The beginning of the end for nuclear weapons?
|
The beginning of the end for nuclear weapons? https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-beginning-of-the-end-for-nuclear-weapons/, 6 Nov 2020|Tara Gutman The ratification on 25 October of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) by Honduras, the 50th nation to sign, marked the beginning of the final chapter of the legitimacy of nuclear weapons.Even without the nuclear-armed states and their allies, the TPNW will now automatically enter into force on 22 January 2021, and immediately set a new benchmark against which all other nuclear disarmament measures will be judged.
The treaty’s activation will begin to shift the international legal norm and generate a stigma around these cruellest of indiscriminate weapons. This will have ramifications for defence policy, military doctrine, weapons manufacturing, banks and super funds, as was the case when cluster munitions, chemical and biological weapons, and landmines were outlawed. The TPNW couldn’t be more timely. Numerous organisations, including the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the 2017 Nobel-prize winner ICAN, and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists have judged that the risk of nuclear conflict is higher now than it has been for decades. This is because nuclear-armed states are expanding their arsenals by, for example, including smaller, tactical atomic weapons; modernising their nuclear-weapon delivery systems to include underwater drones and nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles; and abandoning longstanding arms-control agreements. Some, too, are vulnerable to cyberattacks. Last month, 56 former world leaders were in furious agreement with humanitarians, civil society and the science. Their unequivocal statement in support of the TPNW asserted that without a doubt ‘a new nuclear arms race is underway’. Here was no pollyannaish crowd of flower-holding peaceniks. The gathering included two former secretary-generals of NATO and one of the United Nations, prime ministers, foreign ministers and defence ministers from 20 NATO member countries plus South Korea and Japan, all urging their governments to join the treaty. Having such diverse backing is one of the TPNW’s greatest strengths and why it will eventually upend the status quo. Since the treaty’s adoption in 2017, nuclear-armed states and allied nations have denounced it as weak and a distraction that will undermine the existing legal architecture, the cornerstone of which is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) drafted in 1968. While the NPT was a monumental accomplishment, its implementation stagnated as nuclear-armed states came to believe that they were entitled to maintain their own nuclear weapons in perpetuity. Its integrity eroded as it repeatedly failed to fulfil its aspiration to ‘facilitate the cessation of manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery’. Disappointingly and fatally, it made no substantial progress on the key obligation to ‘pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control’. While the NPT will remain a key pillar of the legal architecture with a leading role to play, the TPNW is designed to complement it and remedy its critical shortcomings while reinforcing the same norms and institutions championed by the NPT. Some nuclear-armed states and their allies continue to argue that these weapons are a necessary component of their defence posture and that they keep us safe. Former NATO leaders disagree and argue strongly that these weapons unleash obscene humanitarian consequences. As long as there are nuclear weapons there is a risk that they will be used, intentionally, by accident or by miscalculation, and no adequate humanitarian response can be mounted. The argument ignores the shocking and painful deaths and injuries inflicted on hundreds of thousands of Japanese by two relatively small bombs in 1945. Today in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Red Cross hospitals continue to treat the survivors and research is being conducted to determine whether the illnesses being experienced by their descendants two generations later can be explained by mutations in their DNA caused by radiation. Nuclear-aligned countries, such as Australia, were reticent to engage with the TPNW treaty-making process, reasoning that it may be inconsistent with their legal obligations under their defence arrangements. But a recently published legal analysis of whether joining the TPNW would undermine the ANZUS security treaty found that it creates no legal impediment. The ANZUS treaty makes no reference to nuclear matters, and even if subsequent practice and statements have effectively redrawn its terms, there is still no legal barrier to entering negotiations to vary it. Similarly, the former world leaders said their governments ‘could remain in alliances with nuclear armed states, as nothing in the [NATO] treaty or our defence pacts precludes that’. In the commercial sector, the onset of the TPNW was being felt even before Honduras’s ratification. The flow of investment funds away from nuclear weapons manufacturers has been steadily increasing. Sixteen Japanese banks, two of the top five major global pension funds, the Norwegian Government Pension Fund, KBC Bank Ireland, Deutsche Bank and others have now divested or in the process of divesting. Significant numbers of banks, super funds and pension funds have included in their environmental social governance frameworks commitments not to fund controversial weapons. Nuclear weapons should now, belatedly, be assigned to this category and excluded from their portfolios. Manufacturers of nuclear weapons and their banks and shareholders must re-examine their policies, practices and investment screening criteria to preserve their reputations, avoid regulatory risks and stranded assets, and demonstrate to shareholders that they are behaving in accordance with international standards and best practice. As the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement welcomes the January 2021 commencement of the nuclear weapons ban regime in the midst of a global pandemic, we remind all governments that Covid-19 has taught us that even low-probability events can and do occur, to devastating effect. Just like the Covid-19 response, we will eliminate this threat only with sensible, ethical, global action. There will never be a vaccine for the bodily effects of nuclear weapons or their impact on our fragile environment. Prevention is the only course. We have worked towards this new era for 75 years, motivated by the interests of humanity and the principles of international humanitarian law. We hope that all states will join the 50 early adopters and support this sensible, ethical treaty sooner rather than later. Tara Gutman is an international humanitarian law adviser with Australian Red Cross. |
|
United States under Donald Trump formally exits Paris Agreement on climate change
|
United States under Donald Trump formally exits Paris Agreement on climate change https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-05/us-formally-exits-paris-climate-change-agreement-trump/12849940
The Trump administration told the United Nations it intends to pull out of the agreement in 2017. Some 189 countries remain committed to the 2015 Paris Agreement. Moving forward the agreement aims to keep the global increase in average temperatures worldwide “well below” two degrees Celsius, ideally no more than 1.5 Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. A further six countries have signed, but not ratified the pact. Scientists said any rise beyond two degrees Celsius could have a devastating impact on large parts of the world, raising sea levels, stoking tropical storms and worsening droughts and floods. The only binding requirement is that nations have to accurately report on their efforts. The United States is the world’s second-largest emitter of heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide, with only China producing more. In recent weeks, China, Japan and South Korea have joined the European Union and several other countries in setting national deadlines to stop pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. While the Trump Administration has shunned Federal Government measures to cut emissions, some states, cities and businesses in the US have pressed ahead with their own efforts. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has said he favours signing the US back up to the Paris Accord. With the United States outside the pact, it will be harder for the rest of the world to reach the agreed goals. |
|
84% of Finland’s population support signing up to the U.N. Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty
It is time to end our reliance on nuclear weapons Nuclear non-proliferation is a fundamentally European issue which is not yet part of any EU agenda https://ecfr.eu/article/it-is-time-to-end-our-reliance-on-nuclear-weapons/, Erkki Tuomioja, – View from the Council 2 November 2020, Finland did not participate in the negotiations leading up to the treaty, and it did not vote for it. Public opinion is, however, in favour of the treaty, with one poll showing that 84 per cent of Finns would support signing up. Three parties in Finland’s coalition government also want the country to join. Foreign ministry officials have argued in hearings of the Finnish parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee that joining would weaken the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – a faulty reasoning that the Committee unanimously rejected.
“The prohibition treaty is an important reinforcement to the half-century-old Non-Proliferation Treaty, which, though remarkably successful in curbing the spread of nuclear weapons to more countries, has failed to establish a universal taboo against the possession of nuclear weapons. The five nuclear-armed nations that had nuclear weapons at the time of the NPT’s negotiation — the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China — apparently view it as a licence to retain their nuclear forces in perpetuity. Instead of disarming, they are investing heavily in upgrades to their arsenals, with plans to retain them for many decades to come. This is patently unacceptable.”
It is precisely the frustration at the lack of progress with nuclear disarmament – to which the nuclear weapons states committed themselves in the grand bargain to get the non-nuclear countries to accept the NPT treaty signed in 1968 – that gave decisive impetus to the prohibition treaty. Obviously, without the participation of the nuclear weapons states, not one nuclear weapon will be dismantled. But without pressure from the non-nuclear weapons states in the form of this treaty, neither will they engage in serious efforts at disarmament. Nuclear weapons states will instead continue the present trend of modernising existing and developing new nuclear weapons systems.
Support in NATO countries for doing away with all weapons of mass destruction is growing, as evidenced by the signatories to the statement above. This is important because one argument made in Finland and Sweden, although it is rarely made in public, for opposing joining the prohibition treaty is the displeasure the US would show at such a step, which could hinder the deepening of these countries’ partnership relations with NATO. Given the growing demand in non-nuclear NATO countries to sign the treaty this is just as spurious as the NPT argument against joining.
The time has come for all states in the world to bring an end to the misguided, illegitimate, and immoral reliance on nuclear weapons. An all-out nuclear war is a threat to human life as a whole and would immediately bring about all the disasters we are trying to avoid with our efforts to curtail climate change and implement the Sustainable Development Goals of Agenda 2030.
No responsible leader disputes this. Yet we continue to conduct exercises in preparation for a nuclear war. The risk of accidental or miscalculated nuclear weapon use may today be even greater than at the height of the cold war. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is, as the statement quoted says, “a beacon of hope in a time of darkness”.
There is one nuclear weapons state in the EU (formerly two) and 21 EU member states in NATO, but nuclear weapons and related issues have never formed part of the EU’s agenda. This is a fundamentally European issue, given the likelihood that Europe would face the greatest level of destruction in the event of a conflict and because of the European preference for achieving change through rules-based processes. All EU member states should address it and join the treaty banning all nuclear weapons. Three member states in the EU have already done so; others should follow them.
Erkki Tuomioja is ECFR member and former Minister for Foreign Affairs in Finland.
A USA Senator reflects on the anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis
|
Sam Nunn on Cold War & nuclear weapons, Technique, Hope Williams on November 2, 2020 2020 marks the 75th anniversary of the end of World Word II and the start of the Cold War, a conflict that shaped former United States Senator Sam Nunn’s time while serving in Congress, as well as his work afterwards with the Nuclear Threat Initiative.On Oct. 14, Nunn discussed how nuclear weapons still pose a threat to the world today in a talk with the Georgia Historical Society.
Nunn, who was born in Macon, Georgia, attended Tech, Emory University and Emory Law School. He then served in the U.S. Coast Guard and Georgia House of Representatives before being elected in 1972 to the U.S. Senate. One of his earliest experiences with the intersection of foreign policy and nuclear war was the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, during which he was attending a NATO Conference with the Armed Services Committee in Europe. “We were actually briefed by the Air Force with photographs and all the classified information, sort of every step of the way once the Cuban Missile Crisis broke out,” said Nunn. “… We were at Wiesbaden Air Force Base, which was sort of the head of the U.S. Air Force Europe, on the night where it really looked like we were going to war.” That night, Nunn sat next to the top Air Force General in Europe during dinner. “He had a whole big computer back [with] him with all sorts of communication equipment,” said Nunn. “During the course of the dinner, he told me that he had about 20 to 30 seconds, once he got the signal, to basically turn loose his aircraft to go after the Soviet Union, because we thought we were going to war.” This experience shaped his view of nuclear war. “That brought home a sense of reality to me about the dangers of nuclear war that had an effect on the rest of my life,” said Nunn. “… It brought home to me two things: how close we came to war and how much subjective judgment was involved in the [John F.] Kennedy decisions and the [Nikita] Khrushchev decisions to avoid war and second, how little warning time we had.” Nunn points out that during the 1960s, leaders had more decision time because planes flew much slower. “Having very little decision time in a moment of great crisis is extremely dangerous for the world and that’s, to me, one of the prime goals we should have today, which is to give both U.S. and Russian leaders more time so that we do not move into a nuclear war by blunder,” said Nunn. New technology adds additional danger. “When you introduce cyber and possible interference in command and control and warning systems, I still very much worry about compressed decision time,” said Nunn. “And if I had my way today, and I’ve told President Obama this, I’ve told President Trump this and I’ve told President Putin this, that if I had my way, the leaders would call in their military and say ‘Look, we have a mutual existential interest to give each other more warning time.’”………. Relating decisions about the usage of nuclear weapons to presidential politics, Nunn served under six presidents during his terms as a Senator: Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. As commander-in-chief, presidents have the sole authority to authorize the use of nuclear weapons. “It is a moral question, but every military commander is charged with the responsibility of carrying out orders from the commander-in-chief,” said Nunn. “But those orders have to be moral orders, and how do you determine that?”……. In conclusion, Nunn reiterates there is currently less of a chance of premeditated nuclear attacks than there was during the Cold War, but with a more compressed decision time for leaders, there is a higher risk of a mistake. “We’ve got a lot of work to do so that our children and grandchildren can live in a world that does not have the perils of nuclear, biological and climate change, all of those things hanging over us,” said Nunn. “So it’s very hard under these circumstances to get out to the voters, to get seen.”…….. In conclusion, Nunn reiterates there is currently less of a chance of premeditated nuclear attacks than there was during the Cold War, but with a more compressed decision time for leaders, there is a higher risk of a mistake. “We’ve got a lot of work to do so that our children and grandchildren can live in a world that does not have the perils of nuclear, biological and climate change, all of those things hanging over us,” said Nunn. “So it’s very hard under these circumstances to get out to the voters, to get seen.”…… https://nique.net/life/2020/11/02/sam-nunn-on-cold-war-nuclear-weapons/ |
|
Russian company with powerful connections withdraws from Turkish nuclear plant operation
|
Russian company with powerful connections withdraw from Turkish nuclear plant operation, Greek City Times,
by PAUL ANTONOPOULOS, 2 Nov 20, A Russian company withdrew from plans to build Turkey’s first nuclear power plant following tensions between Moscow and Ankara over issues including the conflicts in Libya, Syria, and Artsakh, a columnist for Turkish newspaper Dünya, and translated by Ahval, said on Saturday.The construction of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant to the north of Cyprus is a joint project between Turkey and Russia.Although Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin signed the deal in 2010, major construction only started in March 2018 and the first unit of the four to be constructed will not become operational until at least 2023. According to Dünya columnist Kerim Ülker, Inter RAO, one of Russia’s largest public energy companies, withdrew from the project following a board meeting on October 26 partly because of the Turkish-sponsored invasion attempt of Artsakh by the Azerbaijani military and Syrian mercenaries. ……..https://greekcitytimes.com/2020/11/02/russian-turkish-nuclear-plant/ |
|
USA should accept Russia’s offer of a one-year extension of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
Russia and the U.S. Need a Timeout on Nuclear Weapons, With New START about to expire, the U.S. should accept Moscow’s offer of a one-year extension. Bloombeerg By James Stavridis, 31 October 2020, “…….. The stakes are vastly higher when it comes to negotiations involving the possible use of strategic nuclear weapons, such as those on intercontinental ballistic missiles, which have the potential to end civilization as we know it. In my final military job, as supreme allied commander at NATO, I argued contentiously with senior Russian officials that U.S. Aegis missile systems in Eastern Europe — which are intended primarily to avert an Iranian attack on the continent — could not threaten their strategic nuclear force. It was a debate that went around and around in circles.
The administration’s goals are overambitious for now — particularly given that Trump may not be in office in three months — so it would be smart to take up Russia’s offer.
A tiny group built the momentum for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear weapons treaty backed by 50 nations to become international law https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/nuclear-weapons-treaty-backed-by-50-nations-to-become-international-law,14455
2020 HAS BEEN a very tough year with fires, pestilence and massive economic and human disruption but amid the difficulties, an Australian-born initiative is steadily growing global support and offers our shared planet its best way to get rid of its worst weapons.
In October 2017, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), an initiative born in Melbourne and adopted, adapted and applied around the world, was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize.
This was in recognition of its:
“…work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons.”
Fast forward to October 2020 and the Treaty on the Prohibition on Nuclear Weapons has just cleared a big hurdle. Despite strong pressure from the nuclear weapons states, especially the U.S., 50 nations have now ratified the ban treaty. It will enter into force and become part of international humanitarian law on 22 January 2021.
At a time when the threat of nuclear war is more explicit than it has been in decades, the ICAN story is timely and shows the power of both the individual and the idea. When ICAN started in 2007, its founders could have fitted in a minibus. Ten years later, there are over 500 ICAN groups and formal partners in more than 100 nations. And a treaty. Continue reading
Russia’s nuclear doctrine – both Russia an USA benefit from nuclear weapons control agreements
A Closer Look At Russia’s Nuclear Doctrine, https://www.globalzero.org/updates/a-closer-look-at-russias-nuclear-doctrine/ June 4, 2020 Emma Claire Foley On June 1, Russia released a document detailing its nuclear doctrine. Though the 7-page document is much shorter than U.S. Nuclear Posture Reviews, it plays a similar role as a publicly available statement of the situations under which a country would use its nuclear weapons.
In some ways, this release is unprecedented. Though Russia has released information about its nuclear posture before, this is the longest and most comprehensive public statement of that posture to date. A similar document, signed in 2010, was classified.
Until now, much of what is publicly known about Russia’s nuclear doctrine was drawn from its 2014 Military Doctrine. The new document draws heavily from the sections of the 2014 document that dealt with nuclear weapons, but sheds new light on some issues, particularly having to do with Russia’s weapons developed after its withdrawal from New START.
The document confirms Russia’s adherence to a launch-on-warning posture, as discussed by President Putin in 2018. That means Russia would launch a nuclear strike once it received information that another country had launched missiles at Russia, leaving open the possibility that a technical failure or mistaken intelligence could lead to an unintended first strike.
It also leaves open a broad range of situations in which Russia could respond to an attack with nuclear weapons, including “critical state or military facilities of the Russian Federation, the failure of which will lead to the disruption of the retaliatory action of nuclear forces,” an attack with a nuclear weapon or other weapon of mass destruction, or a conventional attack that threatens “the existence of the state.” Though this largely corresponds with what experts had gathered from previous statements, it leaves open to interpretation the definition of “critical state or military facilities.”
The document’s release must be viewed in context. It articulates a launch-on-warning posture as part of a larger defensive role for nuclear weapons, yet history has shown that nuclear “false alarms” that might compel Russia to launch an inadvertent first-strike are not only possible—they’re relatively common. A global No-First-Use agreement, accompanied by changes to nuclear force structure so that nuclear weapons are not kept ready to launch at a moment’s notice, would eliminate this very real risk.
In recent months, Russia has repeatedly, explicitly conveyed its willingness to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which expires in 2021 and would leave the world without key limits on the two largest nuclear arsenals. These overtures seem to have fallen on deaf ears in the Trump administration, which has expressed its intention to replace the treaty with a trilateral agreement with China despite China’s persistent rejections of the idea. In light of U.S. withdrawals from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty, the prospects for a New START renewal look dim.
Despite the lack of U.S. participation in international arms control efforts, however, it’s clear that the rest of the world sees the value in maintaining these hard-won agreements. Other signatories have worked hard to maintain the Iran Deal’s frameworks, even after the U.S. withdrew and in the face of its ongoing attempts to start a conflict with Iran. The Trump administration’s knee-jerk rejection to any international agreement reveals a fundamental inability to understand that an international agreement could be in the interest of all of its signatories.
Russia’s step to increase transparency while remaining clear about its faith in its nuclear deterrent, on the other hand, may be another acknowledgment that both countries stand to win from a return to arms control. The only way to make sure that nuclear weapons are never used is to eliminate them. But extending New START maintains progress made by earlier generations and leaves the door open for more ambitious negotiations in the future. It’s a key next step toward making sure nuclear weapons are never used again.
China-India competition is not likely to lead to a nuclear weapons exchange
|
After the Border Clash, Will China-India Competition Go Nuclear?,
WHAT DO CHINA AND INDIA THINK ABOUT EACH OTHER’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS? Carnegie Endowment for International Peace TOBY DALTON, TONG ZHAO, RUKMANI GUPTA, OCTOBER 29, 2020
|
|
The new Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty supports existing agreements, and in no way conflicts with them
This will take hard work, creativity and patience as well as political will, but it is a legitimate and universally-pursued goal ever since nuclear weapons, as well as other weapons of mass destruction, came into being. The objective of prohibiting them was already present in the very first resolution of the General Assembly, unanimously adopted in 1946.
 Soon Nuclear Weapons Will Be Prohibited, Viewpoint by Sergio Duarte The writer is President  of Pugwash. Former UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs. NEW YORK (IDN) 28 Oct 20, – The 50th instrument of ratification of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) was deposited on October 24 – coinciding with the 75th anniversary of the United Nations Charter. In accordance with its Article 15, the Treaty will enter automatically into force 90 days after that date. When in force, the TPNW will become part of the corpus of positive international law as the first multilateral agreement that comprehensively prohibits nuclear weapons and also addresses the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapon use and testing, including assistance to victims. Besides, it is the first treaty that explicitly forbids its members from hosting nuclear weapons belonging to other states.Efforts to develop an effective multilateral instrument to directly outlaw nuclear weapons spans several decades. Continue reading |
Space exploration – to lead to dangerous nuclear-armed totalitarian societies
Professor warns space exploration will give rise to totalitarian societies equipped with nuclear weapons – but some say his forecast is too pessimistic
- Daniel Deudney is a political science professor at Johns Hopkins University
- He recently published a book titled ‘Dark Skies’ that talks about space expansion
- The text warns that space settlements could become totalitarian societies
- Populations and resources will need to be controlled for survival
- Deudney notes that nuclear weapons will become the gold standard in space
- He fears that the cosmic battles will eventually make their way to Earth
By STACY LIBERATORE FOR DAILYMAIL.COM, 28 October 2020 Space agencies across the world are working tirelessly to design the best ships and technologies for the chance to claim a stake of the final frontier for their country.
Although it may seem like an act of national pride, a professor from Johns Hopkins University warns that space expansion may lead to the extinction of humanity, suggesting it should not be attempted at all.
Daniel Deudney recently published a book titled ‘Dark Skies’ that examines space expansionism through geopolitics revealing cosmic habitats could spark totalitarian empires.
The political science professor also notes that if these settlements stretch across the solar system, nuclear weapons will become the gold standard in war, along with using asteroids to destroy enemy planets – but other experts feel these arguments are ‘too pessimistic.’
‘I argue that the consequences of what has actually happened in space are much less positive than space enthusiasts and many others believe,’ reads ‘Dark Skies.’
‘My case for this darker net assessment of actual space activities centers on the role of space activities in making nuclear war more likely.’
‘In sum, this book argues that the large-scale expansion of human activities into space, past and future, should join the lengthening list of catastrophic and existential threats to humanity, and that the ambitious core of space expansionism should be explicitly relinquished.’
The book’s release comes at a time when many countries are muscling up to head into space.
The US announced a new branch of its armed forces called the US Space Force in 2019, which ‘is designed to protect the interests of the United States in space, deter aggression in the final frontier and conduct prompt and sustained space operations.’
However, Deudney’s concludes that these countries’ efforts will come with serious consequences.
The professor used geopolitics for this work, which studies ‘the practice of states controlling and competing for territory’ – and in this case, space.
Deudeny also explains that he is not opposed to using space in ways that will benefit Earth and is not on a mission to ‘defund space’ by eliminating the many robots and satellites that currently patrol the area.
He is looked at ‘the political and military potential of a system-spanning human civilization only increases the chances of totalitarianism and the deliberate or accidental extinction of human society,’……..
Along with using objects in space, governments have revealed details over the past years for launching nuclear weapons into the final frontier.
NASA is working on a method that would send a nuclear bomb into space aboard a rocket to destroy an asteroid heading towards Earth.
Earlier this year, the US raised concerns that China or Russia may soon detonate a nuclear weapon in space ‘to fry the electronics’ of spacecraft and ‘indiscriminately’ take out satellite.
Although neither of these are a reality, the technology may be in the works and could be used to wage space war…… https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8885599/Professor-warns-space-exploration-spark-totalitarian-societies-equipped-nuclear-weapons.html
Hope for nuclear arms control with Russia?
|
Hope for nuclear arms control with Russia? Brookings Steven Pifer, Monday, October 26, 2020 Editor’s Note: The U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty, New START, is set to expire in February 2021. Little progress was made during the summer and it was unclear if the two countries would reach an agreement. However, a breakthrough has given the arms control treaty a new lease on life, albeit with a lot of questions, writes Steven Pifer. This piece originally published by the Freeman Spogli Institute’s Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University.
While concern had grown over the past several weeks about a breakdown in U.S.-Russian arms control, it appears the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and nuclear arms control more broadly may have a new lease on life, albeit with lots of questions. Washington’s negotiation with Moscow on New START hit a roadblock on October 16. President Putin said Russia would agree to a one-year extension, which U.S. negotiators had proposed instead of five years, but without the conditions sought by the American side. National Security Advisor O’Brien summarily rejected the Russian position because it ignored the U.S. demand for a freeze on all nuclear warhead numbers.
Things changed recently. The Russians announced that they would agree to a one-year extension of New START and said they are “ready to assume a political obligation together with the United States to freeze the sides’ existing arsenals of nuclear warheads during this period.” The Russian statement added that this presumed no additional U.S. conditions. The Department of State spokesperson quickly and positively reacted, saying U.S. negotiators are “prepared to meet immediately to finalize a verifiable agreement.” New START constrains U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear forces to their lowest levels since the 1960s. However, when it comes to nuclear warheads as opposed to delivery systems, the treaty limits only “deployed” strategic warheads—that is, warheads on deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) or submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). The treaty does not cover reserve strategic warheads or any non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons. If Russian acceptance of a one-year freeze means that the Trump administration has succeeded in persuading Moscow to negotiate a treaty limiting all U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons, that is a commendable breakthrough. Indeed, a treaty covering all the two sides’ nuclear arms has long seemed the logical next step after New START (President Obama proposed such a negotiation in 2010). Questions remain, however. The Russian statement indicates that Moscow is ready to undertake, as a political obligation, a one-year freeze on nuclear warhead numbers. It remains unclear whether Russian officials, beyond that freeze, are prepared to negotiate a legally-binding and verifiable treaty constraining all nuclear warheads that would be in effect for a number of years (New START is in force for 10 years, with the possibility of its extension for an additional five years). ……
it appears that U.S. and Russian negotiators still have issues to resolve. Irrespective of the freeze, New START is worth saving and extending to 2026 (the treaty’s terms provide that there could be multiple extensions). Extension to 2026 would mean five more years of limits on Russian strategic nuclear forces. It would mean five more years of information about those forces provided by the treaty’s verification measures, including data exchanges, notifications and on-site inspections. And extending the treaty would require no change in U.S. strategic modernization plans, as those plans were designed to fit within the treaty’s limits. One last observation: New START requires that, if a side wishes to withdraw from the treaty, it must give the other three months’ notice before doing so. It is now October 21, which means that, if negotiations with the Russians do not go well and the Trump administration were to give notice, the United States could not actually withdraw from the treaty until after January 20, 2021—when Donald Trump will be starting his second term or Joe Biden will have become the 46th U.S. president. Mr. Biden is on record as supporting New START’s extension for five years, with no conditions. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/10/26/hope-for-nuclear-arms-control/ |
|
US urges countries to withdraw from UN nuclear ban treaty
US urges countries to withdraw from UN nuke ban treaty, By EDITH M. LEDERER, October 22, 2020, UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The United States is urging countries that have ratified a U.N. treaty to ban nuclear weapons to withdraw their support as the pact nears the 50 ratifications needed to trigger its entry into force, which supporters say could happen this week.The U.S. letter to signatories, obtained by The Associated Press, says the five original nuclear powers — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France — and America’s NATO allies “stand unified in our opposition to the potential repercussions” of the treaty……..
Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize-winning coalition whose work helped spearhead the nuclear ban treaty, told The Associated Press Tuesday that several diplomatic sources confirmed that they and other states that ratified the TPNW had been sent letters by the U.S. requesting their withdrawal.
She said the “increasing nervousness, and maybe straightforward panic, with some of the nuclear-armed states and particularly the Trump administration” shows that they “really seem to understand that this is a reality: Nuclear weapons are going to be banned under international law soon.”
Fihn dismissed the nuclear powers’ claim that the treaty interferes with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as “straightforward lies, to be frank.”
“They have no actual argument to back that up,” she said. “The Nonproliferation Treaty is about preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and eliminating nuclear weapons, and this treaty implements that. There’s no way you can undermine the Nonproliferation Treaty by banning nuclear weapons. It’s the end goal of the Nonproliferation Treaty.”
The NPT sought to prevent the spread of nuclear arms beyond the five original weapons powers. It requires non-nuclear signatory nations to not pursue atomic weapons in exchange for a commitment by the five powers to move toward nuclear disarmament and to guarantee non-nuclear states’ access to peaceful nuclear technology for producing energy………
“That the Trump administration is pressuring countries to withdraw from a United Nations-backed disarmament treaty is an unprecedented action in international relations,” Fihn said. “That the U.S. goes so far as insisting countries violate their treaty obligations by not promoting the TPNW to other states shows how fearful they are of the treaty’s impact and growing support.”
The treaty was approved by the 193-member U.N. General Assembly on July 7, 2017 by a vote of 122 in favor, the Netherlands opposed, and Singapore abstaining. Among countries voting in favor was Iran. The five nuclear powers and four other countries known or believed to possess nuclear weapons — India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel — boycotted negotiations and the vote on the treaty, along with many of their allies………… https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-weapons-disarmament-latin-america-united-nations-gun-politics-4f109626a1cdd6db10560550aa1bb491
Difficulties in the membership of countries in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
|
Precarious Multilateralism Seizes CTBTO Nuclear-Test-Ban Organization, By Stephanie Liechtenstein*, Passblue25 Oct 20, VIENNA (IDN) – For the first time in its 24-year history, state parties to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a multilateral agreement that bans all nuclear testing worldwide, have taken a controversial decision by a two-thirds majority. Decisions in the treaty’s body are usually taken by consensus. The majority decision on October 19 was focused on whether countries with unpaid dues could vote in the election of the next executive secretary of the Preparatory Commission to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization. (The body is not part of the United Nations but has a cooperative agreement with it.) The decision occurred after several months of negotiations failed to produce agreement on the matter. The election is scheduled to take place at the Vienna-based organization from November 25 to 27. The lack of consensus reflects the hardening attitudes in international relations, where multilateralism has become more precarious amid intensifying competition among the world’s great powers, worsened in the pandemic. The disunity also shows that multilateral bodies like the CTBTO, as it is known, have become highly politicized, with decisions on such basics as voting methods taking longer to be finalized because of global squabbling. The executive secretary oversees a secretariat in Vienna with 260 staff members and an annual budget of around $130 million. It leads efforts on the treaty’s verification system by installing monitoring stations worldwide. The position also ensures that all member states of the organization receive the data from the monitoring system, particularly when a nuclear test or even a tsunami is detected. Lassina Zerbo of Burkina Faso has held the post for seven years. Besides, decisions on who can vote for the executive secretary position, there are also tensions about Zerbo’s plan to run for a third term. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has 184 signatories but has not been entered into force, as numerous countries, including China, Egypt, Iran, Israel and the United States, have not ratified it. The Preparatory Commission originated in 1996 as an interim body to build the treaty’s verification regime. In the controversial vote on October 19, member states restored the voting rights of just nine countries out of a total of 25 countries that applied for reinstatement. Diplomats in Vienna say that the list of nine countries was presented by Canada and supported by numerous other Western nations, such as the US and Britain. (The organization’s meetings on the matter were held behind closed doors.) Two other proposals on restoring voting rights did not meet the necessary two-thirds majority. One proposal suggested reinstating the rights of all 25 countries; the other one, submitted by Russia, offered to restore the rights of 15 countries. Many of the countries that applied for restoring their rights are financially pressed because of the coronavirus pandemic; some are also hit by conflict or war and therefore lagging in payments……….. https://www.indepthnews.net/index.php/armaments/nuclear-weapons/3938-precarious-multilateralism-seizes-ctbto-nuclear-test-ban-organization |
|
1 This Month
of the week- – THE ONENESS of HUMANITY
We the Nuclear Free North
1st July – Webinar Waste of Space: The Environmental Harm of Military and Civil Space Activity st July, 7 pm
Report Launch Online: We are seeing an increasing exploitation of space for military and commercial purposes. This must change.
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (258)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- 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)
-
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
nuclear-news 