Nuclear Disarmament: they had better really mean it , this time!

Letter submitted to The Guardian: You report (“Symbolic UN nuclear ban to be imposed as 50th state signs up,” The Guardian, 26 October 2020;https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/25/treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons-made-official-with-50th-un-signatory?CMP=share_btn_tw ) that the permanent five (“P5”) nuclear weapons–possessing states (NWSs), in a unique ‘common cause’, assert that they collectively oppose the “potential repercussions” of the Ban treaty. You bet they do! As it would mean they will have to implement the promise they have all agreed as signatories to the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), under its Article 6, which states, inter alia, to “enter into negotiations in good faith and at an early date on nuclear disarmament.” You also report that the NWS argue that they remain committed to the NPT which, you then write, “seeks to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.” The NPT indeed does attempt to coral this so –called horizontal proliferation, but it equally importantly requires a negotiated halt to, and reversal of, the vertical proliferation of the nuclear arms race by the NWSs. I researched the mid-1960s negotiating record for the NPT in the UK National Archives, and found this commitment to negotiated nuclear disbarment by the UK’s then [Labour] disarmament minister, Fred [later Lord] Mulley plenary meeting of the United Nations’ Eighteen Nation Committee on Disarmament in Geneva, on 23 January 1968, when he told the ministerial delegations: "As I have made clear in previous speeches, my government accepts the obligation to participate fully in the negotiations required by [NPT] Article 6 and it is our desire that these negotiations should begin as soon as possible and should produce speedy and successful results. There is no excuse now for allowing a long delay to follow the signing of this treaty."( my emphasis) In the 52 years since this commitment, the UK has shown gross bad faith, by not putting a single UK nuclear weapons into multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations, in good faith, or otherwise. This is why the new Ban treaty is not symbolic, but gives teeth to this long-delayed commitment to rid the planet of nuclear WMDs

A global triumph of disarmament diplomacy

Yesterday I received the best possible present for my 64th birthday: the most important breakthrough in disarmament diplomcy in my lifetime, much more important than the 1968 Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, because this Nuclear Weapons Ban Treay will have real diplomatic teeth. That is why the five nuclear weaposn states ( the "P5") have made extraordinary 'common cause' to oppose it - possibly the only issue on which the US, Russia,China,France and UK are totally agreed- ie they must be allowed to keep their nuclear WMDs in perpetuity..... Below issome of the early reportage of this fantastic agreement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nuclear weapons https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/25/treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons-made-official-with-50th-un-signatory?CMP=share_btn_tw Treaty to ban nuclear weapons made official with 50th UN signatory Production, use and stockpiling of nuclear weapons illegal from January 2021 though nuclear-armed states have not signed up Staff and agencies Sun 25 Oct 2020 05.52 GMT Last modified on Sun 25 Oct 2020 10.09 GMT 628 An international treaty banning nuclear weapons has been ratified by a 50th country, the UN has said, allowing the historic though essentially symbolic text to enter into force after 90 days. While nuclear powers have not signed up to the treaty, activists who have pushed for its enactment hold out hope that it will prove to be more than symbolic and have a gradual deterrent effect. Honduras became the 50th country to ratify. The UN secretary general, Antonio Guterres, called it “the culmination of a worldwide movement to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons”, according to a statement from his spokesman. Now that nuclear weapons are illegal, the Pacific demands truth on decades of testing Read more “It represents a meaningful commitment towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons, which remains the highest disarmament priority of the United Nations.” NGOs also welcomed the news, including the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican), a coalition that won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its key role in bringing the treaty to fruition. “Honduras just ratified the Treaty as the 50th state, triggering entry into force and making history,” Ican announced. Peter Maurer, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said in a statement: “Today is a victory for humanity, and a promise of a safer future.” The 75th anniversary of the nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, marked in August, saw a wave of countries ratify the treaty. They included Nigeria, Malaysia, Ireland, Malta and Tuvalu. Thailand, Mexico, South Africa, Bangladesh, New Zealand, Vietnam and the Vatican are among the countries that had already ratified it. The treaty would come into force on 22 January 2021, the UN said. Declared