The Gulf nations are embracing Nuclear power, a move to transition from fossil fuel to cleaner energy. The countries say, it is for peaceful purposes. WION tells you more in this report.

West Asia uses Nuclear power to shift to cleaner energy

President Moon Jae-in said Friday that South Korea will fully use its nuclear power plants under its nuclear phase-out scheme, calling nuclear power a mainsource of electricity over the next 60 years. 
 
"Over the next 60 years, while nuclear power plants continue to operate, nuclear power plants should be fully utilized as a main base source of electricity," Moon told a meeting on stable supply of power, according to presidential spokesperson Park Kyung-mee. 
 
Construction of four nuclear reactors -- Shin-Hanul No. 1 and No. 2, as well as Shin-Kori No. 5 and No. 6 -- have been delayed due to safety inspections and other issues, Xinhua news agency reported.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/south-korea-issues-new-warning-to-evacuate-last-remaining-citizens-from-ukraine-454800">South Korea issues new warning to evacuate last remaining citizens from Ukraine</a> 
 
Moon urged officials to make efforts to gradually start operations at the four nuclear reactors, because safety standards for operations have increased, Park said. 
 
Moon said the Korean government's energy transition policy is to gradually suspend construction of new nuclear power plants and prohibit the extension of the lifespan for older nuclear power plants until 2084. 
 
Moon called for officials to "make every effort to ensure the safety of nuclear power plants while maintaining proper operation rate," according to Park. 
 
The nuclear phase-out scheme set by Moon's government centers on slowly breaking away from nuclear energy by refraining from building additional plants while retiring old ones.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/south-korea-weighs-penalty-against-tesla-for-exaggerating-mileage-453748">South Korea weighs penalty against Tesla for exaggerating mileage</a> 
 
Under the roadmap, South Korea plans to decrease the number of nuclear plants in operation to 17 by 2034, from this year's 24. 
 
The government plans to reduce nuclear energy to account for 23.9 per cent of the country`s total power generation by 2030 from around 30 per cent last year. It targets to raise the proportion of renewable sources to 20 per cent from 6.6 per cent over the same period.

President Moon Jae-in said Friday that South Korea will fully use its nuclear power plants under its nuclear phase-out scheme, calling nuclear power a mainsource of electricity over the next 60 years.

President Moon Jae-in said Friday that South Korea will fully use its nuclear power plants under its nuclear phase-out scheme, calling nuclear power a mainsource of electricity over the next 60 years. "Over the next 60 years, while nuclear power plants continue to operate, nuclear power plants should be fully utilized as a main base source of electricity," Moon told a meeting on stable supply of power, according to presidential spokesperson Park Kyung-mee. Construction of four nuclear reactors -- Shin-Hanul No. 1 and No. 2, as well as Shin-Kori No. 5 and No. 6 -- have been delayed due to safety inspections and other issues, Xinhua news agency reported. Also read | South Korea issues new warning to evacuate last remaining citizens from Ukraine Moon urged officials to make efforts to gradually start operations at the four nuclear reactors, because safety standards for operations have increased, Park said. Moon said the Korean government's energy transition policy is to gradually suspend construction of new nuclear power plants and prohibit the extension of the lifespan for older nuclear power plants until 2084. Moon called for officials to "make every effort to ensure the safety of nuclear power plants while maintaining proper operation rate," according to Park. The nuclear phase-out scheme set by Moon's government centers on slowly breaking away from nuclear energy by refraining from building additional plants while retiring old ones. Also read | South Korea weighs penalty against Tesla for exaggerating mileage Under the roadmap, South Korea plans to decrease the number of nuclear plants in operation to 17 by 2034, from this year's 24. The government plans to reduce nuclear energy to account for 23.9 per cent of the country`s total power generation by 2030 from around 30 per cent last year. It targets to raise the proportion of renewable sources to 20 per cent from 6.6 per cent over the same period.

President Moon calls nuclear power main source of electricity over next 60 years

China will be building a nuclear power plant in Argentina even as the country agreed to join President Xi's flagship Belt and Road Initiative(BRI).

According to the deal, China will build the Atucha III nuclear power plant using Hualong One technology with the deal costing $8 billion. Earlier, this month China and Argentina had signed an MoU on the BRI project as Argentina's President Alberto Fernandez visited China to attend the Beijing Winter Olympics.

During the meeting between Xi and Fernandez, the two leaders sought to push ahead with hydropower and railway projects as China seeks to build economic ties with the Latin American country.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/potential-leak-in-china-nuclear-plant-facing-performance-issue-report-391432">Also Read |&nbsp;Potential leak in China nuclear plant facing 'performance issue': Report</a>

Argentina had sought a nuclear deal with China in 2015 under former President Cristina Fernandez government who is now the country's vice president.&nbsp;The new nuclear power plant is expected to generate power of up to 1,200 MW.

China's Hualong One technology is reportedly meant to rival US Westinghouse and Europe's Evolutionary Pressurised Reactor (EPR) technology. China had instituted the technology in Fujian. It had earlier signed a deal with Pakistan to build a nuclear power plant in the country.

The Argentina project is reprotedly the second overseas location for China's Hualong One technology after Pakistan.

In May last year, China had helped to start Pakistan's largest nuclear power plant in the port city of Karachi as Prime Minister Imran Khan pointed out that the country is among the top-10 countries at risk due to climate change.&nbsp;

Pakistan's nuclear plant was built by China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) and construction started in 2015. China has already invested billions into Pakistan's Belt and Road initiative.

Last week, the UK had approved China's nuclear reactor design that could be used at a plant in southeast England.

UK's Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and the environment agency said UKHPR1000 nuclear reactor is suitable for use in the UK. UK HPR1000 is based on the Hualong One power plant technology.

(With inputs from Agencies)

China will be building a nuclear power plant in Argentina even as the country agreed to join President Xi's flagship Belt and Road Initiative(BRI). According to the deal, China will build the Atucha III nuclear power plant using Hualong One technology with the deal costing $8 billion.

China will be building a nuclear power plant in Argentina even as the country agreed to join President Xi's flagship Belt and Road Initiative(BRI). According to the deal, China will build the Atucha III nuclear power plant using Hualong One technology with the deal costing $8 billion. Earlier, this month China and Argentina had signed an MoU on the BRI project as Argentina's President Alberto Fernandez visited China to attend the Beijing Winter Olympics. During the meeting between Xi and Fernandez, the two leaders sought to push ahead with hydropower and railway projects as China seeks to build economic ties with the Latin American country. Also Read | Potential leak in China nuclear plant facing 'performance issue': Report Argentina had sought a nuclear deal with China in 2015 under former President Cristina Fernandez government who is now the country's vice president. The new nuclear power plant is expected to generate power of up to 1,200 MW. China's Hualong One technology is reportedly meant to rival US Westinghouse and Europe's Evolutionary Pressurised Reactor (EPR) technology. China had instituted the technology in Fujian. It had earlier signed a deal with Pakistan to build a nuclear power plant in the country. The Argentina project is reprotedly the second overseas location for China's Hualong One technology after Pakistan. In May last year, China had helped to start Pakistan's largest nuclear power plant in the port city of Karachi as Prime Minister Imran Khan pointed out that the country is among the top-10 countries at risk due to climate change. Pakistan's nuclear plant was built by China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) and construction started in 2015. China has already invested billions into Pakistan's Belt and Road initiative. Last week, the UK had approved China's nuclear reactor design that could be used at a plant in southeast England. UK's Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and the environment agency said UKHPR1000 nuclear reactor is suitable for use in the UK. UK HPR1000 is based on the Hualong One power plant technology. (With inputs from Agencies)

After Pakistan, China to build nuclear power plant in Argentina

The meeting was low-key, a presentation last month by South Korean officials to about 50 villagers gathered in a community hall on the country’s southeastern coast.

The government, the audience was told, planned to build a test version of a small nuclear reactor at a new atomic research complex — the country’s largest ever — that is under construction in the village of Gampo. The modular reactor, to be completed by 2027, would be similar to those that power seagoing vessels like icebreakers and container ships.

But that may not be the only ambition for this advanced technology. The project, nuclear experts say, could potentially allow South Korea to fulfill a long-held dream of developing a nuclear-powered submarine. It is something that its most powerful ally, the United States, has opposed for decades.

In September, Australia announced that it would build nuclear-powered submarines with American and British help as the allies seek to balance out China’s growing military power. For South Korea, however, any such partnership has been off-limits for nearly 50 years under the terms of a treaty with Washington that blocks it from using nuclear materials for military purposes.

President Moon Jae-in’s government has been arguing for removing the prohibition, saying building nuclear submarines is crucial to countering North Korea’s ambitions to do the same. The sense of urgency has grown as the North’s progress has deepened concerns about South Korea’s preparedness. The North has tested a series of submarine-launched ballistic missiles in recent years and announced in January that it was working on a nuclear submarine design.

“There will be no better way of chasing, monitoring and deterring North Korean nuclear submarines than by deploying our own nuclear submarines,” said Moon Keun-sik, a retired navy captain who headed an earlier attempt by South Korea to build nuclear-powered subs. “We cannot depend on the United States to do it for us.”

The South Korean reactor project comes amid growing fears of an arms race in the Indo-Pacific region, driven by the superpower conflict between China and the United States. On Monday, Australia announced a military deal with South Korea that was called the largest ever between Australia and an Asian nation.

On the nuclear power front, South Korea is not the only country developing what are known as small modular reactors, or SMRs, as a carbon-free source of power. But its project, the Advanced Reactor for Multiple Applications, has drawn special attention.

Lim Chae-young, who headed the reactor project at the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, or KAERI, said that “we are not building it with a submarine in mind.” Still, the reactor’s 70-megawatt output is similar to that of early US&nbsp;submarine reactors and would be enough to power South Korea’s next-generation 4,000-ton submarines, said Bryan Clark, a submarine expert at the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based think tank.

The country operates 24 nuclear reactors, which produce 29 per cent of its electricity. It has also built 21 submarines since the early 1990s. But all these vessels are propelled by batteries charged with diesel engines and must surface frequently to get fuel or air for their engines. Nuclear-powered subs can stay underwater for months at a stretch and can move much faster.

South Korea’s first attempt to develop a nuclear-powered submarine, under a covert task force known as 362 that was launched in 2003, was cut short amid controversy.

Moon Keun-sik headed the task force. By 2004, it had finished a basic design of a submarine reactor with Russian help, according to Kim Si-hwan, who worked on the project as a researcher at the Korean atomic energy institute.

The institute’s technical cooperation with Russia on small reactors goes as far back as 1995. In its 2017 annual report, OKBM Afrikantov, a Russian company that makes reactors for submarines, icebreakers and floating power plants, reported “continued discussion with KAERI on cooperation under the integral reactor project.”

The covert project was abandoned in 2004 after the discovery that the institute’s scientists had secretly enriched uranium in 2000, dabbling in a technology used to make nuclear weapons.

But South Korea has never abandoned its hopes, with the hurdles long being diplomatic, not technological. In 2016, the Washington-based Nuclear Threat Initiative said that, if an arms race broke out in Asia, “both Japan and South Korea are capable of building nuclear-powered submarines or surface vessels.”

When Moon Jae-in was campaigning for office a year later, he declared, “It’s time for us to acquire nuclear-powered submarines.”

Shortly after his inauguration in 2017, he asked Washington to help solve the problem of the 1972 treaty, which South Korea had agreed to in exchange for US help in building a nuclear power industry.

According to Moon Chung-in, a former special adviser to Moon, President Donald Trump made a surprising suggestion: Why didn’t South Korea just buy American nuclear submarines? But Washington never followed up on this, nor did it help South Korea secure nuclear fuel for submarines, because of proliferation concerns.

“Without enriched uranium fuel, South Korea’s nuclear-powered submarine, even if it was built, would be nothing but an empty shell,” said Lee Byong-chul, a professor at the Institute for Far Eastern Studies at Kyungnam University in South Korea.

Moon’s office declined to comment.

Last year, the South Korean Defense Ministry said it would build six more submarines, the first three powered by lithium-ion batteries. It did not clarify the power source for the other three 4,000-ton submarines. But Kim Hyun-chong, who at the time was a deputy national security adviser for Moon, said South Korea’s next generation of submarines would be nuclear-powered.

The advanced reactor that South Korea is developing uses 19.75&nbsp;per cent enriched uranium for fuel, while commercial nuclear power plants use uranium enriched at less than 5 per cent. Although 19.75&nbsp;per cent enriched fuel is not unusual for small modular reactors under development, uranium with a similar level of enrichment has also been used to fuel some of the world’s nuclear submarines.

“It could be for commercial or other marine purposes, but it is a very plausible basis for developing a nuclear-powered submarine, and the higher level of enriched fuel is a fairly strong indicator of that possibility,” said Toby Dalton, a co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Not everyone thinks that South Korea needs nuclear-powered submarines.

Clark said diesel-electric submarines were generally smaller, quieter and less costly than nuclear ones, making them suitable for short-range regional operations, such as patrolling littoral waters around the Korean Peninsula. “Seoul has more important capabilities to spend its money on,” he said.

Lee Jae-myung, the candidate for Moon’s governing party in the presidential election in March, has yet to announce his stance on the matter. Yoon Suk-yeol, the main opposition candidate, said he would give priority to improving South Korea’s satellite and airborne surveillance against North Korea, rather than investing in a nuclear submarine.

“I don’t think we need it right now,” Yoon said.

But calls for nuclear subs persist.

“If North Korea builds nuclear submarines, it will be a game-changer,” said Yoon Suk-joon, a researcher at the Korea Institute for Military Affairs. “The best way to deal with them is to have our own nuclear subs lurk near a North Korean submarine base, for months if necessary, and follow them when they come out.”

The meeting was low-key, a presentation last month by South Korean officials to about 50 villagers gathered in a community hall on the country’s southeastern coast.

The meeting was low-key, a presentation last month by South Korean officials to about 50 villagers gathered in a community hall on the country’s southeastern coast. The government, the audience was told, planned to build a test version of a small nuclear reactor at a new atomic research complex — the country’s largest ever — that is under construction in the village of Gampo. The modular reactor, to be completed by 2027, would be similar to those that power seagoing vessels like icebreakers and container ships. But that may not be the only ambition for this advanced technology. The project, nuclear experts say, could potentially allow South Korea to fulfill a long-held dream of developing a nuclear-powered submarine. It is something that its most powerful ally, the United States, has opposed for decades. In September, Australia announced that it would build nuclear-powered submarines with American and British help as the allies seek to balance out China’s growing military power. For South Korea, however, any such partnership has been off-limits for nearly 50 years under the terms of a treaty with Washington that blocks it from using nuclear materials for military purposes. President Moon Jae-in’s government has been arguing for removing the prohibition, saying building nuclear submarines is crucial to countering North Korea’s ambitions to do the same. The sense of urgency has grown as the North’s progress has deepened concerns about South Korea’s preparedness. The North has tested a series of submarine-launched ballistic missiles in recent years and announced in January that it was working on a nuclear submarine design. “There will be no better way of chasing, monitoring and deterring North Korean nuclear submarines than by deploying our own nuclear submarines,” said Moon Keun-sik, a retired navy captain who headed an earlier attempt by South Korea to build nuclear-powered subs. “We cannot depend on the United States to do it for us.” The South Korean reactor project comes amid growing fears of an arms race in the Indo-Pacific region, driven by the superpower conflict between China and the United States. On Monday, Australia announced a military deal with South Korea that was called the largest ever between Australia and an Asian nation. On the nuclear power front, South Korea is not the only country developing what are known as small modular reactors, or SMRs, as a carbon-free source of power. But its project, the Advanced Reactor for Multiple Applications, has drawn special attention. Lim Chae-young, who headed the reactor project at the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, or KAERI, said that “we are not building it with a submarine in mind.” Still, the reactor’s 70-megawatt output is similar to that of early US submarine reactors and would be enough to power South Korea’s next-generation 4,000-ton submarines, said Bryan Clark, a submarine expert at the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based think tank. The country operates 24 nuclear reactors, which produce 29 per cent of its electricity. It has also built 21 submarines since the early 1990s. But all these vessels are propelled by batteries charged with diesel engines and must surface frequently to get fuel or air for their engines. Nuclear-powered subs can stay underwater for months at a stretch and can move much faster. South Korea’s first attempt to develop a nuclear-powered submarine, under a covert task force known as 362 that was launched in 2003, was cut short amid controversy. Moon Keun-sik headed the task force. By 2004, it had finished a basic design of a submarine reactor with Russian help, according to Kim Si-hwan, who worked on the project as a researcher at the Korean atomic energy institute. The institute’s technical cooperation with Russia on small reactors goes as far back as 1995. In its 2017 annual report, OKBM Afrikantov, a Russian company that makes reactors for submarines, icebreakers and floating power plants, reported “continued discussion with KAERI on cooperation under the integral reactor project.” The covert project was abandoned in 2004 after the discovery that the institute’s scientists had secretly enriched uranium in 2000, dabbling in a technology used to make nuclear weapons. But South Korea has never abandoned its hopes, with the hurdles long being diplomatic, not technological. In 2016, the Washington-based Nuclear Threat Initiative said that, if an arms race broke out in Asia, “both Japan and South Korea are capable of building nuclear-powered submarines or surface vessels.” When Moon Jae-in was campaigning for office a year later, he declared, “It’s time for us to acquire nuclear-powered submarines.” Shortly after his inauguration in 2017, he asked Washington to help solve the problem of the 1972 treaty, which South Korea had agreed to in exchange for US help in building a nuclear power industry. According to Moon Chung-in, a former special adviser to Moon, President Donald Trump made a surprising suggestion: Why didn’t South Korea just buy American nuclear submarines? But Washington never followed up on this, nor did it help South Korea secure nuclear fuel for submarines, because of proliferation concerns. “Without enriched uranium fuel, South Korea’s nuclear-powered submarine, even if it was built, would be nothing but an empty shell,” said Lee Byong-chul, a professor at the Institute for Far Eastern Studies at Kyungnam University in South Korea. Moon’s office declined to comment. Last year, the South Korean Defense Ministry said it would build six more submarines, the first three powered by lithium-ion batteries. It did not clarify the power source for the other three 4,000-ton submarines. But Kim Hyun-chong, who at the time was a deputy national security adviser for Moon, said South Korea’s next generation of submarines would be nuclear-powered. The advanced reactor that South Korea is developing uses 19.75 per cent enriched uranium for fuel, while commercial nuclear power plants use uranium enriched at less than 5 per cent. Although 19.75 per cent enriched fuel is not unusual for small modular reactors under development, uranium with a similar level of enrichment has also been used to fuel some of the world’s nuclear submarines. “It could be for commercial or other marine purposes, but it is a very plausible basis for developing a nuclear-powered submarine, and the higher level of enriched fuel is a fairly strong indicator of that possibility,” said Toby Dalton, a co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Not everyone thinks that South Korea needs nuclear-powered submarines. Clark said diesel-electric submarines were generally smaller, quieter and less costly than nuclear ones, making them suitable for short-range regional operations, such as patrolling littoral waters around the Korean Peninsula. “Seoul has more important capabilities to spend its money on,” he said. Lee Jae-myung, the candidate for Moon’s governing party in the presidential election in March, has yet to announce his stance on the matter. Yoon Suk-yeol, the main opposition candidate, said he would give priority to improving South Korea’s satellite and airborne surveillance against North Korea, rather than investing in a nuclear submarine. “I don’t think we need it right now,” Yoon said. But calls for nuclear subs persist. “If North Korea builds nuclear submarines, it will be a game-changer,” said Yoon Suk-joon, a researcher at the Korea Institute for Military Affairs. “The best way to deal with them is to have our own nuclear subs lurk near a North Korean submarine base, for months if necessary, and follow them when they come out.”

South Korea has long wanted nuclear subs. A new reactor could open a door.

This charade doesn’t leave anyone safer. It’s gone on long enough.

American politicians often warn that if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, it will spark a nuclear stampede across the Middle East. Allowing Tehran to get the bomb, Senator Robert Menendez, the current chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,&nbsp;predicted&nbsp;in March 2020, could “set off a dangerous arms race in the region.” In an interview in December, President-elect Joe Biden&nbsp;cautioned&nbsp;that if Iran went nuclear, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt might too, “and the last goddamn thing we need in that part of the world is a buildup of nuclear capability.”

Such statements are so familiar that it’s easy to overlook their artifice. In warning that Iran could turn the Middle East nuclear, American politicians imply that the region is nuclear-free now. But it’s not. Israel already has nuclear weapons. You’d just never know it from America’s leaders, who have spent the last half-century feigning ignorance. This deceit undercuts America’s supposed commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, and it distorts the American debate over Iran. It’s time for the Biden administration to tell the truth.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/biden-vows-to-israel-no-nuclear-weapon-for-iran-on-my-watch-394580">Biden vows to Israel: No nuclear weapon for Iran on my watch</a>

American officials began hiding the truth about Israeli nuclear weapons after Israeli leaders hid the truth from them. In the early 1960s, writes Avner Cohen in his book “The Worst Kept Secret,” Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion repeatedly told President John F. Kennedy that the reactor Israel was building in the desert town of Dimona “was for peaceful purposes only.” When the United States sent inspectors to the site, the Israelis&nbsp;concocted&nbsp;an elaborate ruse, which included building fake walls to conceal the elevators that led to an underground reprocessing plant. By decade’s end, the die was cast. The C.I.A. concluded that Israel already possessed nuclear warheads.

So Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Golda Meir&nbsp;hatched&nbsp;a deal. Neither Israel nor the United States would acknowledge that Israel had nuclear weapons, and Washington would not pressure Israel to submit them to international oversight. For 50 years now, American presidents have abided by the bargain. Scholars&nbsp;believe&nbsp;that when Israel tested a nuclear weapon in the Indian Ocean in 1979, the Carter administration covered it up. In 2009, when a journalist&nbsp;asked&nbsp;Barack Obama if he knew of “any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons,” Mr Obama responded, “I don’t want to speculate.”

Feigning ignorance about Israeli nuclear weapons makes a mockery of America’s efforts at nonproliferation. Mr Obama vowed to pursue a nuclear-free world. Yet to prevent public discussion of Israel’s arsenal, his administration&nbsp;helped squelch&nbsp;a United Nations conference on a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. The Biden administration continues to impose punishing sanctions on Iran in an attempt to force its government to accept inspections&nbsp;more stringent&nbsp;than those required by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Meanwhile, Israel, which has never signed the NPT, permits no inspections at all.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/israel-says-irans-raisi-extreme-committed-to-nuclear-programme-392707">Israel says Iran's Raisi extreme, committed to nuclear programme</a>

This hypocrisy leads many around the world to smirk when American diplomats claim to be defending the “rules-based order.” It also empowers those Iranians who claim Tehran has the right to match its regional rival.

Finally, the American government’s deceptive silence prevents a more honest debate at home about the dangers an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose. American politicians&nbsp;sometimes&nbsp;say&nbsp;an Iranian bomb would pose an “existential” threat to Israel. That’s a dubious claim, given that Israel possesses a nuclear deterrent it can&nbsp;deploy on air, land and sea. But many Americans find the claim plausible because,&nbsp;according to recent polling&nbsp;conducted by Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland, barely 50 per cent know Israel has nuclear weapons. A higher percentage thinks Tehran has the bomb.

Even if an Iranian bomb wouldn’t existentially threaten Israel, the United States should still work to forestall one diplomatically. With&nbsp;negotiations with Tehran at risk of collapse, the Biden administration should commit to lifting the sanctions that are crippling Iran’s economy in return for verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear capacity. But if those efforts fail — and the Biden administration faces pressure to wage war rather than allow Iran to gain the capacity to build a nuclear weapon — it’s crucial that Americans make an informed decision about the risk a nuclear Iran poses to America’s closest ally in the Middle East. That’s harder when the American government never publicly admits that Israel has the means to deter a nuclear attack.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/israel-pm-bennett-weighs-against-nuclear-talks-with-irans-hangmen-regime-392766">Israel PM Bennett weighs against nuclear talks with Iran's 'hangmen regime'</a>

The Biden administration is not going to force Israel to give up its nuclear weapons. But that doesn’t mean it must undermine America’s global credibility and deceive its people by denying reality. Perhaps a more honest American discussion of Israel’s nuclear arsenal will breathe new life into the distant dream of a nuclear-free Middle East. Even if that doesn’t happen, it will be bracing, after a half-century of lying by omission, simply to hear America’s leaders tell the truth.

This charade doesn’t leave anyone safer. It’s gone on long enough. American politicians often warn that if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, it will spark a nuclear stampede across the Middle East.

This charade doesn’t leave anyone safer. It’s gone on long enough. American politicians often warn that if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, it will spark a nuclear stampede across the Middle East. Allowing Tehran to get the bomb, Senator Robert Menendez, the current chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, predicted in March 2020, could “set off a dangerous arms race in the region.” In an interview in December, President-elect Joe Biden cautioned that if Iran went nuclear, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt might too, “and the last goddamn thing we need in that part of the world is a buildup of nuclear capability.” Such statements are so familiar that it’s easy to overlook their artifice. In warning that Iran could turn the Middle East nuclear, American politicians imply that the region is nuclear-free now. But it’s not. Israel already has nuclear weapons. You’d just never know it from America’s leaders, who have spent the last half-century feigning ignorance. This deceit undercuts America’s supposed commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, and it distorts the American debate over Iran. It’s time for the Biden administration to tell the truth. Also read | Biden vows to Israel: No nuclear weapon for Iran on my watch American officials began hiding the truth about Israeli nuclear weapons after Israeli leaders hid the truth from them. In the early 1960s, writes Avner Cohen in his book “The Worst Kept Secret,” Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion repeatedly told President John F. Kennedy that the reactor Israel was building in the desert town of Dimona “was for peaceful purposes only.” When the United States sent inspectors to the site, the Israelis concocted an elaborate ruse, which included building fake walls to conceal the elevators that led to an underground reprocessing plant. By decade’s end, the die was cast. The C.I.A. concluded that Israel already possessed nuclear warheads. So Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Golda Meir hatched a deal. Neither Israel nor the United States would acknowledge that Israel had nuclear weapons, and Washington would not pressure Israel to submit them to international oversight. For 50 years now, American presidents have abided by the bargain. Scholars believe that when Israel tested a nuclear weapon in the Indian Ocean in 1979, the Carter administration covered it up. In 2009, when a journalist asked Barack Obama if he knew of “any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons,” Mr Obama responded, “I don’t want to speculate.” Feigning ignorance about Israeli nuclear weapons makes a mockery of America’s efforts at nonproliferation. Mr Obama vowed to pursue a nuclear-free world. Yet to prevent public discussion of Israel’s arsenal, his administration helped squelch a United Nations conference on a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. The Biden administration continues to impose punishing sanctions on Iran in an attempt to force its government to accept inspections more stringent than those required by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Meanwhile, Israel, which has never signed the NPT, permits no inspections at all. Also read | Israel says Iran's Raisi extreme, committed to nuclear programme This hypocrisy leads many around the world to smirk when American diplomats claim to be defending the “rules-based order.” It also empowers those Iranians who claim Tehran has the right to match its regional rival. Finally, the American government’s deceptive silence prevents a more honest debate at home about the dangers an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose. American politicians sometimes say an Iranian bomb would pose an “existential” threat to Israel. That’s a dubious claim, given that Israel possesses a nuclear deterrent it can deploy on air, land and sea. But many Americans find the claim plausible because, according to recent polling conducted by Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland, barely 50 per cent know Israel has nuclear weapons. A higher percentage thinks Tehran has the bomb. Even if an Iranian bomb wouldn’t existentially threaten Israel, the United States should still work to forestall one diplomatically. With negotiations with Tehran at risk of collapse, the Biden administration should commit to lifting the sanctions that are crippling Iran’s economy in return for verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear capacity. But if those efforts fail — and the Biden administration faces pressure to wage war rather than allow Iran to gain the capacity to build a nuclear weapon — it’s crucial that Americans make an informed decision about the risk a nuclear Iran poses to America’s closest ally in the Middle East. That’s harder when the American government never publicly admits that Israel has the means to deter a nuclear attack. Also read | Israel PM Bennett weighs against nuclear talks with Iran's 'hangmen regime' The Biden administration is not going to force Israel to give up its nuclear weapons. But that doesn’t mean it must undermine America’s global credibility and deceive its people by denying reality. Perhaps a more honest American discussion of Israel’s nuclear arsenal will breathe new life into the distant dream of a nuclear-free Middle East. Even if that doesn’t happen, it will be bracing, after a half-century of lying by omission, simply to hear America’s leaders tell the truth.

America needs to start telling the truth about Israel’s nukes

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/bill-gates">Bill gates</a> owned TerraPower, and power company PacifiCorp, owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, has chosen the site of a retiring coal plant in Wyoming as the location of their new joint project, the first Natrium nuclear reactor.

As states strive to cut emissions that cause climate change, small advanced reactors that run on fuels different than the ones used in traditional reactors, are regarded as a critical carbon-free technology that holds the potential to supplement intermittent power sources like wind and solar.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/a-culture-of-fear-at-the-firm-that-manages-bill-gates-fortune-387751">A culture of fear at the firm that manages Bill Gates’ fortune</a>

Speaking at a press conference, held for the launch of the project in Cheyenne, Wyoming, Bill gates said “We think Natrium will be a game-changer for the energy industry,”.

“This is our fastest and clearest course to becoming carbon negative,” says Wyoming’s governor, Mark Gordon. “Nuclear power is clearly a part of my all-of-the-above strategy for energy” in Wyoming, the country’s top coal-producing state.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/bill-gates-is-no-longer-worlds-second-richest-person-345025">Bill Gates is no longer world's second-richest person</a>

Featuring a 345-megawatt sodium-cooled fast reactor with molten salt-based energy storage, which has the potential to boost the system’s power output to 500MW during peak power demand, this project according to TerraPower estimates would cost about $1bn.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/what-the-gates-divorce-means-for-the-gates-foundation-382950">What the Gates divorce means for the Gates Foundation</a>

With commitments of additional funding (subject to congressional appropriations) in coming years, late last year as initial funding to demonstrate Natrium technology the US energy department awarded TerraPower $80m.

World Nuclear power experts warn that compared to conventional reactors; advanced reactors could have higher risks. According to,&nbsp;a recent report as the fuel for many advanced reactors would require a higher rate of enrichment as compared to conventional fuel, the fuel supply chain can be a very attractive target for militants looking to create a crude nuclear weapon.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/the-dirt-is-piling-on-bill-gates-americas-loveable-grandpa-385708">The dirt is piling on Bill Gates, America's loveable grandpa</a>

TerraPower’s president and chief executive, Chris Levesque said the demonstration plant would take approximately seven years to build.

“We need this kind of clean energy on the grid in the 2030s,” he told reporters, adding that because these plants reduce overall nuclear waste, they would reduce proliferation risks.

Bill gates owned TerraPower, and power company PacifiCorp, owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, has chosen the site of a retiring coal plant in Wyoming as the location of their new joint project, the first Natrium nuclear reactor.

Bill gates owned TerraPower, and power company PacifiCorp, owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, has chosen the site of a retiring coal plant in Wyoming as the location of their new joint project, the first Natrium nuclear reactor. As states strive to cut emissions that cause climate change, small advanced reactors that run on fuels different than the ones used in traditional reactors, are regarded as a critical carbon-free technology that holds the potential to supplement intermittent power sources like wind and solar. Also read | A culture of fear at the firm that manages Bill Gates’ fortune Speaking at a press conference, held for the launch of the project in Cheyenne, Wyoming, Bill gates said “We think Natrium will be a game-changer for the energy industry,”. “This is our fastest and clearest course to becoming carbon negative,” says Wyoming’s governor, Mark Gordon. “Nuclear power is clearly a part of my all-of-the-above strategy for energy” in Wyoming, the country’s top coal-producing state. Also read | Bill Gates is no longer world's second-richest person Featuring a 345-megawatt sodium-cooled fast reactor with molten salt-based energy storage, which has the potential to boost the system’s power output to 500MW during peak power demand, this project according to TerraPower estimates would cost about $1bn. Also read | What the Gates divorce means for the Gates Foundation With commitments of additional funding (subject to congressional appropriations) in coming years, late last year as initial funding to demonstrate Natrium technology the US energy department awarded TerraPower $80m. World Nuclear power experts warn that compared to conventional reactors; advanced reactors could have higher risks. According to, a recent report as the fuel for many advanced reactors would require a higher rate of enrichment as compared to conventional fuel, the fuel supply chain can be a very attractive target for militants looking to create a crude nuclear weapon. Also read | The dirt is piling on Bill Gates, America's loveable grandpa TerraPower’s president and chief executive, Chris Levesque said the demonstration plant would take approximately seven years to build. “We need this kind of clean energy on the grid in the 2030s,” he told reporters, adding that because these plants reduce overall nuclear waste, they would reduce proliferation risks.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet launch the first Natrium nuclear reactor

Iran's atomic organisation said the accident at Natanz nuclear facility was a terrorist attack.

Iran: Natanz nuclear facility hit by terrorist act

China reportedly is building its fourth aircraft carrier -- a move aimed at boosting its naval power in the Asia-Pacific region.

Construction of the fourth ship, which has already been delayed for two years, resumed earlier this year. The vessel is “likely to be nuclear powered”, a new report revealed on Saturday.

According to the South China Morning Post, "shipbuilders are keen on making a significant breakthrough with the construction of the fourth carrier." The report adds that Chinese officials are studying a proposal “to use nuclear power for the fourth carrier”.

China launched its first domestically made aircraft carrier in 2017. The other three aircraft carriers -- two already operating and a third one expected to be launched this year -- don't have nuclear capability.

The first carrier -- 50,000-tonne Shandong, is based on the Soviet Kuznetsov-class design, with a ski jump-style deck for taking off and a conventional oil-fuelled steam turbine power plant. In December, the Shandong aircraft carrier reportedly sailed through the Taiwan Strait on its way to routine drills in the South China Sea, just a day after a US warship passed through the same stretch of sea.

The other vessel in operation is the 60,000-tonne Liaoning aircraft carrier, which was purchased from Ukraine.

The third one, expected to be in operation this year, has an estimated displacement of about 85,000 tonnes.

Apart from these, China already has in its arsenal over a dozen nuclear-powered submarines.

China reportedly is building its fourth aircraft carrier -- a move aimed at boosting its naval power in the Asia-Pacific region. Construction of the fourth ship, which has already been delayed for two years, resumed earlier this year.

China reportedly is building its fourth aircraft carrier -- a move aimed at boosting its naval power in the Asia-Pacific region. Construction of the fourth ship, which has already been delayed for two years, resumed earlier this year. The vessel is “likely to be nuclear powered”, a new report revealed on Saturday. According to the South China Morning Post, "shipbuilders are keen on making a significant breakthrough with the construction of the fourth carrier." The report adds that Chinese officials are studying a proposal “to use nuclear power for the fourth carrier”. China launched its first domestically made aircraft carrier in 2017. The other three aircraft carriers -- two already operating and a third one expected to be launched this year -- don't have nuclear capability. The first carrier -- 50,000-tonne Shandong, is based on the Soviet Kuznetsov-class design, with a ski jump-style deck for taking off and a conventional oil-fuelled steam turbine power plant. In December, the Shandong aircraft carrier reportedly sailed through the Taiwan Strait on its way to routine drills in the South China Sea, just a day after a US warship passed through the same stretch of sea. The other vessel in operation is the 60,000-tonne Liaoning aircraft carrier, which was purchased from Ukraine. The third one, expected to be in operation this year, has an estimated displacement of about 85,000 tonnes. Apart from these, China already has in its arsenal over a dozen nuclear-powered submarines.

China's fourth aircraft carrier 'likely to be nuclear powered'

French President Emmanuel Macron said that Nuclear power will remain a key part of country's energy needs, in a show of support for the industry even as he looks to reduce nuclear's dominance as a power source.

Macron says nuclear energy will remain France's major source

North&nbsp;Korea&nbsp;on Wednesday dubbed the global atomic watchdog "a marionette dancing to the tune of the West" rejecting its information about the country's nuclear programme as “grossly distorted” and based on “guesswork and fabrication.”

North Korean Ambassador Kim Song delivered the rebuke at a UN General Assembly meeting where the International Atomic Energy Agency''s executive director, Rafael Grossi, called Pyongyang''s nuclear activities “deeply regrettable" and “a clear violation” of Security Council resolutions.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/satellite-images-suggest-north-korea-may-be-preparing-to-launch-submarine-missile-us-think-tank-325354">Satellite images suggest North Korea may be preparing to launch submarine missile</a>

The Vienna-based IAEA has not had access to&nbsp;North&nbsp;Korea&nbsp;since the isolated Asian state expelled IAEA inspectors in 2009. Since then Pyongyang has pressed ahead with its nuclear weapons program, conducting its last nuclear test in September 2017.

The U.N. specialised agency has been monitoring&nbsp;North&nbsp;Korea&nbsp;from afar, including satellite imagery.

Also read| <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/north-koreas-nuclear-missile-programs-serious-threat-to-security-pentagon-chief-335325">North Korea's nuclear, missile programs 'serious threat' to security: Pentagon chief</a>

"The DPRK's nuclear activities remain a cause for serious concern. The continuation of the country's nuclear program is a clear violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and is deeply regrettable," IAEA Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi told the 193-member U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday.

North&nbsp;Korea&nbsp;is formally known as the Democratic People's Republic of&nbsp;Korea&nbsp;(DPRK).

North&nbsp;Korea's U.N. Ambassador Kim Song rejected an annual IAEA report submitted to the General Assembly

"The DPRK delegation categorically rejects the report of the IAEA containing grossly distorted contents with regard to the DPRK," said Kim.

"We left the IAEA long ago and have not forgotten its despicable acts of having sided with the hostile forces in their maneuvers to put pressure on us," Kim said. "The DPRK will never have any business to deal with the IAEA so long as it runs short of impartiality and objectivity ... and remains a marionette dancing to the tune of the hostile forces against the DPRK."

It is known that North Korea has facilities to produce both plutonium and highly enriched uranium, two key ingredients to manufacture bombs, at its main Yongbyon nuclear complex north of the capital, Pyongyang.

North&nbsp;Korea&nbsp;has been subjected to U.N. Security Council sanctions since 2006 over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The 15-member council has steadily strengthened sanctions in a bid to cut off funding for those programs.

North&nbsp;Korean leader Kim Jong Un and US&nbsp;President Donald Trump have met three times since 2018, but failed to make progress on the US&nbsp;calls for Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons and&nbsp;North&nbsp;Korea's demands for an end to sanctions.

North Korea on Wednesday dubbed the global atomic watchdog "a marionette dancing to the tune of the West" rejecting its information about the country's nuclear programme as “grossly distorted” and based on “guesswork and fabrication.

North Korea on Wednesday dubbed the global atomic watchdog "a marionette dancing to the tune of the West" rejecting its information about the country's nuclear programme as “grossly distorted” and based on “guesswork and fabrication.” North Korean Ambassador Kim Song delivered the rebuke at a UN General Assembly meeting where the International Atomic Energy Agency''s executive director, Rafael Grossi, called Pyongyang''s nuclear activities “deeply regrettable" and “a clear violation” of Security Council resolutions. Also read| Satellite images suggest North Korea may be preparing to launch submarine missile The Vienna-based IAEA has not had access to North Korea since the isolated Asian state expelled IAEA inspectors in 2009. Since then Pyongyang has pressed ahead with its nuclear weapons program, conducting its last nuclear test in September 2017. The U.N. specialised agency has been monitoring North Korea from afar, including satellite imagery. Also read| North Korea's nuclear, missile programs 'serious threat' to security: Pentagon chief "The DPRK's nuclear activities remain a cause for serious concern. The continuation of the country's nuclear program is a clear violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and is deeply regrettable," IAEA Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi told the 193-member U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday. North Korea is formally known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). North Korea's U.N. Ambassador Kim Song rejected an annual IAEA report submitted to the General Assembly "The DPRK delegation categorically rejects the report of the IAEA containing grossly distorted contents with regard to the DPRK," said Kim. "We left the IAEA long ago and have not forgotten its despicable acts of having sided with the hostile forces in their maneuvers to put pressure on us," Kim said. "The DPRK will never have any business to deal with the IAEA so long as it runs short of impartiality and objectivity ... and remains a marionette dancing to the tune of the hostile forces against the DPRK." It is known that North Korea has facilities to produce both plutonium and highly enriched uranium, two key ingredients to manufacture bombs, at its main Yongbyon nuclear complex north of the capital, Pyongyang. North Korea has been subjected to U.N. Security Council sanctions since 2006 over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The 15-member council has steadily strengthened sanctions in a bid to cut off funding for those programs. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and US President Donald Trump have met three times since 2018, but failed to make progress on the US calls for Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons and North Korea's demands for an end to sanctions.

North Korea dubs UN nuclear watchdog a 'dancing marionette of the West'

Satellite imagery suggests recent flooding in North Korea may have damaged pump houses connected to the country's main nuclear facility, a US-based think-tank said on Thursday.

Analysts at 38 North, a website that monitors North Korea, said commercial satellite imagery from August 6-11 showed how vulnerable the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center`s nuclear reactor cooling systems are to extreme weather events.

The Korean peninsula has been hammered by one of the longest rainy spells in recent history, with floods and landslides causing damage and deaths in both North and South Korea.

Located on the bank of the Kuryong River about 100 km (60 miles) north of North Korea’s capital, Pyongyang, Yongbyon is home to nuclear reactors, fuel re-processing plants and uranium enrichment facilities that are thought to be used in the country's nuclear weapons programme.

The five-megawatt reactor - believed to be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium - does not appear to have been operating for some time, and an Experimental Light Water Reactor (ELWR) has not yet come online, but such flooding in the future would likely force a shutdown, the 38 North report said.

"Damage to the pumps and piping within the pump houses presents the biggest vulnerability to the reactors," the report said. "If the reactors were operating, for instance, the inability to cool them would require them to be shut down."

While there was further flooding downstream, it did not appear to reach the Yongbyon facility`s Uranium Enrichment Plant and by August 11 the waters appear to have somewhat receded, 38 North said.

South Korea's Ministry of Defence declined to comment on the report, but said it is always monitoring developments related to North Korea`s nuclear and missile programmes and maintaining close cooperation with the U.S. government.

At a summit with U.S. President Donald Trump in Vietnam in 2019, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un offered to dismantle&nbsp;Yongbyon in exchange for relief from a range of international sanctions imposed over North Korea`s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes.

At the time Trump said he rejected that deal because Yongbyon is only one part of the North's nuclear programme, and was not enough of a concession to warrant loosening so many sanctions.

Satellite imagery suggests recent flooding in North Korea may have damaged pump houses connected to the country's main nuclear facility, a US-based think-tank said on Thursday.

Satellite imagery suggests recent flooding in North Korea may have damaged pump houses connected to the country's main nuclear facility, a US-based think-tank said on Thursday. Analysts at 38 North, a website that monitors North Korea, said commercial satellite imagery from August 6-11 showed how vulnerable the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center`s nuclear reactor cooling systems are to extreme weather events. The Korean peninsula has been hammered by one of the longest rainy spells in recent history, with floods and landslides causing damage and deaths in both North and South Korea. Located on the bank of the Kuryong River about 100 km (60 miles) north of North Korea’s capital, Pyongyang, Yongbyon is home to nuclear reactors, fuel re-processing plants and uranium enrichment facilities that are thought to be used in the country's nuclear weapons programme. The five-megawatt reactor - believed to be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium - does not appear to have been operating for some time, and an Experimental Light Water Reactor (ELWR) has not yet come online, but such flooding in the future would likely force a shutdown, the 38 North report said. "Damage to the pumps and piping within the pump houses presents the biggest vulnerability to the reactors," the report said. "If the reactors were operating, for instance, the inability to cool them would require them to be shut down." While there was further flooding downstream, it did not appear to reach the Yongbyon facility`s Uranium Enrichment Plant and by August 11 the waters appear to have somewhat receded, 38 North said. South Korea's Ministry of Defence declined to comment on the report, but said it is always monitoring developments related to North Korea`s nuclear and missile programmes and maintaining close cooperation with the U.S. government. At a summit with U.S. President Donald Trump in Vietnam in 2019, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un offered to dismantle Yongbyon in exchange for relief from a range of international sanctions imposed over North Korea`s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes. At the time Trump said he rejected that deal because Yongbyon is only one part of the North's nuclear programme, and was not enough of a concession to warrant loosening so many sanctions.

North Korea nuclear reactor site threatened by recent flooding, US think-tank says

How Pakistan, China are developing nuclear triad

In an apparent slip of the tongue on Sunday, Prime Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/soleimani-contributed-to-plotting-terror-attacks-in-new-delhi-london-trump-272027">Benjamin Netanyahu</a> described Israel as a nuclear power before correcting himself with a bashful nod and an embarrassed smile.

Israel is widely believed to have an atomic arsenal but has never confirmed or denied that it has nuclear weapons, maintaining a so-called policy of ambiguity on the issue for decades.

Netanyahu stumbled at the weekly cabinet meeting while reading in Hebrew prepared remarks on a deal with Greece and Cyprus on a subsea gas pipeline.

"The significance of this project is that we are turning Israel into nuclear power," he said, before quickly correcting himself to say "energy power".

He then paused for a beat, acknowledging his mistake with a smile, and then ploughed on with his comments.

The rare blooper from one of Israel's most polished politicians swiftly proliferated on social media.

Netanyahu is fighting for his political survival in a March 2 vote after two inconclusive elections in April and September. In November, he was indicted on corruption charges, which he denies.

In an apparent slip of the tongue on Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described Israel as a nuclear power before correcting himself with a bashful nod and an embarrassed smile.

In an apparent slip of the tongue on Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described Israel as a nuclear power before correcting himself with a bashful nod and an embarrassed smile. Israel is widely believed to have an atomic arsenal but has never confirmed or denied that it has nuclear weapons, maintaining a so-called policy of ambiguity on the issue for decades. Netanyahu stumbled at the weekly cabinet meeting while reading in Hebrew prepared remarks on a deal with Greece and Cyprus on a subsea gas pipeline. "The significance of this project is that we are turning Israel into nuclear power," he said, before quickly correcting himself to say "energy power". He then paused for a beat, acknowledging his mistake with a smile, and then ploughed on with his comments. The rare blooper from one of Israel's most polished politicians swiftly proliferated on social media. Netanyahu is fighting for his political survival in a March 2 vote after two inconclusive elections in April and September. In November, he was indicted on corruption charges, which he denies.

Israel's PM Benjamin Netanyahu in apparent stumble, calls Israel a 'nuclear power'

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-launches-floating-nuclear-reactor-in-arctic-despite-warnings-244918">Russia's world-first floating nuclear power station</a> on Saturday completed a 5,000-kilometre (3,100-mile) Arctic transfer to the country's far east, the Rosatom nuclear agency said.

"The Akademik Lomonosov floating nuclear plant arrived at Pevek, in the autonomous district of Chukotka," where it is to start operating by year-end once connected to the local electricity grid, Rosatom said.

What will be the world's northernmost nuclear power plant left Murmansk in Russia's far north on August 23 after being loaded with combustible nuclear fuel?

The 21-ton, 144-metre (470 feet) long and 30-metre wide platform, which is designed to meet the energy needs of remote communities, was towed into Pevek by a clutch of vessels.

The station houses two 35-megawatt reactors, more in line with the power of nuclear-powered ice breakers than typical new-generation nuclear plants boasting nearer 1,000 MW capacity.

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russias-floating-nuclear-reactor-ready-for-arctic-operations-environmentalists-concerned-232605">Akademik Lomonosov</a>&nbsp;is to provide energy for around 100,000 people and also power oil platforms as Russia develops extraction of natural resources in a mineral-rich area whose eastern tip is a few dozen kilometres from Alaska.

"It is perhaps a small step towards sustainable development in the Arctic&nbsp;but it's a giant step towards decarbonisation of remote, off-grid zones and a turning point in the global development of small modular nuclear plants," Rosatom head Alexei Likhachev said in a statement.

Environmental groups led by Greenpeace Russia have, however, long criticised the project warning it will have "serious consequences" for a fragile ecosystem in case of storms or accidents.

Greenpeace has warned of the risk of a "nuclear Titanic" and "Chernobyl on ice" and environmental fears were heightened following an August explosion at a nuclear research facility in Russia's far north which saw local radiation levels briefly spike.

The nuclear industry generally has been looking to reinvent itself in a depressed market, notably by producing small-scale, modular reactors with attractive price tags to win over potential new clients.

The industry has been cheered by strong demand notably for nuclear-powered submarines as well as ice-breakers and aircraft carriers, increasingly destined for isolated and infrastructure-poor regions.

Russia's world-first floating nuclear power station on Saturday completed a 5,000-kilometre (3,100-mile) Arctic transfer to the country's far east, the Rosatom nuclear agency said.

Russia's world-first floating nuclear power station on Saturday completed a 5,000-kilometre (3,100-mile) Arctic transfer to the country's far east, the Rosatom nuclear agency said. "The Akademik Lomonosov floating nuclear plant arrived at Pevek, in the autonomous district of Chukotka," where it is to start operating by year-end once connected to the local electricity grid, Rosatom said. What will be the world's northernmost nuclear power plant left Murmansk in Russia's far north on August 23 after being loaded with combustible nuclear fuel? The 21-ton, 144-metre (470 feet) long and 30-metre wide platform, which is designed to meet the energy needs of remote communities, was towed into Pevek by a clutch of vessels. The station houses two 35-megawatt reactors, more in line with the power of nuclear-powered ice breakers than typical new-generation nuclear plants boasting nearer 1,000 MW capacity. The Akademik Lomonosov is to provide energy for around 100,000 people and also power oil platforms as Russia develops extraction of natural resources in a mineral-rich area whose eastern tip is a few dozen kilometres from Alaska. "It is perhaps a small step towards sustainable development in the Arctic but it's a giant step towards decarbonisation of remote, off-grid zones and a turning point in the global development of small modular nuclear plants," Rosatom head Alexei Likhachev said in a statement. Environmental groups led by Greenpeace Russia have, however, long criticised the project warning it will have "serious consequences" for a fragile ecosystem in case of storms or accidents. Greenpeace has warned of the risk of a "nuclear Titanic" and "Chernobyl on ice" and environmental fears were heightened following an August explosion at a nuclear research facility in Russia's far north which saw local radiation levels briefly spike. The nuclear industry generally has been looking to reinvent itself in a depressed market, notably by producing small-scale, modular reactors with attractive price tags to win over potential new clients. The industry has been cheered by strong demand notably for nuclear-powered submarines as well as ice-breakers and aircraft carriers, increasingly destined for isolated and infrastructure-poor regions.

Russia's world-first floating nuclear plant arrives in port

Days after making a threat of using nuclear weapons against India,<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pakistan-restores-partial-trade-with-india-bows-down-to-domestic-pressure-from-traders-247304"> Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan</a> has made a U-turn. Khan said that Pakistan stands by 'no first use' doctrine when it comes to using nuclear weapons.

"We will never start the war. Both Pakistan and India are nuclear powers and if tension escalates the world will face danger," Khan said while addressing a gathering of the Sikh community at the Governor's House in Lahore.

It is the latest example of a flip-flop by Imran Khan, although the Pakistani foreign ministry spokesperson sought to put a spin on Khan's remarks by saying that his comments were taken out of context and that they did not represent a change in Pakistan's nuclear policy.

"PM was simply reiterating Pakistan's commitment to peace and the need for both nuclear states to demonstrate responsible behaviour," spokesman Mohammad Faisal said on his official Twitter account.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Prime Minister’s comments on Pakistan’s approach towards conflict between two nuclear armed states are being taken out of context. While conflict should not take place between two nuclear states, there’s no change in Pakistan’s nuclear policy.
— Dr Mohammad Faisal (@ForeignOfficePk) <a href="https://twitter.com/ForeignOfficePk/status/1168588771081838596?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 2, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Pakistan has resorted to nuclear blackmail every time it has been pushed to the wall.

And true to form, Pakistan has ratcheted up the nuclear rhetoric after recent Indian moves on Jammu and Kashmir. It starts right at the top - with Prime Minister Imran Khan.

In an article published by the New York Times newspaper of the United States, Khan said that if the world does nothing to stop the alleged Indian assault on Jammu and Kashmir and its people, two nuclear-armed states will get ever closer to a direct military confrontation.

Khan is not alone - some of his cabinet ministers have been equally indiscreet.

Sheikh Rashid, Pakistan's minister of railways, boasts of Pakistan having small nukes.

Imran Khan's nuclear bombast is the latest in a series of embarrassing moves by Pakistan. He gave the call for a so-called "Kashmir solidarity hour" to be observed every Friday at noon local time.

But if the response to his call was anything to go by, last Friday's "Kashmir solidarity hour" proved to be a damp squib.

Days after making a threat of using nuclear weapons against India, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has made a U-turn. Khan said that Pakistan stands by 'no first use' doctrine when it comes to using nuclear weapons.

Days after making a threat of using nuclear weapons against India, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has made a U-turn. Khan said that Pakistan stands by 'no first use' doctrine when it comes to using nuclear weapons. "We will never start the war. Both Pakistan and India are nuclear powers and if tension escalates the world will face danger," Khan said while addressing a gathering of the Sikh community at the Governor's House in Lahore. It is the latest example of a flip-flop by Imran Khan, although the Pakistani foreign ministry spokesperson sought to put a spin on Khan's remarks by saying that his comments were taken out of context and that they did not represent a change in Pakistan's nuclear policy. "PM was simply reiterating Pakistan's commitment to peace and the need for both nuclear states to demonstrate responsible behaviour," spokesman Mohammad Faisal said on his official Twitter account. Prime Minister’s comments on Pakistan’s approach towards conflict between two nuclear armed states are being taken out of context. While conflict should not take place between two nuclear states, there’s no change in Pakistan’s nuclear policy. — Dr Mohammad Faisal (@ForeignOfficePk) September 2, 2019 × Pakistan has resorted to nuclear blackmail every time it has been pushed to the wall. And true to form, Pakistan has ratcheted up the nuclear rhetoric after recent Indian moves on Jammu and Kashmir. It starts right at the top - with Prime Minister Imran Khan. In an article published by the New York Times newspaper of the United States, Khan said that if the world does nothing to stop the alleged Indian assault on Jammu and Kashmir and its people, two nuclear-armed states will get ever closer to a direct military confrontation. Khan is not alone - some of his cabinet ministers have been equally indiscreet. Sheikh Rashid, Pakistan's minister of railways, boasts of Pakistan having small nukes. Imran Khan's nuclear bombast is the latest in a series of embarrassing moves by Pakistan. He gave the call for a so-called "Kashmir solidarity hour" to be observed every Friday at noon local time. But if the response to his call was anything to go by, last Friday's "Kashmir solidarity hour" proved to be a damp squib.

Imran Khan makes U-turn, says Pakistan would not use nuclear weapons first

Iran will continue scaling back compliance with its nuclear deal commitments unless other signatories show "positive signals", the Iranian president told a meeting of Russian, Chinese and other Asian leaders in Tajikistan.

Iran stopped complying in May with some commitments in a 2015 nuclear deal that was agreed with global powers, a year after the United States unilaterally withdrew from the accord and tightened sanctions.

Tehran said in May that Iran would start enriching uranium at a higher level, unless world powers protected its economy from US sanctions within 60 days.

"Obviously, Iran cannot stick to this agreement unilaterally," President Hassan Rouhani told the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia.

"It is necessary that all the sides of this agreement contribute to restoring it," he said, adding that Iran needed to see "positive signals" from other signatories to the pact, which include Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.

He did not give details on what actions Iran would take or say what positive signals Tehran wanted to see.

France and other European signatories to the deal, which aimed to curb Iran`s nuclear ambitions, have said they wanted to save it, but many of their companies have cancelled deals with Tehran, under financial pressure from the United States.

Western powers have accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies saying it wants nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Rouhani made no mention of attacks on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman this week which Washington has blamed on Tehran, raising concern about new confrontation. Iran has denied any role in the attacks.

Iran will continue scaling back compliance with its nuclear deal commitments unless other signatories show "positive signals", the Iranian president told a meeting of Russian, Chinese and other Asian leaders in Tajikistan.

Iran will continue scaling back compliance with its nuclear deal commitments unless other signatories show "positive signals", the Iranian president told a meeting of Russian, Chinese and other Asian leaders in Tajikistan. Iran stopped complying in May with some commitments in a 2015 nuclear deal that was agreed with global powers, a year after the United States unilaterally withdrew from the accord and tightened sanctions. Tehran said in May that Iran would start enriching uranium at a higher level, unless world powers protected its economy from US sanctions within 60 days. "Obviously, Iran cannot stick to this agreement unilaterally," President Hassan Rouhani told the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia. "It is necessary that all the sides of this agreement contribute to restoring it," he said, adding that Iran needed to see "positive signals" from other signatories to the pact, which include Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany. He did not give details on what actions Iran would take or say what positive signals Tehran wanted to see. France and other European signatories to the deal, which aimed to curb Iran`s nuclear ambitions, have said they wanted to save it, but many of their companies have cancelled deals with Tehran, under financial pressure from the United States. Western powers have accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies saying it wants nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Rouhani made no mention of attacks on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman this week which Washington has blamed on Tehran, raising concern about new confrontation. Iran has denied any role in the attacks.

Iran president renews ultimatum over nuclear pact compliance

US Energy Secretary Rick Perry has approved six secret authorisations by companies to sell nuclear power technology and assistance to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/saudi-arabia-rejects-condemns-trumps-decision-on-golan-heights-205691">Saudi Arabia</a>, according to a copy of a document seen by Reuters on Wednesday.

The Trump administration has quietly pursued a wider deal on sharing US nuclear power technology with Saudi Arabia, which aims to build at least two nuclear power plants. Several countries including the United States, South Korea and Russia are in competition for that deal, and the winners are expected to be announced later this year by Saudi Arabia.

Perry's approvals, known as Part 810 authorisations, allow companies to do preliminary work on nuclear power ahead of any deal but not ship equipment that would go into a plant, a source with knowledge of the agreements said on condition of anonymity. The approvals were first reported by the Daily Beast.

The Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) said in the document that the companies had requested that the Trump administration keep the approvals secret.

"In this case, each of the companies which received a specific authorization for (Saudi Arabia) have provided us written request that their authorization be withheld from public release," the NNSA said in the document. In the past, the Energy Department made previous Part 810 authorisations available for the public to read at its headquarters.

A Department of Energy official said the requests contained proprietary information and that the authorisations went through multi-agency approval process.

Many US lawmakers are concerned that sharing nuclear technology with Saudi Arabia could eventually lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told CBS last year that the kingdom would develop nuclear weapons if its rival Iran did. In addition, the kingdom has occasionally pushed back against agreeing to US standards that would block two paths to potentially making fissile material for nuclear weapons clandestinely: enriching uranium and reprocessing spent fuel.

The concern in Congress about sharing nuclear technology and knowledge with Saudi Arabia rose after US-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed last October in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. The Part 810 authorisations were made after November 2017, but it was not clear from the document whether any of them were made after Khashoggi's killing.

Representative Brad Sherman, a Democrat, called on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during a congressional hearing on Wednesday to release the names of the companies that got the approvals by the middle of April, and Pompeo said he would look into it. Sherman also said the Trump administration had attempted to evade Congress on sharing nuclear power with the kingdom.

Pompeo said the administration was working to ensure any shared technology nuclear power would not present proliferation risks.

Last month, Democratic House members alleged in a report that top White House aides ignored warnings they could be breaking the law as they worked with former US officials in a group called IP3 International to advance a multibillion-dollar plan to build nuclear reactors in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.

IP3 did not immediately respond to a request for comment about whether it was one of the companies that got a Part 810 authorization.

Separately, the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, accepted a request by Senators Marco Rubio, a Republican and Bob Menendez, a Democrat, to probe the administration's talks on a nuclear deal with Saudi, the GAO said on Wednesday.

US Energy Secretary Rick Perry has approved six secret authorisations by companies to sell nuclear power technology and assistance to Saudi Arabia, according to a copy of a document seen by Reuters on Wednesday.

US Energy Secretary Rick Perry has approved six secret authorisations by companies to sell nuclear power technology and assistance to Saudi Arabia, according to a copy of a document seen by Reuters on Wednesday. The Trump administration has quietly pursued a wider deal on sharing US nuclear power technology with Saudi Arabia, which aims to build at least two nuclear power plants. Several countries including the United States, South Korea and Russia are in competition for that deal, and the winners are expected to be announced later this year by Saudi Arabia. Perry's approvals, known as Part 810 authorisations, allow companies to do preliminary work on nuclear power ahead of any deal but not ship equipment that would go into a plant, a source with knowledge of the agreements said on condition of anonymity. The approvals were first reported by the Daily Beast. The Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) said in the document that the companies had requested that the Trump administration keep the approvals secret. "In this case, each of the companies which received a specific authorization for (Saudi Arabia) have provided us written request that their authorization be withheld from public release," the NNSA said in the document. In the past, the Energy Department made previous Part 810 authorisations available for the public to read at its headquarters. A Department of Energy official said the requests contained proprietary information and that the authorisations went through multi-agency approval process. Many US lawmakers are concerned that sharing nuclear technology with Saudi Arabia could eventually lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told CBS last year that the kingdom would develop nuclear weapons if its rival Iran did. In addition, the kingdom has occasionally pushed back against agreeing to US standards that would block two paths to potentially making fissile material for nuclear weapons clandestinely: enriching uranium and reprocessing spent fuel. The concern in Congress about sharing nuclear technology and knowledge with Saudi Arabia rose after US-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed last October in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. The Part 810 authorisations were made after November 2017, but it was not clear from the document whether any of them were made after Khashoggi's killing. Representative Brad Sherman, a Democrat, called on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during a congressional hearing on Wednesday to release the names of the companies that got the approvals by the middle of April, and Pompeo said he would look into it. Sherman also said the Trump administration had attempted to evade Congress on sharing nuclear power with the kingdom. Pompeo said the administration was working to ensure any shared technology nuclear power would not present proliferation risks. Last month, Democratic House members alleged in a report that top White House aides ignored warnings they could be breaking the law as they worked with former US officials in a group called IP3 International to advance a multibillion-dollar plan to build nuclear reactors in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia. IP3 did not immediately respond to a request for comment about whether it was one of the companies that got a Part 810 authorization. Separately, the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, accepted a request by Senators Marco Rubio, a Republican and Bob Menendez, a Democrat, to probe the administration's talks on a nuclear deal with Saudi, the GAO said on Wednesday.

US approved secret nuclear power work for Saudi Arabia

India said nuclear power remains an important option to meet the challenges of increased energy demand, address concerns about climate change and ensure energy supply security.

Addressing a UN General Assembly session on 'Report of the International Atomic Energy Agency' Friday, First Secretary in India's Permanent Mission to the UN Sandeep Kumar Bayyapu said India attaches importance to the IAEA's work in different fields of nuclear science and supports its programme on nuclear fusion.

"Nuclear power remains an important option to meet the challenges of increased energy demand, address concerns about climate change, redress volatile fossil fuel prices and ensure security of the energy supply," he said.

In this context, the IAEA's recent International Ministerial Conference on nuclear power in Abu Dhabi played a significant role in bringing policymakers, scientists, technologists and environmentalists together to examine the prospects of nuclear power.&nbsp;

Bayyapu stressed the need of the IAEA to continue its programmes of support to member states who are embarking on or expanding their nuclear energy programmes.&nbsp;

It also needs to support member states in enhancing their capacity to build public acceptance for nuclear energy, he said.

The IAEA's programmes and achievements under nuclear applications in food and agriculture, human health and nutrition, water resources management, protection of the environment are helpful in meeting the needs of developing countries.&nbsp;

Advanced fission reactors, including fast reactors, contribute towards more efficient use of nuclear fuel, and towards reducing radioactive waste volumes, he said, adding that India participated actively and exchanged information on new developments and experience in the field of fast reactors and related technologies during the International Conference on Fast Reactors and Related Fuel Cycles held in the Russian Federation in June last year.

"International collaboration under the IAEA would help provide a much wider resource base for future nuclear technology development," Bayyapu said.

India had hosted the 27th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference (FEC-2018) last month in Ahmedabad. The conference provided a forum for the discussion of key physics and technology issues as well as innovative concepts of direct relevance to the use of nuclear fusion as a source of energy.&nbsp;

India said nuclear power remains an important option to meet the challenges of increased energy demand, address concerns about climate change and ensure energy supply security.

India said nuclear power remains an important option to meet the challenges of increased energy demand, address concerns about climate change and ensure energy supply security. Addressing a UN General Assembly session on 'Report of the International Atomic Energy Agency' Friday, First Secretary in India's Permanent Mission to the UN Sandeep Kumar Bayyapu said India attaches importance to the IAEA's work in different fields of nuclear science and supports its programme on nuclear fusion. "Nuclear power remains an important option to meet the challenges of increased energy demand, address concerns about climate change, redress volatile fossil fuel prices and ensure security of the energy supply," he said. In this context, the IAEA's recent International Ministerial Conference on nuclear power in Abu Dhabi played a significant role in bringing policymakers, scientists, technologists and environmentalists together to examine the prospects of nuclear power. Bayyapu stressed the need of the IAEA to continue its programmes of support to member states who are embarking on or expanding their nuclear energy programmes. It also needs to support member states in enhancing their capacity to build public acceptance for nuclear energy, he said. The IAEA's programmes and achievements under nuclear applications in food and agriculture, human health and nutrition, water resources management, protection of the environment are helpful in meeting the needs of developing countries. Advanced fission reactors, including fast reactors, contribute towards more efficient use of nuclear fuel, and towards reducing radioactive waste volumes, he said, adding that India participated actively and exchanged information on new developments and experience in the field of fast reactors and related technologies during the International Conference on Fast Reactors and Related Fuel Cycles held in the Russian Federation in June last year. "International collaboration under the IAEA would help provide a much wider resource base for future nuclear technology development," Bayyapu said. India had hosted the 27th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference (FEC-2018) last month in Ahmedabad. The conference provided a forum for the discussion of key physics and technology issues as well as innovative concepts of direct relevance to the use of nuclear fusion as a source of energy.

Nuclear power remains important option to meet challenges of energy demand: India in UN

Twenty years ago, on May 11, 1998, the then Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee declared a nuclear power with the tests at Pokhran.&nbsp;

Much has been written in the Indian media on how Indian intelligence, aware of US spy satellites&nbsp;and the interest of the CIA in trying to detect the country's nuclear test preparations, hoodwinked the Americans and used codes which were so detailed and camouflaged that even the actual writers of the cryptogram were at times stuck deciphering these.

Americans also bemoaned how their intelligence agencies blundered and termed it “the intelligence failure of the decade”.&nbsp;

Pokhran II: 10 Key facts

<ul>
	<li>The preparations began almost ten days before the tests with the weapons being transported from BARC in Mumbai to Pokhran on May 1. So as to not attract any attention, minimal security was used and only four trucks transported the devices instead of an elaborate convoy.</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

<ul>
	<li>The preparation went on under the noses of the Americans (satellites). Digging of the shafts took place only at night and heavy equipment was placed back in the same place every morning to avoid detection. The earth dug out was shaped to make it appear like a sand dune.</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

<ul>
	<li>With Pokhran range full of Army soldiers, the scientists too had to wear camouflage combat dress. This was done to help them move around without issues and not stand out and attract attention. Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, for example, went by the code name Major General Prithviraj.</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

<ul>
	<li>Three devices were tested on 11 May and two more on 13 May. The devices were identified as Shakit-I to Shakti-V, and the shafts that were used for tests were named White House (Whiskey), Taj Mahal (Tango) and Kumnbhakaran (Kilo).</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

<ul>
	<li>The direction of the wind was a key factor on the day the test was conducted. The wind was blowing towards inhabited areas in the morning, and this led to the risk of radiation spreading in case of a leak after the explosions. By noon the wind and died down and the tests took place.</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

<ul>
	<li>Two keys were used to detonate the devices simultaneously. One key each was handed over to the representatives of BARC and DRDO who turned them together.</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

<ul>
	<li>Nuclear devices tested on 11 May were of three different designs – a 45 kT thermonuclear warhead that used nuclear fusion, a pure fission device of 12 kT yield designed to be dropped from an aircraft and an experimental fission device of 0.3 kT yield.</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

<ul>
	<li>Two more devices were exploded on May 13. This was done, not to boast or outdo any nation, but to generate additional data for use in computer simulations. The shaft used was codenamed Navtala, because of the presence of 9 dry wells in the area.</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

<ul>
	<li>A third device and shaft was also prepared but never fired.</li>
</ul>

&nbsp;

<ul>
	<li>May 11 was declared National Technology Day by Prime Minister A B Vajpayee.</li>
</ul>

Americans also bemoaned how their intelligence agencies blundered and termed it “the intelligence failure of the decade”.

Twenty years ago, on May 11, 1998, the then Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee declared a nuclear power with the tests at Pokhran. Much has been written in the Indian media on how Indian intelligence, aware of US spy satellites and the interest of the CIA in trying to detect the country's nuclear test preparations, hoodwinked the Americans and used codes which were so detailed and camouflaged that even the actual writers of the cryptogram were at times stuck deciphering these. Americans also bemoaned how their intelligence agencies blundered and termed it “the intelligence failure of the decade”. Pokhran II: 10 Key facts The preparations began almost ten days before the tests with the weapons being transported from BARC in Mumbai to Pokhran on May 1. So as to not attract any attention, minimal security was used and only four trucks transported the devices instead of an elaborate convoy. The preparation went on under the noses of the Americans (satellites). Digging of the shafts took place only at night and heavy equipment was placed back in the same place every morning to avoid detection. The earth dug out was shaped to make it appear like a sand dune. With Pokhran range full of Army soldiers, the scientists too had to wear camouflage combat dress. This was done to help them move around without issues and not stand out and attract attention. Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, for example, went by the code name Major General Prithviraj. Three devices were tested on 11 May and two more on 13 May. The devices were identified as Shakit-I to Shakti-V, and the shafts that were used for tests were named White House (Whiskey), Taj Mahal (Tango) and Kumnbhakaran (Kilo). The direction of the wind was a key factor on the day the test was conducted. The wind was blowing towards inhabited areas in the morning, and this led to the risk of radiation spreading in case of a leak after the explosions. By noon the wind and died down and the tests took place. Two keys were used to detonate the devices simultaneously. One key each was handed over to the representatives of BARC and DRDO who turned them together. Nuclear devices tested on 11 May were of three different designs – a 45 kT thermonuclear warhead that used nuclear fusion, a pure fission device of 12 kT yield designed to be dropped from an aircraft and an experimental fission device of 0.3 kT yield. Two more devices were exploded on May 13. This was done, not to boast or outdo any nation, but to generate additional data for use in computer simulations. The shaft used was codenamed Navtala, because of the presence of 9 dry wells in the area. A third device and shaft was also prepared but never fired. May 11 was declared National Technology Day by Prime Minister A B Vajpayee.

How Atal Bihari Vajpayee's government went about Pokhran II

A nuclear plant in Romania has been shutdown after an accident, reports said.

There is still no confirmation about the nature of the accident.

There is still no confirmation about the nature of the accident

A nuclear plant in Romania has been shutdown after an accident, reports said. There is still no confirmation about the nature of the accident.

Romania shuts nuclear plant after accident: Reports

North Korea has sent a letter to Australia&#39;s parliament, warning it is a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/nuclear-war-may-break-out-at-any-time-warns-north-korea-22539" target="_blank">nuclear power and will not be cowed by US President Donald Trump&#39;s threats to destroy it</a>, according to a copy of the letter published in an Australian newspaper on Friday.

&quot;If Trump thinks that he would bring the DPRK, a nuclear power, to its knees through nuclear war threat, it will be a big miscalculation and an expression of ignorance,&quot; said a facsimile of the letter, published by the Sydney Morning Herald and verified by Australia&#39;s foreign ministry.

&quot;Trump threatened to totally destroy the DPRK ... it is an extreme act of threatening to totally destroy the whole world.&quot;

A spokeswoman for Australia&#39;s Foreign Minister told Reuters the Herald report was accurate and the paper&#39;s copy of the letter, dated September 28, was genuine.

Titled &quot;Open Letter to Parliaments of Different Countries,&quot; the note said it was sent from North Korea&#39;s Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, to Australia&#39;s Embassy in the same city, as well as to other countries, without naming them.

DPRK stands for the Democratic People&#39;s Republic of Korea, North Korea&#39;s official name.

Tension has soared on the peninsula following a series of weapons tests by North Korea and a string of increasingly bellicose exchanges between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/absurd-us-on-north-koreas-allegations-of-trump-declaring-war-20652" target="_blank">Trump, in a speech last month at the United Nations, threatened to &quot;totally destroy&quot; North Korea</a> if necessary to defend itself and allies and called the North&#39;s leader Kim Jong Un a &quot;rocket man&quot; on a suicide mission.

The letter calls for &quot;countries loving independence, peace and justice&quot; to discharge their duty and keep &quot;sharp vigilance against the heinous and reckless moves of the Trump administration trying to drive the world into a horrible nuclear disaster.&quot;

At a press conference in Sydney, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said the note was an &quot;unprecedented&quot; communication.

&quot;It is not the way they usually publish their global messages. The collective strategy of imposing maximum diplomatic and economic pressure through sanctions on North Korea is working. This is a response to the pressure.&quot;

Titled 'Open Letter to Parliaments of Different Countries,' the note says North Korea is a nuclear power and will not be cowed by US President Donald Trump's threats to destroy it

North Korea has sent a letter to Australia's parliament, warning it is a nuclear power and will not be cowed by US President Donald Trump's threats to destroy it, according to a copy of the letter published in an Australian newspaper on Friday. "If Trump thinks that he would bring the DPRK, a nuclear power, to its knees through nuclear war threat, it will be a big miscalculation and an expression of ignorance," said a facsimile of the letter, published by the Sydney Morning Herald and verified by Australia's foreign ministry. "Trump threatened to totally destroy the DPRK ... it is an extreme act of threatening to totally destroy the whole world." A spokeswoman for Australia's Foreign Minister told Reuters the Herald report was accurate and the paper's copy of the letter, dated September 28, was genuine. Titled "Open Letter to Parliaments of Different Countries," the note said it was sent from North Korea's Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, to Australia's Embassy in the same city, as well as to other countries, without naming them. DPRK stands for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, North Korea's official name. Tension has soared on the peninsula following a series of weapons tests by North Korea and a string of increasingly bellicose exchanges between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Trump, in a speech last month at the United Nations, threatened to "totally destroy" North Korea if necessary to defend itself and allies and called the North's leader Kim Jong Un a "rocket man" on a suicide mission. The letter calls for "countries loving independence, peace and justice" to discharge their duty and keep "sharp vigilance against the heinous and reckless moves of the Trump administration trying to drive the world into a horrible nuclear disaster." At a press conference in Sydney, Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said the note was an "unprecedented" communication. "It is not the way they usually publish their global messages. The collective strategy of imposing maximum diplomatic and economic pressure through sanctions on North Korea is working. This is a response to the pressure."

North Korea warns threats a 'big miscalculation' in letter to Australia lawmakers

Iran&#39;s President Hassan Rouhani said on Wednesday that the US&nbsp;election results would have no effect on Tehran&#39;s policies, state news agency IRNA quoted him as 
saying, noting that Iran&#39;s expanding economic ties with the world were irreversible.

&quot;The results of the US&nbsp;election have no effect on the policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran,&quot; Rouhani said.

&quot;Iran&#39;s policy for constructive engagement with the world and the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions have made our economic relations with all countries expanding and irreversible.&quot;

He added that Iran&#39;s nuclear deal with six world powers has been reflected in a United Nation Security Council resolution and cannot be dismissed by one government.

US&nbsp;President-elect Donald Trump should stay committed to the international nuclear deal with Iran, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was quoted as saying by Tasnim news agency on Wednesday.

&quot;The United States should fulfill its commitments in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the nuclear deal) as a multilateral international agreement,&quot; Zarif was quoted as saying while on a visit to Romania.

Rouhani said there was &quot;no possibility&quot; of its nuclear deal with world powers being overturned by US president-elect Donald Trump despite his threat to rip it up.

&quot;Iran&#39;s understanding in the nuclear deal was that the accord was not concluded with one country or government but was approved by a resolution of the UN Security Council and there is no possibility that it can be changed by a single government,&quot; Rouhani told his cabinet, according to state television.

Last year&#39;s accord with world powers saw international sanctions on Iran lifted in exchange for guarantees that it would not pursue a nuclear weapons capability.&nbsp; 
During the election campaign, Trump described the deal as &quot;disastrous&quot; and said it would be his &quot;number one priority&quot; to dismantle it.

&quot;The United States no longer has the capacity to create Iranophobia and to create a consensus against Iran,&quot; Rouhani said.

&quot;The constructive engagement policies of Iran towards the world, and the fact that international sanctions have been lifted, have placed the Iranian economy on a road where there is no possibility of going backwards.&quot;

(Agencies)

Iran's nuclear deal with six world powers has been reflected in a UNSC resolution and cannot be dismissed by one government, he said

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said on Wednesday that the US election results would have no effect on Tehran's policies, state news agency IRNA quoted him as saying, noting that Iran's expanding economic ties with the world were irreversible. "The results of the US election have no effect on the policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran," Rouhani said. "Iran's policy for constructive engagement with the world and the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions have made our economic relations with all countries expanding and irreversible." He added that Iran's nuclear deal with six world powers has been reflected in a United Nation Security Council resolution and cannot be dismissed by one government. US President-elect Donald Trump should stay committed to the international nuclear deal with Iran, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was quoted as saying by Tasnim news agency on Wednesday. "The United States should fulfill its commitments in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the nuclear deal) as a multilateral international agreement," Zarif was quoted as saying while on a visit to Romania. Rouhani said there was "no possibility" of its nuclear deal with world powers being overturned by US president-elect Donald Trump despite his threat to rip it up. "Iran's understanding in the nuclear deal was that the accord was not concluded with one country or government but was approved by a resolution of the UN Security Council and there is no possibility that it can be changed by a single government," Rouhani told his cabinet, according to state television. Last year's accord with world powers saw international sanctions on Iran lifted in exchange for guarantees that it would not pursue a nuclear weapons capability. During the election campaign, Trump described the deal as "disastrous" and said it would be his "number one priority" to dismantle it. "The United States no longer has the capacity to create Iranophobia and to create a consensus against Iran," Rouhani said. "The constructive engagement policies of Iran towards the world, and the fact that international sanctions have been lifted, have placed the Iranian economy on a road where there is no possibility of going backwards." (Agencies)

Iran's Rouhani says Trump election has no effect on Tehran policies

nuclear-power

Nuclear Power, News on Nuclear Power, stories on Nuclear Power, articles on Nuclear Power, Nuclear Power stories at Wion, Nuclear Power news, Nuclear Power latest news