Boukadoum: Algeria to ratify Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons “as soon as possible”
Boukadoum: Algeria to ratify Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons “as soon as possible” http://www.aps.dz/en/algeria/36012-boukadoum-algeria-to-ratify-treaty-on-the-prohibition-of-nuclear-weapons-as-soon-as-possible
Pacific Island Nations determined to say NO to nuclear weapons, and support UN Treaty Ban
|
Pacific will continue to say no to nuclear weapons, UN told, https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/427663/pacific-will-continue-to-say-no-to-nuclear-weapons-un-told 5 Oct 20, Marking International Day Against Nuclear Explosions last weekend, the island nations agreed they had all suffered the effects of nuclear testing in the region.Presenting a joint statement from 12 Pacific countries to the United Nations General Assembly, Fiji’s Prime Minister said more than 300 nuclear tests were carried out in the Pacific from 1946 to 1996 – in the atmosphere, underground and underwater.
Frank Bainimarama told the online event communities living close to ‘ground zero’ were relocated from their ancestral homes and restricted from using the ocean resources for their livelihoods. Mr Bainimarama says those impacted also faced an increase in related health problems. “At the end of these nuclear tests, radioactive waste and machinery were either buried or dumped into the Pacific Ocean. Today, we still do not know the full impact of these nuclear tests on our environment and communities,” Frank Bainimarama said. Bainimarama said Pacific islanders considered themselves the custodians of the vast blue Pacific Ocean. “The Pacific Ocean defines who we are; it serves as the foundation of our economies, our environment, and the well-being of our communities,” he said. “We have a vision that the blue Pacific Ocean will become an ocean of peace and prosperity for our people and the world.” Bainimarama said protecting the blue Pacific continent was of paramount importance to the islanders’ future. He said it could only become an ocean of peace if it was nuclear-free. He said stopping the development of nuclear weapons and eliminating them altogether would free up much-needed global resources to assist vulnerable communities, and those around the world, in fighting the effects of climate change. “The world does not need nuclear weapons,” Bainimarama said. The challenges of nuclear disarmament can only be resolved by a strengthened multilateral system that sets the conditions for transparency, confidence-building, and co-operation.” The Fijian leader said the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) were crucial if Pacific islands, which he refers to as PSIDS, were to further reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons. “Today, we PSIDS say no to nuclear weapons and we reiterate our commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons everywhere,” Bainimarama said. “We encourage member states to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). “It is morally right, and we owe it to ourselves and our future generations.” The Fijian leader presented a joint statement to the UN Assembly from the PSIDS’ members including the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. Bainimarama said their statement was also aligned with the message sent by the Tuvalu Mission at the UN on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum. The online event was hosted by UN President Tijjani Muhammad-Bande from Nigeria. |
|
China-Saudi nuclear pact can trigger an arms race in West Asia
|
China-Saudi nuclear pact can trigger an arms race in West Asia. Saudi Arabia’s acquisition of nuclear capability would draw Turkey and Egypt to join the regional nuclear race, which might turn conflict-torn West Asia even more volatile. The Print ADIL RASHEED 5 October, 2020 At a time when the world was expecting Saudi Arabia to join the UAE and Bahrain in normalising relations with Israel, a noted British daily published a news story that has since raised Israeli concerns over the kingdom’s nascent nuclear programme. On 17 September 2020, an article in The Guardian reported that Chinese geologists have prepared a report for Saudi Arabia — as part of their nuclear energy cooperation agreement — which names locations having large reserves of uranium ore in the kingdom that could be sufficient for its domestic production of nuclear fuel. This news comes on the heels of an earlier Wall Street Journal report that the kingdom has also already constructed a facility with Chinese assistance for extracting uranium yellowcake from uranium ore, a major development in Riyadh’s avowedly peaceful nuclear programme. The report states that the facility is being built far away from the eastern borders close to Iran, with the help of two Chinese companies near the Saudi city of Ula, midway between Medina and Tabuk. …….. By supporting Iran when it has restarted uranium enrichment and by helping Saudi Arabia extract and process its indigenous fissile raw material, Beijing seems to be setting up and weaponising the two arch-rivals of the Gulf, thereby catalysing a nuclear arms race in West Asia, so that US military is never able to pivot effectively to China’s backyard in the Indo-Pacific. https://theprint.in/opinion/china-saudi-nuclear-pact-can-trigger-an-arms-race-in-west-asia/516781/ |
|
The American election- what will the nuclear order look like after this?
image from MENAFN.COM
THE U.S. ELECTION AND NUCLEAR ORDER IN THE POST-PANDEMIC WORLD Limitless Life, LEON V. SIGAL, SEPTEMBER 29 2020Abstract
U.S. power and prestige may have diminished in recent years, but the United States still plays a pivotal role in international institutions, alliances, and mass media, so who becomes its president and which party controls Congress matter a lot for the global nuclear order. However unlikely it is that Donald Trump’s expressed desire to contest the election’s outcome could succeed, whether the nation can avert a violent backlash among disappointed partisans is less clear.
Nuclear weapons are often thought to be the esoteric domain of experts. Yet one need only recall that although mass activism does not guarantee policy change, three of the most significant developments in recent decades – the ban on above-ground nuclear tests, the INF
Treaty, and the collapse of the Berlin Wall – would not have happened without mass protests in many countries. And citizen involvement, organized by NGOs, can even facilitate monitoring of arms agreements and nuclear developments in some countries.
positive change to the global nuclear order will continue to be marginal and fitful. This makes the international milieu critical for the nuclear future – a milieu that a president can influence but not determine.
President Trump’s reelection is likely to have a pernicious effect on that milieu, hindering international cooperation to limit nuclear weapons and accelerating a qualitative arms race that could endanger crisis stability. Yet two of Trump’s more positive impulses are likely to continue. He is unlikely to increase the risk of an intense crisis leading to nuclear war because he wants to avoid U.S. involvement in any wars, not start new ones. He will also try to sustain negotiations
with North Korea to curb nuclear developments there, though whether he is prepared to satisfy Pyongyang’s stiffer demands remains in doubt.His opponent, Joseph Biden, will face those same demands. Personnel is policy, and the Biden administration will likely be staffed with officials who served under President Obama. That means a return to shoring up alliances and international cooperation. It also means continuity with Obama’s nuclear policies. Whether he will curtail Obama’s modernization plans is not clear, but in contrast to Trump, he will try his best to restore the JCPOA, which could head off nuclear weapons development not only in Iran but also in Saudi Arabia. He will also strive to save START, seek technical talks with China, and not abandon the Open Skies accord……….. https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/2663585/posts/2938659215
Armenian Ambassador on Azerbaijani threats of missile strike against Metsamor Nuclear Power Plan
Armenian Ambassador on Azerbaijani threats of missile strike against Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant Public Radio of Armenia, Siranush Ghazanchyan August 3, 2020, Armenia has undertaken a number of measures to raise awareness about Azerbaijan’s threat to strike the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant, Armen Papikyan, Armenia’s ambassador to the IAEA, said in an interview with Energy Intelligence.
“Given that the Azerbaijani leadership has no qualms about targeting civilian installations, we took the threat extremely seriously,” he said.
On Jul. 16, amid renewed fighting on the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, the spokesperson for the Azerbaijan defense ministry threatened a missile strike against Armenia’s Metsamor nuclear power plant (NIW Jul.17’20). This threat reverberated in Vienna, where Armenia’s mission to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) submitted a “Note Verbale” to the agency’s director general (DG) on Jul. 17, noting taht such threats “are an explicit demonstration of state terrorism and genocidal intent of Azerbaijan.” Baku soon responded……….. https://en.armradio.am/2020/08/03/armenian-ambassador-on-azerbaijani-threats-of-missile-strike-against-metsamor-nuclear-power-plant/
The Trump administration’s stances on nuclear negotiations don’t even make sense as a starting point.
Washington’s Arms Control Delusions and Bluffs https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/09/washingtons-arms-control-delusions-and-bluffs/168817/
The Trump administration’s stances on nuclear negotiations don’t even make sense as a starting point. BY STEVEN PIFER This is delusion and bluff. If the administration does not change course, New START will lapse and, for the first time in decades, U.S. and Russian nuclear forces will be under no constraints. The terms of New START permit its extension for up to five years. Keeping Russian strategic forces limited and maintaining the current flow of information about those forces are very much in the U.S. interest. The Kremlin is ready to extend. Yet the Trump administration has laid down conditions, apparently believing that Moscow is desperate to continue the agreement. The first condition is expanding the scope of the agreement. President Trump’s arms control envoy, Marshall Billingslea, has said that Russia must agree to new negotiations that cover all U.S. and Russian nuclear arms. This is not an unreasonable goal; it was proposed by the Obama administration in 2010. But Moscow has already responded by saying that any new negotiations would have to address questions of interest to Russia, starting with missile defense — and Mr. Billingslea has made clear that limits on missile defense are not on offer. The second condition is improved verification. Mr. Billingslea claims that New START’s monitoring measures have significant shortcomings. However, the U.S. military and intelligence community deemed those measures sufficient in 2010, when the treaty was signed, and that remains the case today. Indeed, the State Department certified last spring that Russia was in compliance with New START.Indeed, the biggest New START compliance issue has been raised by Russian officials. They express concern that the procedures used by the U.S. military to convert heavy bombers and launch tubes on ballistic missile submarines so that they will no longer be counted by New START can easily be reversed. (Mr. Billingslea seemed to confirm this in a recent interview, when he said the United States would immediately reverse the conversions if the treaty lapses in February.) Over the summer, the Trump administration appeared to drop a third condition—that China, which has nothing to do with New START, agree to join arms negotiations with the United States and Russia—but Mr. Billingslea ten days ago said a new treaty must include China. The Kremlin does not appear inclined to accept the U.S. conditions. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov termed them “too far-fetched and devoid of appealing elements,” even as Mr. Billingslea seems to have doubled down. He has warned that Washington may demand more if Moscow does not agree to the U.S. conditions by November. He offered no strategic reason for saying November; it appears obvious that he wants a pre-election agreement and photo op for Mr. Trump. The U.S. arms control envoy also has threatened to spend Russia “into oblivion” with an arms race if New START ends and there is no replacement treaty. He bluntly told a Russian journalist: “we can afford it, but you can’t.” Really? The Pentagon is struggling to fund its already planned nuclear modernization programs, which are sucking up funds from conventional weapons programs. At the same time, the Navy wants to expand its current 290 large ships to 355, while the Air Force wants 386 squadrons, a 25 percent increase over the current number. The Department of Defense is developing new intermediate-range missile programs, whose costs will run into the billions of dollars. Where will the Pentagon find the money for a strategic nuclear arms race? Moreover, U.S. strategic force modernization programs will not begin producing new weapons until the end of the 2020s. Russia, on the other hand, has hot production lines now churning out new ballistic missile submarines, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and intercontinental ballistic missiles, among other things. It could keep those lines running. If necessary, the Kremlin has nearly $600 billion in reserves as well as a large national wealth fund on which it could draw. Illusory leverage and empty threats will not get Russia to agree to the Trump administration’s approach. Washington should agree to extend New START to February 2026, perhaps in conjunction with a short joint statement by Presidents Trump and Putin that the two countries will explore further nuclear arms reductions and the full range of related issues, including third-country nuclear forces and missile defense. That approach would ensure U.S. and Russian strategic forces remain limited until 2026. It would give negotiators time to work through some very thorny issues. It would make Americans safer. And, most importantly for Mr. Trump, it would give him his photo op. Steven Pifer is a William Perry Research Fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation and a retired Foreign Service officer. |
|
USA threatens putting more weapons on bombers and submarines if Russia doesn’t agree to USA conditions for arms talks
Trump administration orders assessment on bolstering nuclear warheads as talks with Russia stallU.S. diplomats are trying to play hardball with Russia in negotiations over whether to extend New START, Politico, .By DANIEL LIPPMAN, BRYAN BENDER and LARA SELIGMAN, 09/28/2020 The Trump administration has asked the military to assess how quickly it could pull nuclear weapons out of storage and load them onto bombers and submarines if an arms control treaty with Russia is allowed to expire in February, according to three people familiar with the discussions. The request to U.S. Strategic Command in Nebraska is part of a strategy to pressure Moscow into renegotiating the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty before the U.S. presidential election, the people said. In making the request, the Trump administration wants to underscore that it is serious about letting the treaty lapse if Russia fails to meet U.S. demands. The negotiating team is leery that Russia is dragging out the talks in the hope that Joe Biden — who has pledged to extend New START under what Moscow believes will be more favorable terms than what this White House is offering — wins the election. “It’s a clear signal that the costs for not negotiating before the election are going to go up,” said one of the people, who requested anonymity to relay sensitive discussions. The Trump administration is “trying to create an incentive, and it’s a real incentive, for the Russians to sit down and actually negotiate.”
The request for the assessment came in the last two weeks from a group of officials at the National Security Council and State, Defense and Energy departments that’s supporting Ambassador Marshall Billingslea in negotiations with Moscow to try to replace New START before it runs out in February. The assessment will determine how long it would take to load nuclear weapons now in reserve onto long-range bombers, ballistic missile submarines and land-based silos to beef up the U.S. nuclear force in the event Russia increases its arsenal. It comes as Billingslea has publicly raised the possibility of putting more weapons on bombers and submarines if New START lapses and has sharpened his rhetoric in recent days to try to secure more concessions from the Russians. It would certainly be a question that you would want to ask STRATCOM,” said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Frank Klotz, who oversaw nuclear forces before serving as head of the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration. “You would want to fully understand all the possible implications of your negotiating approach, both if it should succeed or, alternatively, if it should fail.” But former senior arms control and military officials also consider the move a risky gambit. It could send a message that the Trump administration, which has already pulled out of two other nuclear-related treaties with Russia, is no longer interested in any limits on the world’s largest arsenals. And it could goad the Russians into taking similar steps. I call that megaphone diplomacy,” said Rose Gottemoeller, who served as deputy secretary general of NATO until last year and negotiated New START when she was at the State Department. “Do we want to end up in a less stable place? Because we would be nuclear arms racing.” “It’s very stupid,” added a former GOP arms control official who declined to be identified because he still advises the government. “It makes absolutely no sense to threaten to upload. It becomes a valid leveraging point only if the other side can’t do it. The Russians can do it, too.” “But more importantly,” this person added, “the systems we have deployed today are the ones we believe are necessary to provide an adequate deterrent. There is no obvious reason and every reason not to in the absence of a change in the threat. It’s not going to scare the Russians. The likelihood of success with the Russians is about nil.” A State Department spokesperson declined to comment on Billingslea’s behalf. Capt. Bill Clinton, a spokesperson for Strategic Command, declined to address the military’s role in the deliberations. “We don’t talk about future operations, and really can’t speculate on arms control talks (as that is not [our] responsibility),” he wrote in an email. An NSC spokesperson declined to comment. New START, signed in 2010, mandated both sides draw down to 1,550 deployed strategic weapons and includes provisions to verify compliance, including reciprocal on-site inspections of nuclear bases. The pact is set to expire on Feb. 5 unless both sides agree to an extension for up to five years. apply. Russia in December offered to extend the treaty without preconditions. ………https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/28/trump-russia-nuclear-deal-talks-422736 |
|
Near to flaspoint – disputes between India, Pakistan,China
Tensions between 3 nuclear-armed powers are rising toward the boiling point ABBY POKRAKA, RESPONSIBLE STATECRAFT
SEP 30, 2020,
For decades, India and Pakistan have clashed over Kashmir, the mountainous region both countries claim. But to make matters more complicated, China has a stake in the area, too. The Aksai Chin region — located between Kashmir and Tibet — is under Chinese control and has been a source of conflict between India and China since 1962.