nuclear-armed states including the US, Britain, France, China and Russia have not signed the treaty. The US has written to treaty signatories saying the Trump administration believes they made “a strategic error” and urging them to rescind their ratification. The letter, obtained by the Associated Press, said the five original nuclear powers – the US, Russia, China, Britain and France – and America’s NATO allies “stand unified in our opposition to the potential repercussions” of the treaty. However campaigners hope the treaty will have the same impact as previous international treaties on landmines and cluster munitions, bringing a stigma to their stockpiling and use, and thereby a change in behaviour even in countries that did not sign up. Ican said in a statement that it expects “companies to stop producing nuclear weapons and financial institutions to stop investing in nuclear weapon-producing companies”. The coalition’s executive director, Beatrice Fihn, called it “a new chapter for nuclear disarmament”. “Decades of activism have achieved what many said was impossible: nuclear weapons are banned.” Saying his country had played a “decisive role” alongside others, Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz wrote on Twitter it was “an important step toward our goal of a world without nuclear arms”. Nuclear-armed states argue their arsenals serve as a deterrent and say they remain committed to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which seeks to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Separately, Russia and the US have been seeking to break an impasse in long-running talks aimed at extending a nuclear arms deal between them. The two sides have struggled to find common ground over the fate of the New START treaty, which limits both sides to 1,550 deployed warheads but is due to expire next February. While the US wants to rework the deal to include China and cover new kinds of weapons, Russia is willing to extend the agreement for five years without any new conditions – and each side has repeatedly shot down the other’s proposals. With Agence France-Presse and Associated Press >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UN: Nuclear weapons ban treaty to enter into force The United Nations has confirmed that 50 countries have ratified a U.N. treaty to ban nuclear weapons, triggering its entry into force in 90 days By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/nuclear-weapons-ban-treaty-enter-force-73810802 ‎25‎ ‎October‎ ‎2020‎ ‎09‎:‎30 UNITED NATIONS -- The United Nations announced Saturday that 50 countries have ratified a U.N. treaty to ban nuclear weapons triggering its entry into force in 90 days, a move hailed by anti-nuclear activists but strongly opposed by the United States and the other major nuclear powers. As of Friday, the treaty had 49 signatories, and the United Nations said the 50th ratification from Honduras had been received. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres commended the 50 states and saluted “the instrumental work" of civil society in facilitating negotiations and pushing for ratification, U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said. The U.N. chief said the treaty’s entry into force on Jan. 22 culminates a worldwide movement “to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons” and “is a tribute to the survivors of nuclear explosions and tests, many of whom advocated for this treaty,” he said, Guterres said the treaty “represents a meaningful commitment towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons, which remains the highest disarmament priority of the United Nations,” Dujarric said. Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize-winning coalition whose work helped spearhead the nuclear ban treaty, said: “This moment has been 75 years coming since the horrific attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the founding of the U.N. which made nuclear disarmament a cornerstone.” “The 50 countries that ratify this Treaty are showing true leadership in setting a new international norm that nuclear weapons are not just immoral but illegal,” she said. The 50th ratification came on the 75th anniversary of the ratification of the U.N. Charter which officially established the United Nations and is celebrated as UN Day. “The United Nations was formed to promote peace with a goal of the abolition of nuclear weapons,” Fihn said. “This treaty is the U.N. at its best — working closely with civil society to bring democracy to disarmament.” The treaty requires that all ratifying countries “never under any circumstances ... develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” It also bans any transfer or use of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices — and the threat to use such weapons -- and requires parties to promote the treaty to other countries. Once it enters into force all countries that have ratified it will be bound by those requirements. The United States had written to treaty signatories saying the Trump administration believes they made “a strategic error” and urging them to rescind their ratification. The U.S. letter, obtained by The Associated Press, said the five original nuclear powers -- the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France -- and America’s NATO allies “stand unified in our opposition to the potential repercussions” of the treaty. It says the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, known as the TPNW, “turns back the clock on verification and disarmament and is dangerous” to the half-century-old Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, considered the cornerstone of global nonproliferation efforts. “The TPNW is and will remain divisive in the international community and risk further entrenching divisions in existing nonproliferation and disarmament fora that offer the only realistic prospect for consensus-based progress,” the letter said. “It would be unfortunate if the TPNW were allowed to derail our ability to work together to address pressing proliferation.” Fihn has stressed that “the nonproliferation Treaty is about preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and eliminating nuclear weapons, and this treaty implements that. There’s no way you can undermine the Nonproliferation Treaty by banning nuclear weapons. It’s the end goal of the Nonproliferation Treaty.” The NPT sought to prevent the spread of nuclear arms beyond the five original weapons powers. It requires non-nuclear signatory nations to not pursue atomic weapons in exchange for a commitment by the five powers to move toward nuclear disarmament and to guarantee non-nuclear states’ access to peaceful nuclear technology for producing energy. Rebecca Johnson, a co-founder and first president of the International Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons, said: “The ban treaty is as much about just making it much more possible for people all around the world to see nobody needs nuclear weapons, and they’re actually an impediment, an obstacle -- they’re in the way of dealing with the real security threats we have on the ground from COVID to climate.” She said in an AP interview that nuclear weapons can’t prevent or deal with conflicts like the most recent war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. “They’re just in the way, and they’re highly expensive, and the governments that have them are distracted from the real security issues by trying to constantly pay for these arms races that they’re still obsessed with.” Francesco Rocca, president of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, said: “The simple reality is that the international community could never hope to deal with the consequences of a nuclear confrontation. No nation is prepared to deal with a nuclear confrontation. What we cannot prepare for, we must prevent.” There are over 14,000 nuclear bombs in the world, thousands of which are ready to be launched in an instant, Rocca said. The power of many of those warheads is tens of times greater than the weapons dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Secretary-General Guterres said in an Associated Press interview on Wednesday: “It is clear for me that we will only be entirely safe in relation to nuclear weapons the day where nuclear weapons no longer exist. We know that it’s not easy. We know that there are many obstacles.” He expressed hope that a number of important initiatives, including U.S.-Russia talks on renewing the New Start Treaty limiting deployed nuclear warheads, missiles and bombers and next year’s review conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, “will all converge in the same direction, and the final objective must be to have a world with no nuclear weapons.” The treaty was approved by the 193-member U.N. General Assembly on July 7, 2017 by a vote of 122 in favor, the Netherlands opposed, and Singapore abstaining. Among countries voting in favor was Iran. The five nuclear powers and four other countries known or believed to possess nuclear weapons — India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel — boycotted negotiations and the vote on the treaty, along with many of their allies. Setsuko Thurlow, a survivor of the 1945 bombing of Hiroshima, who has been an ardent campaigner for the treaty, said: “When I learned that we reached our 50th ratification, I was not able to stand.” “I remained in my chair and put my head in my hands and I cried tears of joy,” she said in a statement. “I have committed my life to the abolition of nuclear weapons. I have nothing but gratitude for all who have worked for the success of our treaty.” >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UN Nuclear Treaty achieves 50th ratification for Entry into Force on 75th anniversary of UN's founding London, 25 October 2020: The United Nations has confirmed that the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) has been ratified by its 50th state party, Honduras, and will therefore enter into international legal force 90 days later, on 22 January 2021. "This Treaty bans nuclear weapons production, testing, possession and use, along with other activities that could enable and assist anyone to acquire or use these weapons of mass destruction ever again," said Dr Rebecca Johnson, a former Greenham peace activist and first president of the Geneva-based International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN, 2017 Nobel Peace Laureate). "This treaty is the culmination of 75 years of humanitarian activism, from the "Hibakusha" and indigenous survivors of nuclear weapons and testing, to the Aldermaston marchers and Greenham Common Peace Women who helped to ban nuclear testing and get cruise missiles banned and off the roads. Together we've persuaded UN governments to bring this ground-breaking nuclear disarmament treaty into international humanitarian law. Our task now is to bring all the nuclear armed and dependent countries into working with the non-nuclear majority to eliminate existing arsenals and universalise, implement and verify the Nuclear Ban Treaty." Ben Donaldson, from United Nations Association UK (UNA-UK), highlighted the symbolism of the TPNW reaching its 50th ratification on UN Day, 75 years on from the founding of the United Nations, and recognised that nuclear weapons were first used against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 75 years ago in August 1945. Noting that this UN-negotiated multilateral treaty was recently described by UN Secretary-General António Guterres as an important pillar to strengthen nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, Mr Donaldson said, “The ground is moving under the UK’s feet. We now have this significant new UN treaty which will sit alongside the other major global treaty on nuclear weapons, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and drive forward the international community’s shared vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. Governments, international organisations and civil society are sending a clear message to nuclear-armed that they have lived in fear of fallout for far too long, and want real disarmament action now.” As well as banning the activities and practices that make nuclear acquisition, proliferation and use possible, the TPNW provides two legal pathways by which nations holding nuclear weapons, like the UK, can eliminate their arsenals. From 2021 onwards, TPNW states parties will now work on establishing the strong legal framework to build adaptable verification systems and oversee nuclear disarmament compliance and implementation. Speaking from UN House Scotland, ICAN Steering Group member, Janet Fenton said, “The Scottish Peace Covenant expressed our desire for a Scotland that can contribute to international peace and justice, rather than being a launch pad for waging war. Now that aspiration is within our grasp. The TPNW shows the will of the sane majority of the world, and will ensure that we have unambiguous protection under international law when we stand strong in demonstrating our desire for nuclear disarmament and peace." ++++++ For further information contact Dr Rebecca Johnson 077 333 60955 (rej@acronym.org.uk) and Ben Donaldson donaldson@una.org.uk For photos and further information on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons: www.icanw.org Note also: AP article on recent US effort to derail the Treaty Last week, as the 50th ratification neared, the Associated Press UN correspondent in New York, Edith Lederer, broke the news that the Trump Administration is making last ditch attempts to persuade countries to renege on signing and ratifying the TPNW. Comment from Dr Johnson, "Mr Trump has shown many times that he does not personally or politically respect laws and treaties, but most people – including the vast majority here in the UK – recognise the value of treaties, laws and international cooperation for our security, rights and wellbeing." See also AP follow up piece on entry into force.

The hypocrisy of hunger from Tory MPs

Letter sent to the Guardian today: You report that 322 MPs voted against providing English schoolchildren from the poorest families- often single parented - with free meals over the Christmas holidays ) “MPs reject Rashford’s free school meals drive,” Oct.22). All these MPs earn a salary of £81,932, ( with a near £3000 annual increase due next April); MPs are also entitled to claim £9,000 a year for postage and stationery; during the COVID-19 pandemic MPs have been able to claim additional expenses of up to £10,000 to support the costs of them and their staff working from home. All MPs have enjoy the perk of subsidised food in the many restaurants available for their use in Parliament. All these MPs were able to take advantage of the Conservative chancellor’s “Eat-out-to-help-out” £10 per person per meal subsidy in the summer. Several of these self-centred Tory MPs argued in the debate on the ”Rashford Rule” in Parliament on Wednesday that these poorest of children should not be given the benefit of proper nutrition during the Christmas school holidays in England because they have feckless, disorganised and incapable parents, who allegedly fritter away their (meagre) social security money on cigarettes and fripperies. May I suggest these Tory MPs – including all the Governemnt ministers - hand back the state subsidies they have enjoyed since being MPs from their subsidised foods in Parliament, and subsidised cheap meals in the summer, as they do not believe in supporting even the poorest, hungriest children to eat properly using state (taxpayers’) money? These 322 Tory MPs are utter hypocrites. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two verbatim speeches by Tory MPs to Parliamentary debate in the House of Commons on 21st December, without further comment. I hope theie constituents are proud of them. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-10-21/debates/79C0CA8D-CADF-4562-9317-5A51810BB5DE/FreeSchoolMeals  5.57 pm Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) I strongly endorse what the Secretary of State has already said and commend the support for children and their families that he outlined. Free school meals have only ever been intended to support pupils during term time and it is important that that arrangement returns. On the proposals made today, why did colleagues on the Opposition Benches never implement any of them under the Labour Government? We need sensible policies to combat child poverty, not policy by public relations. As a former teacher and head, I have seen many cases in which children are the victims of neglect, and the extra care that we can provide through schools is sometimes life-changing, but it will never replace the role of the parent. When did it suddenly become controversial to suggest that the primary responsibility for a child’s welfare should lie with their parents, or to suggest that people do not always spend vouchers in the way they are intended? I will share my own experience. My parents separated when I was 11 years old and at one point I had to share a room with my father at my grandmother’s house. I qualified for free school meals, so I have experienced this myself. However, I never considered myself to be a child with a single parent: both parents cared, both parents worked and both parents did their best to provide for their children. Like many, they realised that parental responsibility does not end when a relationship does. We must focus on breaking the cycle in which the first reaction is to look to the state. It is a vicious circle. We need to support families with early intervention and help with things such as budgeting and employment. Collect and pay arrangements with the Child Maintenance Service show that only 60% of parents make payments—they are not necessarily adequate payments, as the figures are for people who pay anything at all—which leaves 40% who pay nothing. That is a disgrace. There are parents out there doing their best to manage under very difficult circumstances, while there are fathers and, indeed, mothers who disappear and think they can be absolved of all responsibility. This is not just immoral but means that many hard-working parents have to struggle and support their children on their own. The welfare state is rightly there as a safety net, but it is not a replacement. I have spoken to parents in Bassetlaw who have been left without support for years. We need ​to track these people down and make them contribute towards their children’s welfare. Where is the slick PR campaign encouraging absent parents to take some responsibility for their children? I do not believe in nationalising children. Instead, we need to get back to the idea of taking responsibility. That means less celebrity virtue signalling on Twitter by proxy and more action to tackle the real causes of child poverty. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  6.09 pm David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) I doubt anyone in the Chamber tonight would disagree that we must focus the resources of the nation on those who need help most, but whatever the question is before us, it requires a degree of objectivity and ​evidence in our decision making. Both of those things have been conspicuously lacking in the Opposition’s approach tonight. Let us consider for a moment the circumstances of the most vulnerable children in our country. There are around 400,000 children on the statutory children in need registers of our local authorities and 52,300 children on child protection plans. We all recognise that they are the most vulnerable, and they are in a system that we all recognise is facing a significant funding gap. What does it say about the Opposition’s priorities that all their interests are simply swept aside in favour of spending taxpayers’ money to curry favour with celebrity status, wealth and power? I have no doubt that Mr Rashford is an expert in his own experience, but we should not forget that the experiences he so movingly described took place under a Labour Government—a Labour Government then supposedly at the peak of their powers in tackling child poverty in this country. So if there was a lamentable failure, it was a lamentable failure of the Labour party when in Government. The beneficiaries of the earlier free school meals decision, which, of course, went way beyond anything ever done by Labour, at least had recourse to a variety of support. We had universal credit, jobseeker’s allowance, emergency support from local authorities and even, dare I mention it, food banks. But we talk about the need to tackle food poverty in this country, and of course, this debate is happening at a time when the cost of food to British families is at a historic low—8% of household expenditure on average, down from 35% in 1957, when my father was the age that my son is today. If that is not a strategy to tackle food poverty, I do not know what is. I know that the Opposition do not like to waste a good crisis, but this House should be ashamed if we allow ourselves today to be pushed into setting aside the circumstances of the most needy. Neglect, domestic violence, addiction and family breakdown are the major drivers of that need. They must not be put aside in favour of currying the favour of the wealthy and powerful and celebrities.

Probing nuclear opposition: military and civil

Letters sent respectivelyto:- The Times: Former Conservative Party leader Lord Howard of Lympne (“Reactionary left,” The Times, Letters, 16 October 2020; https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/times-letters-white-privilege-and-disparity-in-opportunity-r7cldzg9h) asks whether those who used to argue vehemently for CND have “moved on”? Actually, no. Indeed on the weekend his letter was published, CND was holding the second day of its annual two-day meeting, enforced on line, focused on “real security in a COVId-19 world.” This involved one analytic presentation by eminent professor of security studies, Paul Rogers of Bradford University, and a political speech by Jeremy Corbyn, like Lord Howard, a former leader of the opposition, but of more recent vintage. Prof Rogers pointed out: “If the COVID-19 pandemic shows us one thing, it is that Britain’s defence posture, especially its nuclear force, is irrelevant in responding to the worst challenge facing the country in generations…If you leave aside everything else there is also the issue of cost coupled with the huge waste of advanced of technical technological abilities when there is so much else to do. The new system, including a new British-developed thermonuclear warhead, is unlikely to cost much less than £200 billion over its full life time which is not far short of the £210 billion pledged by the government to respond directly to the pandemic.” Mr Corbyn stressed the recent powerful call by António Guterres the Secretary General of the United Nations on who said to the High-Level Meeting called by the UN on 2 October to Commemorate and Promote the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons: “Nuclear disarmament has been a priority of the United Nations since the very beginning of the Organization’s existence.. The only treaty constraining the size of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals is set to expire early next year, raising the alarming possibility of a return to unconstrained strategic competition.” (www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2020-10-02/secretary-generals-remarks-high-level-meeting-commemorate-and-promote-the-international-day-for-the-total-elimination-of-nuclear-weapons-delivered) CND is needed more than ever, but the media tends not to report its actions with competition from the pandemic and recently Brexit again presently dominating their attention. But it does not mean the problem of the existential threat from nuclear weapons has gone away. Or the campaign to rid the world of nuclear weapons has lost impetus. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To the Daily Mail: Your City Editor Alex Brummer (who reported for so long with much sense from Washington DC) pointed out on Friday in his perceptive financial commentary (Mail) that Rolls-Royce hopes to be bailed-out by £2bn of taxpayers’ money to support their new nuclear power concept, the so-called Small Modular Reactor (SMR). However, we know that Rolls Royce has an additional covert agenda, which it let slip in a publicity brochure in 2017, when it described the merits of SMRs thus: “..the expansion of a nuclear capable skilled workforce through a civil nuclear UK SMR programme would relieve the [UK Ministry of Defence of the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability.” Even SMR advocates know such mini-plants ( they are actually planned to be pretty similar in electrical capacity to the first generation UK Magnox plants) in order to have any chance of coming close to producing competitively-priced power, ie that which would interest private sector investors, then the owner must be able to sell the surplus heat. Indeed, a new study, Nuclear cogeneration: civil nuclear energy in a low-carbon future issued on October 8th, by the British Royal Society, (https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/nuclear-cogeneration/2020-10-7-nuclear-cogeneration-policy-briefing.pdf\), written by Professor Robin Grimes of London’s Imperial College – who is also chief scientific adviser in the UK Ministry of Defence for nuclear science and technology- argues very strongly that “SMRs present a particularly interesting proposition for cogeneration.” But what Professor Grimes omits to address is the acute licensing problems any such near-city deployment would face, as, in order to maximise gain from re-use of the surplus heat generated, SMRs would necessarily need to be build adjunct to urban areas, or at the very least in industrial parks close to densely populated areas. In my experience of being involved in British nuclear planning inquiries since the one held for Sizewell B in 1983-85, no licensing regime would give the green light to any reactor proposed to be cited so close to where people live. The problems it would create for emergency planers, for the state civil contingencies and resilience apparatus to protect against terrorism, and the sheer public opposition to new nuclear, when the comparative merits of the SMR competitor, wind energy, are seen alongside the transparent de-merits on mini-reactors, would ensure any such project dead in the water. A prudent government would jettison SMRs now, declaring them dead at birth. Instead, we have perhaps the most persistent business lobby moving into top gear, desperately trying to save their failing industry. They have even roped the United Nations into the lobby effort, through its own nuclear body, the Vienna- based International Atomic Energy Agency. (IAEA) In an international webinar on 15 October, hosted by the Paris-based Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), the IAEA Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi extraordinarily asserted: “the IAEA are not nuclear lobbyists but provide scientific and empirical data to allow the nuclear’s case to be made.” He later said the IAEA would be pushing hard for nuclear place at the high table at the global climate change conference (COP26) being hosted next autumn by the UK Government in Glasgow. Of course, that is not lobbying!

Fracking's radiation risks and health hazards highlighted before Harvard

A shorter, redacted version of thi swas publshed in The Guardian Newspaper on 16 October 2020: I was very interested to read your environment editor’s report on recent research by Harvard University scientists on radiation risks from fracking. (“Fracking can increase radiation in the air by 40% say scientists,” 14 October) I have raised this concern in several (unpublished) letters to the Guardian over the past seven years. Indeed, seven years ago this month, the now dissolved watchdog, Public Health England said in its report Review of the potential public health impacts of exposures to chemical and radioactive pollutants as a result of the shale gas extraction, ( released on 31 October 2013) on pages 14 -15,: “If the natural gas delivery point were to be close to the extraction point with a short transit time, radon present in the natural gas would have little time to decay….there is therefore, the potential for radon gas to be present in natural gas extracted from UK shale.” (http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317140158707). A few years later, on 26 January 2015, the influential Environmental Audit Committee published an important report analysis on the environmental impact of fracking. (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmenvaud/856/85602.htm) which cited my radiation risk concerns. The [British] Geological Society meanwhile, dissented, noting concerns relating to mobilisation of natural uranium but then stated “we are not aware of any evidence of harm.” Eight years ago, Dr Marvin Resnikoff, of Radioactive Waste Management Associates estimated radon levels from the Marcellus gas field in the eastern United States as up to 70 times the background average, further suggested some shale gas deposits contain as much as 30 times the radiation that is found in normal background. (http://gdacc.org/2012/01/10/radon-in-natural-gas-from-marcellus-shale-by-marvin-resnikoff-radioactive-waste-management-associates/) Moreover, the now late Professor of Physics, James W. Ring, from Hamilton College in New York State has stressed: "The radon and natural gas coming from the shale mix together and travel together as the gas is piped to customers. This is a serious health hazard, as radon - being a gas - is breathed into the lungs and lodges there to decay, doing damage to the lungʼs tissue and eventually leading to lung cancer." Hence there is undoubtedly a risk of radon gas being pumped into citizens' homes as part of the shale gas stream. Unless the gas is stored for up to a month to allow the radon's radioactivity to naturally reduce, this is potentially very dangerous.( a half-life of 3.8 days. Using the general rule of thumb of 10 half-lives to decay to 1/1000 of original concentration, that would be 38 days, or roughly one month, depending on how radioactive it was to start.) We know Radon is unquestionably the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers. A report Radon and Public Health produced by then [UK] Health Protection Agency watchdog - the predecessor to PHE- in 2009 stated:“Exposure to radon is now recognised as the second largest cause of lung cancer in the UK after smoking and analysis for the Health Protection Agency indicates that about 1100 UK deaths from lung cancer each year are caused by exposure to radon (most caused jointly by radon and smoking.”(Report of an independent Advisory Group on Ionising Radiation: Docs RCE 11, HPA 2009: www.hpa.org.uk). While fracking is, to coin a phrase, now on the energy policy back burner in the UK, President Trump is promising widespread expansion of fracking if he wins the election next month. This is another policy area where the President’s ignorance of the facts is dangerous. hy..../.gggghh

New Bond movie delayed, but real licence to kill still alive

Letter submitted to The Guardian: I was disappointed to read only 21 Labour MPs had the backbone to oppose the outrageous legislation being pushed through parliament at present. (“Labour rebels ignore whip to voter against MI5 bill,” Guardian, 6 October 2020; https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/05/mi5-bill-prompts-second-labour-rebellion-in-two-weeks-jeremy-corbyn) The new James Bond film may have been delayed until next year before it appears in cinemas, but ministers are determined to provide legal cover for British agents to operate outside international law, de facto giving them a right to kill on behalf of Queen and Country. This is outrageous. But the right to kill has been denied by the government. When challenged in the debate by Tory MP, and former Brexit minister, Steve Baker, over whether those in the armed services would be effectively given license, he was told abruptly by the security minister James Brokenshire: “It is difficult to go into detail.” Indeed! Andrew Mitchell MP, a former Conservative cabinet minister, was told by James Brokenshire in a written answer published to co-incide with the Commons second reading debate on the covert human intelligence sources (criminal conduct) bill: “A covert human intelligence source (CHIS) will never be given authority to commit any and all crime. All authorisations must be necessary and proportionate to the criminality they are seeking to prevent and the Authorising Officer must ensure that the level of criminality authorised must be at the lowest level of intrusion possible to achieve the aims of the operation. There are limits to the activity that can be authorised under this Bill and these are contained in the Human Rights Act. This includes the right to life, and prohibition of torture or subjecting someone to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Bill does not list specific crimes which may be authorised, or prohibited, as to do so would place into the hands of criminals, terrorists and hostile states a means of creating a checklist for suspected CHIS to be tested against. This would threaten the future of the CHIS capability, and result in an increased threat to the public.” (https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2020-09-29/96779) The final paragraph is full of weasel words, allowing ministers in any court hearing to wriggle out of responsibility of anyone killed by an agent in action. On third (final) reading, I would expect the official opposition, led by a senior lawyer who used to be the head of public prosecutions, to whip Labour members to vote against this nasty, dangerous bill.

Small reactors bring big planning problems

Letter submitted to The Financial Times newspaper, on 7 October 2020: I read with increasing incredulity the article “Downing St considers £2bn support for mini nuclear reactors,” Financial Times 7 October 2020), written, I note with some interest, by your chief political reporter and international business editor, not your energy editor. Your reporters appear to have been briefed only about the ‘sunny side’ of the proposed new small modular rectors (SMRs). Let me set out some of the problems, most of which are unsurmountable. First of all, your reporters assert without any supporting evidence that “The first SMR is expected to cost £2.2bn.” Where did they get this figure from? I would wager, based on over forty years analysing and writing about nuclear energy policy, that were any SMR ever built, its cost would be significantly higher, having seen every single reactor option ever developed under-priced when being sold to governments in order to secure political sign-off. Secondly, even SMR advocates know such so-called mini-plants ( they are actually planned to be pretty similar in electrical capacity to the first generation UK Magnox plants) in order to have any chance of coming close to producing competitively-priced power, ie that which would interest private sector investors, then the owner must be able to sell the surplus heat. Indeed, a new study, Nuclear cogeneration: civil nuclear energy in a low-carbon future issued on October 8th, by the British Royal Society, (https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/nuclear-cogeneration/2020-10-7-nuclear-cogeneration-policy-briefing.pdf), written by Professor Robin Grimes of London’s Imperial College – who is also chief scientific adviser in the UK Ministry of Defence for nuclear science and technology- argues very strongly that “SMRs present a particularly interesting proposition for cogeneration.” But what Professor Grimes omits to address is the acute licensing problems any such near-city deployment would face, as, in order to maximise gain from re-use of the surplus heat generated, SMRs would necessarily need to be build adjunct to urban areas, or at the very least in industrial parks close to densely populated areas. In my experience of being involved in British nuclear planning inquiries since the one held for Sizewell B in 1983-85, no licensing regime would give the green light to any reactor proposed to be cited so close to where people live. The problems it would create for emergency planers, for the state civil contingencies and resilience apparatus to protect against terrorism, and the sheer public opposition to new nuclear, when the comparative merits of of the SMR competitor, wind energy, are seen alongside the transparent de-merits on mini-reactors, would ensure any such project dead in the water. A prudent government would jettison SMRs now, declaring them dead at birth However, we know that Rolls Royce, the biggest industrial advocates for UK –manufactured SMRs has an additional covert agenda, which it let slip in a publicity brochure in 2017, when it described the merits of SMRs thus: “..the expansion of a nuclear capable skilled workforce through a civil nuclear UK SMR programme would relieve the [UK Ministry of Defence of the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability.” Could that be Whitehall’s alternative agenda?