Beyond Nuclear International
Hiroshima’s history lesson
What Can We Learn From the Birth of the Nuclear Era?
By Eric Ross, Common Dreams
In recent months, nuclear weapons have reemerged in global headlines. Nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan approached the brink of a full-scale war, a confrontation that could have become an extinction-level event, with the potential to claim up to 2 billion lives worldwide.
The instability of a global order structured on nuclear apartheid has also come into sharp relief in the context of the recent attacks on Iran by Israel and the United States. That system has entrenched a dangerous double standard, creating perverse incentives for the proliferation of world-destroying weaponry, already possessed by nine countries. Many of those nations use their arsenals to exercise imperial impunity, while non-nuclear states increasingly feel compelled to pursue nuclear weapons in the name of national security and survival.
Meanwhile, the largest nuclear powers show not the slightest signs of responsibility or restraint. The United States, Russia, and China are investing heavily in the “modernization” and expansion of their arsenals, fueling a renewed arms race. And that escalation comes amid growing global instability contributing to a Manichean world of antagonistic armed blocs, reminiscent of the Cold War at its worst.
The nuclear threat endangers not only global peace and security but the very continuity of the human species, not to speak of the simple survival of life on Earth. How, you might wonder, could we ever have arrived at such a precarious situation?
The current crisis coincides with the 80th anniversary of the Trinity Test, the first detonation of an atomic weapon that would soon obliterate the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and so inaugurate the atomic age. So many years later, it’s worth critically reassessing the decisions that conferred on humanity such a power of self-annihilation. After all, we continue to live with the fallout of the choices made (and not made), including those of the scientists who created the bomb. That history also serves as a reminder that alternative paths were available then and that another world remains possible today.
Read MoreA global call to action
Trades unions and peace groups demand democracy that delivers peace and prosperity for all
A joint statement anchored by the International Trade Union Confederation, Greenpeace International, the International Peace Bureau, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Oxfam and 350.org and signed by 17 peace, justice and disarmament groups was released in anticipation of the commemoration of 80 years since atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
For Democracy that Delivers Peace and Prosperity for All
As we approach the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we, the undersigned organisations, call on governments and international institutions to reaffirm their commitment to a world free from nuclear weapons, honouring the demand of the hibakusha and 2024 Nobel Peace laureate Nihon Hidankyo, and to prioritize sustainable development over militarism.
As organisations from the peace, labour, economic justice, and climate movements, we share the belief that collective security can only be ensured through solidarity, by meeting the basic needs of all people.
The Billionaire Coup: An Existential Threat to Democracy, Peace, and Security
Unfortunately, today we face a growing threat to our collective security from the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of an unholy alliance of billionaires and far-right political forces. This billionaire coup against democracy is already capturing governments and subverting multilateral institutions. A small group of the wealthiest individuals and corporations has successfully reshaped policies, economies, and democracies to serve their interests, undermining the common good. This elite’s influence is driving the rise of authoritarian regimes, robbing the people of collective power, accelerating military build-up and climate change, and diverting resources away from human development and peacebuilding.
Read MoreWe’re having a heatwave
And nuclear power can’t cope. Worse still, it’s actually a liability under ever more extreme climate conditions, write Karl Grossman and Harvey Wasserman
At the core of the latest attempted “renaissance” of nuclear power is the Big Lie that atomic reactors are an answer to global warming. In fact, they are significant sources of heat.
There are more than 400 nuclear power plants in the world today that fission atoms at 300 degrees Centigrade, (572 degrees Fahrenheit). More are under construction or proposed. As the International Atomic Energy Agency states, “water-cooled reactors offer heat up to 300 degrees Celsius. These types of reactors include pressurized water reactors (PWRs), boiling-water reactors (BWRs), pressurized heavy-water reactors, and light-water-cooled graphite-moderated reactors (LWGRs).”
Some heat is absorbed in the water—drawn from water bodies—used to cool these nuclear power plants and then returned, still with considerable heat, to rivers or seas.
The heatwave going on in recent weeks in Europe, in combination with this discharge of heated water from nuclear plants, has caused nuclear plants there to shut down.
Consider these headlines from recent days:
“France and Switzerland shut down nuclear power plants amid scorching heatwave,” was the July 3rd headline on Euronews. As the piece explained: “To cool down, nuclear power plants pump water from local rivers or the sea, which they then release back into water bodies at a high temperature. However, Europe’s ongoing heatwave means that the water pumped by nuclear sites is already very hot, impacting the ability of nuclear plants to use it to cool down. On top of this, nuclear sites run the risk of posing a dangerous threat to local biodiversity, by releasing water which is too hot into rivers and seas.”
A New York Times article, also dated July 3rd, related how in Europe, “operators shut down one of the two reactors at the Golfech nuclear power plant in southern France after forecasts that the Garonne River, from which it draws water and then discharges it after it is used in the plant as coolant, “could top…82 degrees Fahrenheit.” The Times continued: “The Beznau Nuclear Power Plant in Switzerland, built along the Aare River followed suit, shutting down one of its reactors on Tuesday and the other on Wednesday.”
Read MoreNuclear power is a parasite on AI’s credibility
Global nuclear power in a good year adds only as much net capacity as renewables add every two days
The following is the press release announcing a new essay by Stanford University’s Amory Lovins, Artificial Intelligence Meets Natural Stupidity: Managing the Risks.
Claims of soaring electricity needs to power ravenous new AI data centers underpin the energy emergency declared for national security. Yet new research synthesized by a prominent energy expert, Amory Lovins, explains how hidden order-of-magnitude uncertainties in AI’s energy needs are risking major speculative losses and energy-market distortions—and he highlights timely remedies.
In fact, US electricity use fell in 2023, and in 2024, it rose only 2%—less than in three other years of the past ten. Forecasts of future electricity use have lately risen, especially in a few hotspots that promote and subsidize new data centers.
Yet that’s far from a broad trend, and most of the forecast growth is for other or reshored industries, electric vehicles, and electrifying buildings and factories. Data centers used only about 4.5% of US electricity in 2024. Of global electricity growth, the International Energy Agency (IEA) says only 5% in 2024 was for new data centers, rising to 5–10% of growth in 2025–30. Both nationally and globally, most data centers aren’t even made or run for AI; they’re for traditional functions like search engines, e-mail, and e-commerce.
Big Tech firms are indeed investing at least a trillion dollars in new AI data centers. Hundreds are planned, some as power-hungry as a small city. However, only a small fraction of those proposed are likely to be built, and not all those built are certain to thrive. Overforecasting seems endemic, severe, and underrecognized. It’s caused by peculiarities of the current data-center marketplace. But underlying those are many fundamental unknowables—even about the dominant model’s basic validity.
Read MoreA new nuclear arms race
Are we headed towards one, or already in it, asks Lawrence Wittner
Amid growing international chaos, it should come as no surprise that nuclear dangers are increasing.
The latest indication is a rising interest among U.S. allies in enhancing their nuclear weapons capability. For many decades, remarkably few of them had been willing to build nuclear weapons―a result of popular opposition to nuclear weapons and nuclear war, progress on nuclear arms control and disarmament, and a belief that they remained secure under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. But, as revealed by a recent article in London’s Financial Times, Donald Trump’s public scorn for NATO allies and embrace of Vladimir Putin have raised fears of U.S. unreliability, thereby tipping the balance toward developing an expanded nuclear weapons capability.
This growing interest in nuclear weapons is especially noticeable in Europe, where Trump’s berating of NATO and Putin’s threats of nuclear attack are particularly unsettling. Although Friedrich Merz, Germany’s chancellor, dismissed any notion of Germany developing its own nuclear weapons, he has stated that it must explore “whether nuclear sharing, or at least nuclear security from the UK and France, could also apply to us.” Furthermore, several German think tank experts have floated the idea of building the infrastructure that, if necessary, could produce German nuclear weapons.
In Poland, too, a nuclear weapons capacity has become increasingly appealing. Prime Minister Donald Tusk recently raised the idea of pursuing nuclear weapons or, at least, seeking an agreement for sharing France’s nuclear arsenal. A board director of PGZ, Poland’s state-controlled military manufacturer, remarked: “There are suddenly a lot of words and different opinions about what to do, but they all show Poland believes in stronger nuclear deterrence against Russia.”
Read More“Return to Fukushima”
Cindy Folkers reviews Thomas Bass’s excellent new book that is both a personal journey and a stark warning
Thomas A. Bass’s “Return to Fukushima” is a poignant blend of investigative journalism, environmental critique, and personal reflection that revisits the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power disaster. Bass brings poetic prose, incisive analysis, and a deeply ethical lens to a subject often buried under technical jargon and political spin. This book is not just a recounting of catastrophe, but a stark reminder that, even in the face of individual and community resilience, science and policy fall short for those haunted by the permanence of radioactive contamination.
At the heart of the book lies a powerful question: What does it mean to live in a nuclear exclusion zone? Bass uses this inquiry to explore the “slow violence of radiation,” the enduring trauma of environmental contamination, the cultural amnesia that allows such disasters to fade from global consciousness, and the political and corporate machinery that enables this erasure. Rather than focusing on abstract debates, he humanizes the crisis by highlighting the lived experiences of those navigating the radioactive ruins of northeastern Japan. He remarks, “The process [of decontamination] is more about managing people’s perception of radiation than it is a solution.”
Rooting the book in personal and historical context, Bass recalls the surreal normalcy of growing up in a home adorned with photographs of mushroom clouds, reflecting his father’s involvement in fabricating both hydrogen (tritium) bombs and atomic bombs. Starting from this context, Bass links Fukushima to other sites of radioactive trauma—Chernobyl, Hanford, Bikini Atoll—framing them as part of a global pattern of technological arrogance, and recognizing the long-standing connection between civilian energy and military power.
Read More
Beyond Nuclear International 