The borderlands between these three nuclear-armed states is increasingly a flashpoint for conflict. The international community ignores these growing challenges at its peril and should be looking for ways to help manage potential crises in the region. And while the United States can play a role, in this particular instance, direct US involvement is probably not the best way forward…………. China was drawn into a dispute between India and Pakistan when India revoked Kashmir’s autonomy in August 2019 and wanted to incorporate parts of “Xinjiang and Tibet into its Ladakh union territory,” which China believes violates its dominion due to its occupation of Tibet. It appears that over the last year the situation in Kashmir has not gotten better. ……It seems clear that after decades of poor relations, the tensions in this part of the world may reach a boiling point. Finding a solution to these half-century conflicts seems daunting, but it is necessary. While many nations have fought throughout history, a conflict between nuclear-armed states carries an unbearable risk of escalation. To start, these countries can take small steps to stabilise the security of the region and pave the way for better relations. Starting a dialogue, bilateral or trilateral, can improve communication in the longer term, which can help reduce the likelihood of conflict. Establishing crisis communications was an important step the United States and the Soviet Union took in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and de-escalation practices the two countries implemented in the early 1960s remained in place through the end of the Cold War. A third party could help facilitate regional discussions. Given its history in the region, the United States might have seemed like a good option for such facilitation, but that is not the case at this time……. This week, President Trump took aim at China before the United Nations, blaming it for the global COVID pandemic. At this point, there is no reason China would see the United States as a desirable mediator for any regional conflict…… friction among China, India, and Pakistan continues to grow. The only way to diffuse the tension and prevent destructive escalation is through diplomacy. Other countries need to step up and work to reduce the hostilities. Make no mistake, a large-scale, regional conflict among nuclear-armed states would have global consequences. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/httpsresponsiblestatecraftorg20200925india-china-pakistan-three-nuclear-powers-hurtling-towards-the-boiling-point-2020-9 |
|
UN nuclear watchdog inspects second Iran site
|
UN nuclear watchdog inspects second Iran site, Aljazeera, 30 Sept 20,
IAEA says it gained access to the second site in Iran where nuclear activity may have taken place in the early 2000s. The United Nations nuclear watchdog inspected the second of two suspected former secret atomic sites in Iran as agreed with Tehran last month in a deal that ended a standoff over access, the agency said on Wednesday.The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not named either of the two undeclared sites, but it has described activities it suspects took place there in 2003, the year it and US intelligence services believe Iran halted a secret and coordinated nuclear weapons programme. ………The spokesman of Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency, Behrouz Kamalvandi, confirmed the news of the inspection, saying he hopes it will stop the United States from taking advantage of the issue. ……..The Kamalvandi said he hopes the move will prevent the US and other countries that wish to politicise Iran’s case and “drag it to the UN Security Council” from further pressuring the IAEA…….https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/9/30/un-nuclear-watchdog-inspects-second-iran-site |
|
USA provocation of China, Iran, Russia.
|
Lest you fear that peace might break out in the Middle East, there’s always the possibility of a U.S. assault on Iran. That chance greatly increased with the Trump regime’s monumental blunder of smashing the Iran nuclear treaty. Trump clearly thought his high-handed rejection would cow the Iranians. He was wrong. In an apparent rage, he ratcheted up sanctions, threats, insults and then – an assassination, the logical conclusion of which was war, had Trump not come to his senses. Since then things have cooled down a bit, though not enough to stop the Trump regime from interfering with Iran’s oil trade with Venezuela or from making preposterous accusations about Iranian plots against the U.S. ambassador to South Africa, an official with no relation to Iran, known mostly for her business in expensive handbags and for donating to Trump. What the idiotically bellicose U.S. policy toward Iran – including the recent U.S. push for more sanctions – has mainly achieved is a warm embrace between Iran and China. And that’s not a matter susceptible to piracy on the high seas – the preferred U.S. approach to tankers taking Iranian fuel to Caracas. Nor will wild charges about planned assassinations of obscure, random U.S. bureaucrats affect this relationship. The Trump regime has blustered, threatened, insulted and caused the great Iran-China friendship to sink deep roots and blossom. Lest you fear that peace might break out in the Middle East, there’s always the possibility of a U.S. assault on Iran. That chance greatly increased with the Trump regime’s monumental blunder of smashing the Iran nuclear treaty. Trump clearly thought his high-handed rejection would cow the Iranians. He was wrong. In an apparent rage, he ratcheted up sanctions, threats, insults and then – an assassination, the logical conclusion of which was war, had Trump not come to his senses. Since then things have cooled down a bit, though not enough to stop the Trump regime from interfering with Iran’s oil trade with Venezuela or from making preposterous accusations about Iranian plots against the U.S. ambassador to South Africa, an official with no relation to Iran, known mostly for her business in expensive handbags and for donating to Trump.
What the idiotically bellicose U.S. policy toward Iran – including the recent U.S. push for more sanctions – has mainly achieved is a warm embrace between Iran and China. And that’s not a matter susceptible to piracy on the high seas – the preferred U.S. approach to tankers taking Iranian fuel to Caracas. Nor will wild charges about planned assassinations of obscure, random U.S. bureaucrats affect this relationship. The Trump regime has blustered, threatened, insulted and caused the great Iran-China friendship to sink deep roots and blossom. It probably would have anyway, but Trump surely deserves credit for nourishing it. As Time reported on July 29, Iran is negotiating a 25-year deal with China, with “billions of dollars worth of Chinese investments in energy, transportation, banking and cybersecurity in Iran.” There also could be “weapons development and intelligence sharing and joint military drills.” In short, this $400 billion deal is huge and alarm bells are ringing frantically in Washington. They shouldn’t be. If the Trump regime had been paying attention, they would have seen this coming, because it’s the logical outcome of their absurd hostility to both countries. But then, cultural illiteracy regarding Iran is a feature of Republican policy in the Middle East. After all, the Bush regime invaded, conquered and destroyed Iraq – war crimes whose main beneficiary was Iran, which had no love, to say the least, for Saddam Hussein and was more than happy to cement its brotherhood with newly ascendant Iraqi Shia. This is the sort of stuff any high schooler could have alerted the Bush regime to in advance. But alas, the GOP’s geopolitical geniuses had no use for even high school wisdom. To ensure we all got that point, the Trump regime quickly pounced on one of Obama’s few decent and intelligent moves in the Middle East – the Iran nuclear treaty – and shredded it. Still, the U.S. military’s focus has shifted. That shift started with Obama’s odious “pivot to China.” According to Chinese State Councilor Wang Yi, quoted by Russia Today, U.S. intervention in the South China Sea is “the main driver of militarization there.” Currently several countries in the region claim territory in the South China Sea – China, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia and Brunei. Some of these claims overlap, thus causing disputes, RT reports. The U.S. stirs the pot with its “freedom of navigation” military patrols. Naturally this intervention has led to incidents between the Chinese and U.S. militaries. And worse could happen any time. China regards the South China Sea as its backyard and the U.S. presence there as a provocation. After all, how would Washington react to Chinese military patrols in the Gulf of Mexico? That is the territorial equivalent of what the U.S. does to China, though Washington refuses to recognize this in its quest for global dominance. It’s the same with U.S. aggression in the Black Sea, where the target is Russia. In August, the U.S. held military drills in the Black Sea, known, in the not too distant past, as the shores of Russia. Earlier, Andrei Krasov of the State Duma Defense Committee told the Interfax agency: “The actions of American reconnaissance aircraft will not remain without reaction.” Indeed, in late July, Russia reported intercepting an American reconnaissance flight over the Black Sea. Two much of this sort of stuff could lead to war. So what we have here is the U.S. fishing in troubled waters. NATO has already nearly surrounded Russia, which now boasts supersonic nuclear weapons. In response, Trump recently revealed that the U.S. has some sort of secret “super” weapon. Which only makes the Black Sea brinksmanship more dangerous. Both adversaries are armed to the teeth. To make matters worse, Trump has ripped up all nuclear treaties with Russia except START – and that is at death’s door. A war with either Russia, China or Iran would be catastrophic, as anyone with a brain knows. Nor would it solve any of the myriad disasters currently besetting the U.S.: an out-of-control pandemic, with more fatalities than any other country in the world and no end in sight; economic collapse, with tens of millions jobless and millions facing eviction and homelessness in a few months; a climate taking revenge on fossil fuel capitalism by burning up large swaths of the globe, including the American West Coast; other human-induced, climate change, extreme weather events elsewhere in the U.S., like the currently soggy Gulf Coast; the rise of violent, over-armed, know-nothing, radical right-wing vigilantes; racial unrest. And those are just the big, obvious monster weeds in the American front yard. Washington should take a page from Voltaire and tend its own garden. Forget about the Black Sea, the South China Sea and the Gulf of Oman. Now is not the time for new conflict. Because as every school child knows, never is the only time for nuclear war. |
|
‘Reverse course’ towards full nuclear disarmament – UN chief
|
‘Reverse course’ towards full nuclear disarmament – UN chief, https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/09/1073832
25 September 2020, Peace and Security
On the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons marked on Saturday, the UN chief has underscored the need to “reverse course and return to a common path to nuclear disarmament”. Almost 75 years since the adoption of the first General Assembly resolution in 1946, which committed the UN to the goal of ridding the planet of nuclear weapons, “the world continues to live in the shadow of nuclear catastrophe”, Secretary-General António Guterres said in his message commemorating the day. Relationships between States possessing nuclear weapons are characterized by “division, distrust and an absence of dialogue”, he warned, noting that as they increasingly choose to pursue strategic competition over cooperation, “the dangers posed by nuclear weapons are becoming more acute”. According to the UN chief, all States have a responsibility to ensure that such deadly armaments “eliminated completely” from national arsenals. COVID in the mixDrawing attention to the wide range of global fragilities brought about by COVID-19 – from pandemic readiness and inequality to climate change to lawlessness in cyberspace – the top UN official called “preparedness to address the threat of nuclear weapons” one of those vulnerabilities. “We need a strengthened, inclusive and renewed multilateralism built on trust and based on international law that can guide us to our shared goal of a world free of nuclear weapons”, he said. Pressurize nuclear powers The UN has long upheld that the onus to lead disarmament is on the States that possess nuclear weapons. Mr. Guterres concurred that those nations must “return to real, good-faith dialogue to restore trust and confidence, reduce nuclear risk and take tangible steps in nuclear disarmament”. He also stressed that they reaffirm the shared understanding that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must not be fought” and take steps to implement the commitments they have made. A gloomy pictureYet, according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), some 13,400 nuclear weapons remain today. Moreover, the countries possessing these weapons have well-funded, long-term plans to modernize their nuclear arsenals. And while the number of deployed nuclear weapons has significantly decreased since the height of the Cold War, SIPRI attests that not one nuclear weapon had been physically destroyed pursuant to a treaty. Additionally, no meaningful nuclear disarmament negotiations are currently underway. Mr. Guterres emphasized that the death, suffering and destruction caused by the atomic bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki “must not be repeated”. “The only guarantee against the use of these abhorrent weapons is their total elimination”, spelled out the Secretary-General, adding that the UN “stands ready to work with all States to achieve this shared goal”.
|
|
Trump might abandon NEW START arms treaty, U.S. allies fear
U.S. Allies Worry Trump Administration Might Let Key Nuclear Treaty With Russia Die
Internal documents acknowledge concern among allies about the expiration of the Obama-era New START accord, but U.S. negotiators are still playing hardball. Foreign Policy, BY JACK DETSCH, ROBBIE GRAMER SEPTEMBER 24, 2020, S. ALLIES ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE REPERCUSSIONS OF THE LOOMING EXPIRATION OF THE OBAMA-ERA NEW START ARMS CONTROL TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA, ACCORDING TO AN INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION REPORT OBTAINED BY FOREIGN POLICY. MEANWHILE, FORMER OFFICIALS AND ARMS CONTROL EXPERTS WORRY THE ADMINISTRATION MAY BE SEEKING TO SLOW-WALK THE ACCORD TO DEATH BY MAKING IMPOSSIBLE DEMANDS OF RUSSIA JUST MONTHS BEFORE THE TREATY IS SLATED TO END.
The Trump administration faces a tight deadline to renew the 2010 New START Treaty, which slaps limits on the number of strategic launchers, such as intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers that both nations can deploy. Unless both sides reach an agreement on an extension, it will end in February 2021, leaving no meaningful treaty to stave off the threat of an arms race. Top U.S. arms negotiator Marshall Billingslea appears to have temporarily set aside one condition already broadly dismissed as a nonstarter—adding China to the bilateral accord.
Still, he has insisted Beijing will have to be part of any agreement that would replace New START. “The next treaty will have to be multilateral, it will have to include China, and the framework that we are articulating together as two great powers, us and the Russians, will be the framework going forward that China will be expected to join,” Billingslea told reporters in a briefing last month.
In the meantime, U.S. officials have added other conditions: predicating a short-term extension of New START on expanded restrictions on Russia’s growing arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons.
So far, Russia hasn’t shown any inclination to go along with such preconditions for negotiating an extension of the treaty. As the clock winds down, U.S. allies in Europe and arms control experts fear New START might not be renewed.
In an internal State Department report for Congress, the Trump administration acknowledged that the United States’ closest allies are hoping to constrain Russia’s and China’s weapons programs. But the report also notes that allies are growing unnerved by the prospect of talks falling apart as Washington is distracted by a contested presidential election. ……..
Though Billingslea has tried to push the Russians to accept more weapons inspections, there is concern among experts that the United States would also lose vital intelligence into Russian nuclear modernization if the deal lapses. ……. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/24/trump-putin-russia-new-start-nuclear-arms-control-u-s-allies-worry-trump-administration-might-let-key-nuclear-treaty-with-russia-die/
Media avoids covering the Assange extradition – despite it being the media “trial of the century”
Julian Assange: Press Shows Little Interest in Media ‘Trial of Century’ https://fair.org/home/julian-assange-press-shows-little-interest-in-media-trial-of-century/, ALAN MACLEOD 25 Sept 20,
Labeled the media “trial of the century,” WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s extradition hearing is currently taking place in London—although you might not have heard if you’re relying solely on corporate media for news. If extradited, Assange faces 175 years in a Colorado supermax prison, often described as a “black site” on US soil.
The United States government is asking Britain to send the Australian publisher to the US to face charges under the 1917 Espionage Act. He is accused of aiding and encouraging Chelsea Manning to hack a US government computer in order to publish hundreds of thousands of documents detailing American war crimes, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq. The extradition, widely viewed as politically motivated, has profound consequences for journalists worldwide, as the ruling could effectively criminalize the possession of leaked documents, which are an indispensable part of investigative reporting.
WikiLeaks has entered into partnership with five high-profile outlets around the world: the New York Times, Guardian (UK), Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany) and El País (Spain). Yet those publications have provided relatively little coverage of the hearing.
Since the hearing began on September 7, the Times, for instance, has published only two bland news articles (9/7/20, 9/16/20)—one of them purely about the technical difficulties in the courtroom—along with a short rehosted AP video (9/7/20). There have been no editorials and no commentary on what the case means for journalism. The Times also appears to be distancing itself from Assange, with neither article noting that it was one of WikiLeaks’ five major partners in leaking information that became known as the CableGate scandal.
The Guardian, whose headquarters are less than two miles from the Old Bailey courthouse where Assange’s hearing is being held, fared slightly better in terms of quantity, publishing eight articles since September 7.However, perhaps the most notable content came from columnist Hadley Freedman (9/9/20).
When asked in an advice article: “We live in a time of so much insecurity. But is there anything we can expect from this increasingly ominous-looking winter with any certainty?” she went on a bizarre tangential rant ridiculing the idea that Assange’s trial could possibly be “politicized,” also crassly brushing off the idea that his young children would never see their father again, and never answering anything like the question she was asked. Holding people to account “for a mess they could have avoided,” she notes, “is not ‘weaponizing’ anything — it is just asking them to do their jobs properly.” She also claimed that believing Assange’s trial was politicized was as ridiculous as thinking antisemitism claims were cynically weaponized against Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, which, she meant to suggest, was a preposterous idea. This was not an off-the-cuff remark transcribed and published, but a written piece that somehow made it past at least one editor.
Like the Times, the Guardian appeared to be hoping to let people forget the fact it built its worldwide brand off its partnership with WikiLeaks; it was only mentioned in a forthright op-ed by former Brazilian president Lula da Silva (9/21/20), an outlier piece.
The Guardian should be taking a particularly keen role in the affair, seeing that two of its journalists are alleged by WikiLeaks to have recklessly and knowingly disclosed the password to an encrypted file containing a quarter-million unredacted WikiLeaks documents, allowing anyone—including every security agency in the world—to see an unredacted iteration of the leak. In 2018, the Guardian also falsely reported that Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort had conducted a meeting with Assange and unnamed “Russians” at the Ecuadorian embassy (FAIR.org, 12/3/18). And, as former employee Jonathan Cook noted, the newspaper is continually being cited by the prosecution inside the courtroom.
There were only two articles in the English or French versions of Le Monde (9/7/20, 9/18/20) and only one in either of Der Spiegel’s English or German websites (9/7/20), although the German paper did at least acknowledge its own partnership with Assange. There was no coverage of the hearings in El País, in English or Spanish, though there was a piece (9/10/20) about the US government thwarting a Spanish investigation into the CIA spying on Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London—accompanied by a photo of a protester against his extradition.
The rest of corporate media showed as little interest in covering a defining moment in press freedom. There was nothing at all from CNN. CBS’s two articles (9/7/20, 9/22/20) were copied and pasted from news agencies AP and AFP, respectively. Meanwhile, the entire sum of MSNBC’s coverage amounted to one unclear sentence in a mini news roundup article (9/18/20).
Virtually every relevant human rights and press freedom organization is sounding the alarm about the incendiary precedent this case sets for the media. The Columbia Journalism Review (4/18/19), Human Rights Watch and the Electronic Frontier Foundation note that the government includes in its indictment regular journalistic procedures, such as protecting sources’ names and using encrypted files—meaning that this “hacking” charge could easily be extended to other journalists. Trevor Timm, founder of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, told the court this week that if the US prosecutes Assange, every journalist who has possessed a secret file can be criminalized. Thus, it essentially gives a carte blanche to those in power to prosecute whomever they want, whenever they want, even foreigners living halfway around the world.
The United Nations has condemned his persecution, with Amnesty International describing the case as a “full-scale assault on the right to freedom of expression.” Virtually every story of national significance includes secret or leaked material; they could all be in jeopardy under this new prosecutorial theory.
President Donald Trump has continually fanned the flames, demonizing the media as the “enemy of the people.” Already 26% of the country (including 43% of Republicans) believe the president should have the power to shut down outlets engaging in “bad behavior.” A successful Assange prosecution could be the legal spark for future anti-journalistic actions.
Yet the case has been met with indifference from the corporate press. Even as their house is burning down, media are insisting it is just the Northern Lights.
Essential points from the 2020 World Nuclear Industry Status Report
Three takeaways from the 2020 World Nuclear Industry Status Report, https://thebulletin.org/2020/09/three-takeaways-from-the-2020-world-nuclear-industry-status-report/
John Krzyzaniak The size of the global nuclear fleet has been stagnant for 30 years, and last year was no different. According to the 2020 World Nuclear Industry Status Report, released Thursday, there were 408 nuclear reactors online across the world as of July 1, 2020—a decline of nine units since the middle of last year and roughly on par with the number of reactors in operation in 1988.
The bulky 361-page industry report was compiled by an international team of independent experts led by Mycle Schneider, a consultant based in Paris. Over the last 15 years, it has become well-known for offering accurate but often sobering assessments of the state of nuclear energy across the globe. Last year, Schneider pointedly asserted that “the world is experiencing an undeclared ‘organic’ nuclear phaseout.”
Although the 2020 report is overflowing with data, several key trends stand out.
First, although the raw number of worldwide reactors is well below its all-time high of 438, their actual combined electricity generation came close to setting a record. As a whole, they generated 2,657 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2019, only three terawatt-hours below the historic peak in 2006. The United States, Russia, and China all hit individual country records for total electricity production from nuclear energy. Nevertheless, nuclear energy’s share of the energy market is in long-term decline, as other forms of energy witness rapid expansion.
Second, China continues to be the main driver of new nuclear energy, but over the long term its intentions are uncertain. The number of new projects there appears to be slowing. Whereas two years ago there were 20 units under construction, today there are only 15. Moreover, China missed its nuclear energy goals for 2020 by a sizeable margin: It planned to have 58 gigawatts of installed nuclear capacity and 30 more gigawatts under construction, but it currently has about 45 gigawatts capacity online and only 14 more under construction.
Third, reactor construction delays and cost overruns continue to plague the nuclear industry and, notably, early indications suggest that small modular reactors may be no exception.
For 63 reactors that came online worldwide between 2010 and 2019, the mean construction time was 10 years. Tennessee’s Watts Bar Unit 2, which took more than 43 years from construction start to grid connection, was the only reactor completed in the United States during that time period. But even in China, where average construction times were among the lowest, delays were widespread, and in many cases the real construction times were double the initial expectations.
While small modular reactors exist mostly on paper, there are many companies hoping to change that, promising units that are safer, cheaper, and faster to build. Last month, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a small modular reactor design submitted by a company called NuScale Power. Though several hurdles remain, NuScale plans to build its first reactor at the site of the Idaho National Laboratory and supply power to Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems as early as 2029.
But other countries’ recent experiences, detailed in the report, point to the difficulties ahead. Russia brought two small reactors online in 2019, but these took over 12 years to build, and at a cost about six times as much as the original estimates. These are the famed floating reactors of the Akademik-Lomonosov—they’re literally installed on a large ship, and that complication almost certainly contributed to the delays and high costs.
But there are more comparable examples for NuScale. The CAREM-25, a 25-megawatt prototype small modular reactor in Argentina, was supposed to receive its first fuel load in 2017 but is at least three years behind schedule. Similarly, China’s High Temperature Reactor project is running four years behind schedule and, while China originally planned to build 18 more of these smaller reactors, the report suggests its appetite may be sated after just one.
That means if countries want to wean themselves off of fossil fuels and stave off the worst effects of climate change, they may need to look elsewhere. And, the report suggests, they already are. The world added 184 gigawatts of non-hydro renewable capacity in 2019, a stark contrast to the 8-gigawatt decline in nuclear capacity.
Power hungry Russia foisting nuclear power on Egypt – Africa – where it is not needed
|
Why Russia Is Pushing Unneeded Nuclear Power Plants On Egypt, Oil Price, By Haley Zaremba – Sep 22, 2020, In recent years, Russia and China have been facing off to spread their nuclear power dominion to a new, huge, and vastly untapped market: Africa. The two nuclear power giants have been in competition to corner the market, with Russia aiming to grow its position in a sector that China has historically dominated. Earlier this summer, German media company DW News reported on a new Russian-funded and -controlled nuclear center being developed in Kigali: “The Center of Nuclear Science and Technologies, planned for completion by 2024, will include nuclear research labs as well as a small research reactor with up to 10 MW capacity.” And the Rwandan plant is just the beginning. “Ethiopia, Nigeria and Zambia have signed similar deals with Rosatom, while countries such as Ghana, Uganda, Sudan, and DRC have less expansive cooperation agreements.”Now, there is a new forum for nuclear takeover in Africa: Egypt. As reported by AllAfrica this week, “Egypt’s venture into nuclear power has been planned from the top-down, with environmental groups and rights organizations expressing reservations, energy analysts questioning the need for the country’s first nuclear plant, and many details of agreements with Russia remaining murky.” ……….. The main issue at play here is water. In Egypt, most areas receive less than eighty millimeters of precipitation per year. Water, therefore, is an especially precious commodity. The top complaint, therefore, is about the massive quantities of water needed to keep nuclear reactors cool to avoid meltdown. Any concerns about public health due to radiation and high costs of construction are secondary to the issue of water usage.
Another common complaint is that nuclear is not really needed in Egypt, where considerable deposits of natural gas have been discovered off the coast – enough to account for an energy surplus. This raises questions about the purpose of the project – is it really to create more and greener energy, or is it ultimately about power relations and geopolitical attachments between the infamously opaque Egyptian Nuclear and Radiological Regulatory Authority and the infamously power-hungry Russian government? https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Russia-Is-Pushing-Unneeded-Nuclear-Power-Plants-On-Egypt.html |
|
-
Archives
- April 2026 (317)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS











