Former US UN Ambassador John Bolton says that only US military action can stop North Korea’s nuclear arsenal

North Korea SHOCK warning: US military action only option to DESTROY Kim’s nuclear arsenal, Sunday Express, AURORA BOSOTTI, 31 Dec 17, NORTH KOREA will not give up its nuclear arsenal unless the United States military intervenes to “pre-emptively destroy” it, former US UN Ambassador John Bolton said.

North Korea has refused to heed calls to stop its nuclear development programme and continues to fuel fears of World War 3 within the international community.

Mr Bolton warned that military action from the US would be the only possibility to ultimately end Kim Jong-un’s threat campaign.

He said: “I think we are going to come down to a binary choice. That is the use of military force is one possibility to pre-emptively destroy North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. Or we allow North Korea to have nuclear weapons.”

Mr Bolton warned Pyongyang would not give up its weapons as it nears full nuclear capability.

The former US ambassador told Fox News: “There’s zero chance that after 25 years of pressure, this close to the finish line, they are going to give it up.

“It’s not going to happen.”

North Korea was hit with a swathe of new sanctions after defying orders to terminate its nuclear development programme and conducting several missile tests – threatening both Japan and the US overseas territory of Guam…..

1.This Month

of the week

Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. http://space4peace.org/

https://www.ecoshock.org/

Paul Beckwith, Climate System Scientist

October 6 – 13 – INTERNATIONAL WEEK OF PROTEST TO STOP THE MILITARIZATION OF SPACE.”

Earth Climate System: Tipping Points to Hothouse?

Hothouse Earth: Has climate change reached the tipping point? | DW English

The climate change threat to nuclear power

By Natalie Kopytko “…………The final problem is droughts, which climate models predict will become longer and larger. Legal battles have already been fought in the US over scarce water resources in regions with nuclear power plants, including the Catawba river basin in the Carolinas and the Apalachicola/Chattahoochee/Flint river basin in Georgia, Florida and Alabama. These battles show us that adapting our systems – including nuclear power – to a reduced supply of water will not be easy.

The International Atomic Energy Agency advises the nuclear industry to build power plants to last for 100 years. Given that climate models don’t agree on what to expect within this time period, it is not at all clear how this can be achieved.

New reactors could use dry or hybrid systems with lower water requirements, but the costs of running these systems are likely to be prohibitive. Considering nuclear power plants already have problems with construction cost overruns, any additional costs are likely to meet resistance.

What is to be done? Most forms of energy generation are vulnerable in some way to the effects of climate change, and the fact that nuclear power is among them is yet another argument against a wholesale shift towards this source of energy.

The bottom line is that if nuclear power is to be used to mitigate the effects of climate change, it must also be capable of adapting to them. There are serious doubts that it can. more https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028138-200-the-climate-change-threat-to-nuclear-power/

PETITIONS

Tell Congress: Stop Trump from ordering a nuclear first strike without a Congressional declaration of war.

PREVENT UNNECESSARY RADIOACTIVE RISKS ACROSS THE USA NATION

Protect Idaho’s water. Stop nuclear waste.

nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope