to-questions-raised-in-local-12s-fallout-investigation-cincinnati-duane-pohlman-pike-county-radiation-investigate-radiactive-dangers-contamination# 

PhotoCredit:https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2019/06/30/lawsuit-residents-near-portsmouth-plant-have-been-sacrificial-lambs/1611619001/

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste

January 22, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Olson Brings Radiation Risk to Mainstream News

PhotoCredit:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310326102_Gender_Summit_EU_Nov_2016_Atomic_Radiation_is_More_Harmful_to_Girls_and_Women
By Lindsay Potter

Newsweek recently featured biologist Mary Olson’s work on the disproportionate impact of radiation on young girls, citing, “young girls could be up to 10 times more vulnerable, with girls [under] five twice as likely to develop cancer as boys of the same age.” Olson, who recently retired from a long career with the nonprofit Nuclear Information and Resource Service in Maryland, told Newsweek that rapid cell division in infants and children makes “their DNA more vulnerable to tumor-inducing damage.” This is particularly true in young girls because, Olson explains, stem cells are sensitive to harm from radiation and young females have higher concentrations of stem cells than males or pubescent females.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s archaic and grossly biased standard called “Reference Man” estimates health risks from ionizing radiation based on a male who is “20 to 30 years old, weighs 154 pounds, is 5-foot and 6 inches tall, and is Caucasian with a Western European or North American lifestyle” — a reference nothing like the profile of the most vulnerable — girls under five. Olson’s work demonstrates that “Reference Man” exposes girls and young women to dangerously high radiation, “not just from nuclear warfare but also from more routine radiation exposures like CT scans, air travel, and medical x-rays.” — Sources: Newsweek, October 10, 2022; and the Gender and Radiation Project at genderandradiation.org.

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure

January 22, 2023 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

The Inseparable Link Between Military and Civilian Reactors

By Mari Inoue

President Emmanuel Macron of France once said that “without civil nuclear power, there is no military nuclear power, and without military nuclear power, there is no civil nuclear power.” This article will examine some common features of military and civilian nuclear programs including their histories, technologies, and regulatory bodies.

Manhattan Project

The Manhattan Project that designed and produced the first atomic bomb also produced the first modern nuclear reactor, the B reactor. Located at the Hanford Reservation in eastern Washington State, it produced plutonium for the first nuclear testing at Trinity site in New Mexico as well as for the atomic bomb used in Nagasaki in 1945 that ended more than 70,000 lives and destroyed the health of an additional 70,000+ people. The first modern nuclear reactor was developed to create nuclear weapons to kill civilians in war.

AEC: Successor of the Manhattan Project

Following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US Congress created the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), which took over the Manhattan Project’s sprawling scientific and industrial complex. The AEC focused on designing and producing nuclear weapons, conducting weapons testing in Nevada and the Pacific, and developing reactors for naval propulsion. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 gave the AEC authority to regulate the commercial nuclear power industry while simultaneously promoting nuclear energy. The AEC was disbanded in 1974 and replaced with the Energy Research and Development Administration, for reactor R&D, naval reactors, and nuclear weapons programs, and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to regulate commercial power reactors and other uses of nuclear materials.

The Department of Energy

Since 1977, the Department of Energy oversees both the nation’s nuclear weapons program and its energy system. The DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration is composed of a nationwide complex of government-owned, contractor-operated national security laboratories, and nuclear weapons production facilities. Together with the Pentagon, the DOE assesses the safety of its nuclear weapons stockpile. The DOE is also responsible for the environmental “cleanup” of nuclear weapons complexes, including Hanford, which is perhaps the most radioactive and hazardous place in the United States.

Navy

The US nuclear energy enterprise supports the nuclear navy, as the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, jointly operated by the DOE and the US Navy, which provides naval nuclear reactors fueled by weapons-grade highly enriched uranium. Under the new “AUKUS” deal, the US and UK will transfer naval nuclear propulsion technology and nuclear-powered submarines to Australia.

Japan

Japan has 47 metric tons of separated plutonium (enough to make 6,000 nuclear weapons according to the Arms Control Association), and is one of the five countries that possess most of the global non-military stockpile of “excess” plutonium — along with the US, UK, Russia, and France. This plutonium is a weapons proliferation threat and a target of nuclear terrorism because it could be used to develop thousands of nuclear warheads. Separating plutonium from used nuclear reactor fuel — from commercial reactors — is formally allowed under the 1988 US-
Japan “123 agreement.”

A flight test body for a B61-12 nuclear weapon. (Photo Credit: Jerry Redfern Copyright: ©2015/Jerry Redfern)
Nuclear Posture Review

The Trump Administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) of 2018 explicitly stated that ensuring “the necessary reactor capacity to produce an adequate supply of tritium to meet military requirements” is one of the initiatives that the US will pursue “to ensure the necessary capability, capacity, and responsiveness of the nuclear weapons infrastructure, and the needed skills of the nuclear enterprise workforce.”

The Biden Administration’s 2022 NPR also notes that “modernizing tritium production will assure a reliable and resilient domestic source and options for longer stockpile life tritium components.” It also states: “Meeting our nuclear policy goals would not be possible without a capable, motivated workforce. The military and civilian personnel who work every day in the nuclear enterprise are a national asset whose accomplishments are rarely seen but vitally important.”

Nuclear Energy Institute

The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry lobby group that promotes nuclear power, is explicit about the links between reactors and weapons. Its website says the United States’ nuclear-powered navy (the world’s largest) is supported by the commercial nuclear energy industry and its shared nuclear supply chain; nuclear reactors and fuel facilities are a critical part of the US infrastructure, and they bolster the mission of the US Navy, other areas of the Pentagon and the DOE; and advanced reactors will also play a role in the national defense of the future.

The US commercial nuclear power program compliments its nuclear weapons enterprise. Consequently, supporting nuclear energy is to support nuclear weapons. To achieve the total elimination of nuclear weapons, we need to halt commercial production of tritium and the commercial use of highly enriched uranium and plutonium by shutting down operating reactors and halting the construction of new reactors.

— Mari Inoue is a lawyer and activist based in New York City and a co-founder of Manhattan Project for a Nuclear-Free World (mp-nuclear-free.com).

Editor’s note: The Tennessee Valley Authority — owned by the US Government — announced plans to continue violating the separation of civilian and military nuclear programs by increasing tritium production for nuclear weapons in the two Watts Bar civilian reactors, Savannah River Watch reports. The tritium rods irradiated in TVA reactors are processed at the DOE’s Savannah River Site, where the tritium goes into nuclear weapons. This is more proof that Biden’s Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm will continue to violate nuclear non-proliferation norms by using civilian nuclear facilities for production of nuclear weapons materials.

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • …
  • 75
  • Next Page »

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

Facebook

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
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • 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

© 2023 · Nukewatch