Living with a nuclear North Korea: how to move beyond the impasse, NK News,
Demanding complete denuclearization has long been a diplomatic dead-end. Markus Bell and Geoffrey Fattig ,June 13th, 2019 Three months after the breakdown of the Hanoi Summit, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has tested the waters of acquiescence by conducting two rounds of missile tests. In the past, a new round of United Nations sanctions would have followed such launches, escalating rhetoric and mutual condemnation.This had been the pattern, at least until President Trump veered off script by contradicting his National Security Advisor, John Bolton on the issue of whether the missile launches violated existing UN sanctions. During a recent visit to Japan, a presidential tweet dismissed the launches as small weapons that “disturbed some of my people…but not me.”Apart from the rather surreal aspect of witnessing an American President side with the leader of North Korea over his own advisors, it could be argued that Trump is actually the realist in the room, while the hawkish Bolton and Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo are the ones living in a fantasyland.
By clinging to the notion that North Korea can be made to denuclearize through either increased pressure or sanctions relief, they are ensuring the continuation of a long-running policy failure that has allowed the North Korean regime to further the country’s nuclear program while precluding openings for addressing the egregious human rights situation inside the country.
The prevailing belief among Korea watchers, that Kim cannot be induced or coerced into denuclearizing, means that a nuclear North Korea is essentially a fait accompli— a reality to which all the sanctions, summits and handshakes in the world will not change.
TRADING A NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA FOR HUMAN SECURITY IN EAST ASIA
And it is this point that we recently argued: that the international community’s focus needs to shift from traditional security concerns (the nuclear program) to non-traditional (humanitarian concerns) as an avenue to engage in dialogue on improving living conditions for North Koreans.
Since we published our thoughts others have followed suit in agreeing that it is time to shift strategy toward managing North Korea’s ascent into the nuclear club rather than fruitlessly trying to prevent it.
Insisting on complete denuclearization is a recipe for a continued stalemate in future negotiations. And given Kim’s implied threat to restart nuclear tests next year if a deal with the U.S. cannot be struck, tensions could again rise.
A return to the saber rattling of 2017 would wipe away the trust built through the inter-Korean reconciliation efforts of South Korea’s Moon Jae-in administration that began during the PyeongChang 2018 Olympic Winter Games.
This would be especially unfortunate, considering that the current security situation on the Korean peninsula represents the best of a bad set of options.
he past 18 months of relative silence from Pyongyang serves as a blueprint for how to manage socializing North Korea into the international community. In refraining from nuclear tests, North Korea has satisfied one of the conditions of the “Three Nos” proposal outlined by Siegfried Hecker, which remains the most realistic path forward for breaking the impasse.
In the interim, this route leads to an agreement – tacit or otherwise – allowing North Korea to maintain its current arsenal in return for a commitment to freeze its nuclear program and not proliferate weapons technology.
While such an outcome is hardly ideal, it is in keeping with the cold reality of the situation. A nuclear North Korea, socialized to international norms, also raises the possibility that the country will begin to act like a ‘normal state,’ bound to its various international obligations.
Such thinking is in line with Alexander Wendt’s “norm adoption,” whereby states accept established international standards of behavior as they experience the benefits of being integrated into the global community.
THE BENEFITS OF A ‘NORMAL’ NORTH KOREA
What kind of benefits might we see from a ‘normal’ North Korean state? Improvements in human rights are top of the wish list, including, for example, adherence to the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty’s Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which compels member states to prevent crimes against humanity in their territory.
In essence, a resolution of the nuclear issue would provide a fresh opening to engage the regime on human rights, and the subsequent opportunity to improve the lives of average North Koreans. ……..
FACING REALITY
A nuclear North Korea is now a reality, and negotiations that demand the country dismantle its nuclear program are unlikely to succeed.
Although the addition of one more state into the nuclear club is problematic, many of the arguments for denying North Korean ascendance into this group are insufficient, and a rigid adherence to this position by the international community could conceivably result in a second Korean War.
US President Donald Trump recently took another step toward bringing Saudi Arabia into the nuclear club. While Israeli-Saudi ties have warmed in recent years, helping the desert kingdom go nuclear – with its ongoing support for the most extreme Islamic radicals in the world – can hardly be good for the Jewish state.
Secret negotiations with the US Energy Department over many months have led Washington to “transfer highly sensitive US nuclear technology, a potential violation of federal law,” to Saudi Arabia, according to House Oversight Committee sources cited by The Washington Post.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) revealed last week that at least two transfers were approved since the assassination of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
The Saudis say they want to begin building their own nuclear power plants with their own enriched uranium, even though it could be purchased elsewhere more cheaply. That raises suspicions that their real goal isn’t producing electricity. By enriching their own uranium, they could begin diverting it to highly enriched weapons grade, especially if they bar international inspectors, as they’ve insisted.
Given its record of obeisance to Saudi demands for top technology and weapons, it is unlikely the Trump administration would object, but instead continue helping to conceal the kingdom’s plans. Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, the de facto ruler, has said that the kingdom would build nuclear weapons if the Iranians did. He may have taken encouragement from a speech in the UAE last month by Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton.
The Iranians are threatening to leave the nuclear pact with the major powers – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – in the wake of the Trump administration’s unilateral exit last year and imposition of sanctions to tighten the economic screws on Tehran.
There’s “no reason” for Iran to walk away from JCPOA, “unless it is to reduce the breakout time to nuclear weapons,” said Bolton, a decades-long advocate of regime change in Iran. Bolton offered no evidence to back his claim.
That should give MBS the rationale he seeks to develop his version of the bomb.
When he turns to Trump for help, he will remind the president that if America won’t sell it to him, there are others who will. Trump is a sucker for that pitch.
North Korea would be a good place to go shopping, since they tried helping Syria build nukes until the Israeli Air Force stopped the plan, something it had done earlier in Iraq. Then there’s Pakistan, which is believed to have built its own nuclear weapons stockpile with Saudi financial help.
THERE MIGHT BE some resistance on Capitol Hill, where Saudi support is low and sinking, but Trump has shown himself more responsive to the wishes of the Saudis than the US Congress.
Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina may moan and groan and make threatening sounds toward Riyadh, but he and majority leader Mitch McConnell are Trump’s poodles, and will make sure the president gets what he wants.
All US administrations – Republican and Democratic – have indulged the Saudi appetite for top technology and weapons. They’ve been driven by pressure from industry and its friends in the Pentagon to sell, sell, sell – and an inexplicable attitude that we need the Saudis far more than they need us. Trump has just raised this to a new level.
Trump’s latest selling spree includes 120,000 conversion kits to produce smart bombs. It is part of an $8.1 billion package that Trump labeled “emergency” to bypass Congressional review.
Most alarming is the Trump administration’s approval for the transfer of highly sensitive weapons technology and equipment to Saudi Arabia so the kingdom can produce electronic guidance systems for Paveway precision-guided bombs, according to congressional sources cited by The New York Times.
The administration assured Congress that it is confident in the Saudi ability to protect the technology, that the need is urgent and that it won’t alter the balance of power in the region – which is exactly what it is intended to do.
Look for Trump to justify massive sales to the Saudis and the UAE as also helping protect Israel from Iran. Historically, all administrations have justified arms sales around the Middle East as harmless to Israel’s qualitative military edge. But they aren’t. Especially when the US is selling the Arabs the same planes, missiles and technology it sells Israel. Trump values his oil-rich customer so much that he has rejected the findings of his own CIA that the crown prince was complicit in Khashoggi’s murder.
Saudi Arabia is the Pentagon’s favorite cash cow. Arms sales are a lucrative business for the US Defense Department, which charges commissions and other fees, and gets economies of scale for its own purchases while selling off old inventory to help pay for replacements. Military attachés around the world are top salesmen for defense contractors as they lay the groundwork for post-uniform careers. Then there are the former – and possibly future – defense industry executives at the highest levels of the Pentagon, starting with the Secretary of Defense.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) said the administration “has effectively given a blank check to the Saudis – turning a blind eye to the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi and allowing their ballistic missile program to expand.”
The United States is not allowed to sell ballistic missiles, so the Saudis have turned to China. CNN reported last week that American intelligence believes Beijing is helping enhance the kingdom’s strategic missile program. In the 1980s, it secretly bought Chinese DF-3 missiles and based them within range of Israel. It bought more advanced missiles in 2007 with the approval of then-president George W. Bush. Unconfirmed published reports suggest they also bought other missiles from Pakistan, which produces a version of the North Korean Nodong missile.
If the Saudis decide to pursue nuclear weapons, they can turn to Trump’s dear friend Kim Jong Un, whose cash-strapped regime has developed its own and the missiles to deliver them.
With Trump looking for business that will create jobs he can claim credit for – and with John Bolton rattling sabers and B-52s, and calling for regime change in Iran – can Saudi Arabia be knocking on an open door to the nuclear club?
Mazin says he intended Chernobyl as a comment on contemporary politics, and specifically on what he calls the “war on truth”. The subtext is relatively obvious: knowledge painstakingly acquired by scientists is discarded when it is politically inconvenient.
the topicality of Chernobyl derives from the inescapable fact that the bureaucracy’s inhuman behaviour is so familiar to us. The fatuous speeches about socialist morality shown in Chernobyl are just that country’s equivalent of our paeans to free markets and free people.
it is easy to recognise the system we have today: a managerial society run by bosses and bureaucrats who lie and kill to maintain their social dominance, and who threaten the whole world as long as they remain in power. The system of class domination and exploitation portrayed in Chernobyl lives on in free-market form today.
The Horrifying True Scale of the Chernobyl Disaster
09 June 2019 Even before its broadcast run had concluded, Craig Mazin’s five-part TV drama, Chernobyl, was acclaimed as a classic. It currently stands as the highest rated series of all time on IMDb, and has been watched by millions in the US and around the world despite airing on a bad schedule and relying heavily on word-of-mouth promotion.
A short-run series about an industrial accident that took place 33 years ago in a state that no longer exists might seem an odd candidate for such popularity. But, as Wired put it, “2019 needed a hit as bleak as Chernobyl”. It is a show that speaks to the concerns of its time.
At the time of the series’ airing, nuclear power is being rehabilitated as a solution to catastrophic global warming. The technology is back in the marketplace of ideas, while the generations traumatised by the meltdowns and near-misses continue to be dismissively diagnosed with “radiophobia”. The familiarity of the feeling that a cataclysmic environmental and social disaster is unfolding right around us, while the administrators of our society look the other way, is impossible not to recognise.
German minister lands in Iran in bid to save nuclear pact,Sabine Siebold, TEHRAN (Reuters) 9 June 19, – Germany’s foreign minister has arrived in Tehran to hold talks with President Hassan Rouhani on Monday, as part of a concerted European effort to preserve Iran’s nuclear pact with world powers and defuse rising U.S.-Iranian tensions.A cautious thaw in relations between Tehran and Washington set in in 2015 when Iran struck a deal with six big powers limiting its nuclear activity. But tensions with the United States have mounted again since President Donald Trump withdrew Washington from the accord in 2018 and reimposed sweeping sanctions.
West European signatories, including Germany, want to try to keep the nuclear accord alive although they share the Trump administration’s disquiet about Iran’s ballistic missile program and its role in conflicts around in the Middle East.
A ‘P5+4’ summit could break the nuclear deadlock, The Strategist B1, 7 Jun 2019, |Ramesh Thakur In April, US President Donald Trump directed White House officials to identify pathways to new arms control agreements with Russia and China. If he’s looking for a big and bold new idea, here’s one: a ‘P5+4’ nuclear summit of the leaders of the nine countries that have the bomb.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the ‘P5’) are the only countries recognised by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) as lawful possessors of nuclear weapons: China, France, Russia, the UK and the US. The ‘+4’ are the non-NPT nuclear-armed countries—India, Israel and Pakistan—and North Korea, the world’s only NPT defector state.
The existing architecture of nuclear arms control has served us well but is now crumbling. It was weakened first by the US exit from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 and then the indefinite delay of the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty. More recently, the deterioration has accelerated with the Trump administration’s abandonmentof the nuclear deal with Iran, the US and Russian suspensions of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and the failure thus far to discuss extending New START beyond its expiry date of 2021.
There is a related problem. The NPT-centric architecture cannot accommodate the reality of four non-NPT possessor states. The architecture deficit is exacerbated by the fact that the agenda of nuclear arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament has stalled. The Korean denuclearisation-cum-peace-process has run out of steam. Last month’s meeting of the preparatory committee for the 2020 NPT review conference could not reach agreement on a common statement………..
Nuclear arms control satisfies all the key criteria for a summit. Like pandemics, climate change and biodiversity, nuclear threats spill across national boundaries and defy unilateral solutions. A summit of the nine political leaders, but only them, that is appropriately structured and has been adequately prepared can focus them to do what they alone can do—make tough choices from among competing interests and priorities. Cabinet ministers have single portfolio responsibilities. Heads of state and government have to oversee the entire agenda. With broad, overarching responsibilities, leaders can weigh priorities and balance interests across competing goals, sectors, and national and international objectives. ………
The first thing a nuclear summit should do is reaffirm the famous 1987 declaration by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev: ‘a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought’. If all nine leaders sign such a statement, it can be adopted as a resolution also by the UN Security Council and General Assembly. That would reverse the recent trend to normalise the discourse of possible nuclear-weapon use and, by hardening the normative boundary between nuclear and other weapons, perhaps also help to stop mission creep with respect to the roles and functions of nuclear weapons………
A summit-level agreement on a few important items would be a powerful stimulus to restarting stalled talks on other outstanding items like bringing the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty into force and commencing negotiations on a fissile materials cut-off treaty. Even a modestly successful summit would tell the world that the nine powers take seriously their responsibility for preserving nuclear peace………https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/a-p54-summit-could-break-the-nuclear-deadlock/
Russia: Putin warns New START nuclear arms treaty at risk, Aljazeera, 7 June 19,
Russian president accuses US of shunning talks on extending the nuclear arms reduction treaty, which expires in 2021. President Vladimir Putin has said Russia was prepared to drop a nuclear weapons agreement treaty with the United States and warned of “global catastrophe” if Washington keeps dismantling a global arms control regime.
Speaking at an economic forum in St Petersburg, Putin said Washington showed no genuine interest in conducting talks on extending the New START treaty which caps the number of nuclear warheads well below Cold War limits.
“If no one feels like extending the agreement – New START – well, we won’t do it then,” Putin said.
“We have said a hundred times that we are ready [to extend it], but no one is holding any talks with us. The negotiations process hasn’t been arranged at all.”
The treaty was signed by US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev in Prague in 2010.
The accord, which expires in 2021, limits each country to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers.
Together with another agreement known as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, New START is considered a centrepiece of superpower arms control.
The US pulled out of the INF in February, accusing Russia of violating its terms. Moscow, which has denied any breaches, followed suit,
Nuclear arms race
Putin said the potential implications of letting the New START treaty expire would be huge, suggesting its demise could fuel a nuclear arms race.
“If we don’t keep this ‘fiery dragon’ under control, if we let it out of the bottle – God forbid – this could lead to global catastrophe,” Putin said.
“There won’t be any instruments at all limiting an arms race, for example, the deployment of weapons in space.”
“This means that nuclear weapons will be hanging over every one of us all the time.”
Could Trump Trash The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? Forbes, Michael Krepon, 3 June 19
Think of what the world would be like if Russia, the United States, China, India and Pakistan were testing nuclear weapons. They are not because of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) which is responsible for shutting down nuclear testing by major and regional powers for more than two decades. Walking away from the CTBT would be extraordinarily dumb and dangerous, but the Trump administration has taken a step in this direction.
The CTBT was negotiated in 1996, but it isn’t solidly in place. While Russia has signed and ratified it, Senate Republicans rejected it in 1999. China, like the United States, has signed but not ratified.
There are other holdouts, including India and Pakistan. And yet none of these states has tested nuclear weapons since 1998. When a treaty is negotiated, it’s common diplomatic practice not to undercut its objectives while awaiting its entry into force. Hence the two-decades-long moratorium on testing by every nuclear-armed state except North Korea.
How long this can this situation last? The answer is in doubt now that the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Robert P. Ashley, Jr., has declared at a public forum that the “United States believes that Russia probably is not adhering to its nuclear testing moratorium.” The Treaty sets a “zero yield” obligation: states aren’t supposed to test even with the slightest yields. The State Department defines this as any explosion “that produce a self-sustaining, supercritical chain reaction.” In other words, you can conduct experiments, but the experiments should not produce any seismic activity.
As a result of General Ashley’s statement, it’s now open season against the CTBT for those who want to trash another treaty. Critics of arms control have begun to call on Donald Trump to “unsign” the CTBT, just as he has walked away from the Iran nuclear deal and the Arms Trade Treaty. (Trump also announced withdrawal from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, but in this case, evidence of Russian noncompliance is compelling.) By “unsigning” the CTBT, Trump would tell the world that the United States is no longer bound to respect the Treaty’s obligation not to test nuclear weapons.
Before stumbling into this sinkhole, there are three very important things to bear in mind. First, the U.S. Intelligence Community in general, and the Defense Intelligence Agency in particular, have bad track records in assessing Moscow’s compliance with nuclear testing constraints. Second, National Security Adviser John Bolton and others have a track record of fixing intelligence findings to fit their policy preferences, to the great detriment of America’s national security, expeditionary forces, and international standing. And third, walking away from the CTBT would remove constraints on the resumption of nuclear testing by others far more than on the United States.
Now let’s consider details.
General Ashley declared that the United States believes that Russia “probably” is cheating. This suggests an intelligence community-wide agreement, but Time magazine reports that this is not the case. According to Time’s reporters, there is no consensus, and “the Defense Intelligence Agency generally takes the ‘worst case’ position on military matters.” We deserve to know if there is a difference of view within the intelligence community on whether Russia is “probably” cheating, and if this dispute is about inference rather than evidence. We also need to know whether administration officials are seeking to influence intelligence assessments to suit policy preferences…………
It’s unknown whether John Bolton had any involvement with the DIA intelligence assessment, but another reason for investigation is the National Security Adviser’s record of “fixing” intelligence to make the case for a second war against Saddam Hussein, a war predicated on weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. Bolton is on record opposing U.S. ratification and entry into force of the CTBT. Is he once again “fixing the facts” to suit his policy preferences? Is the Defense Intelligence Agency once again guilty of reaching conclusions beyond available evidence, and misrepresenting the evidence it has? Or is there strong evidence of Russian violations of the CTBT’s prohibition on testing?
Tokyo 2020 reveals Olympic Torch route will begin in Fukushima, Inside the Games,By Matthew Smith, 1 June 2019
The Tokyo 2020 Organising Committee has revealed the Olympic Torch Relay route, which will take in many of Japan’s most historic and famous sites – and also areas touched by tragedy.
The Flame will be taken all over Japan inside 121 days, culminating in the Olympic Games next summer.
It will begin the final leg of its journey on March 26, 2020 from the J-Village National Training Centre in Fukushima, the training facility of the Japan football team.
The Flame will travel to all 47 prefectures of Japan, with the Organising Committee claiming around 98 per cent of Japan’s population live within one hour’s travel of the proposed route.
The route will take in World Heritage Sites such as Mount Fuji and Itsukushima Shrine, but will also visit areas affected by recent disasters.
Fukushima has been chosen as a start point after the Tohoku region was struck by an earthquake and tsunami in 2011, which also caused a nuclear incident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.
As well as revealing the route, Tokyo 2020 also unveiled the Torchbearer uniforms and how members of the public could apply to take part in the Relay.
The uniform features the Relay emblem on the front and the Olympic symbol on the back.
The most notable design feature is a diagonal red stripe, echoing the sash used in place of batons in Ekiden, Japan’s historic long-distance relays…….
“In Japan, these Games are being referred to as ‘the Recovery Games’ and so the Olympic Flame will start its journey from an area affected by recent natural disasters……
The Week in Energy, Ft.com, 2 June 19, ”………..The IEA this week published a report titled “Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System”, its first on the industry for more than 20 years, because it is so concerned about the wave of nuclear plant closures across the developed world.
………(The IAEA) acknowledges that the outlook is “highly uncertain”. The Chernobyl disaster of 1986, now being vividly recreated in a television drama series from HBO, put a brake on investment in new reactors in western countries for two decades, and then just as there was talk of a “nuclear renaissance” emerging in the 21st century, the Fukushima disaster of 2011 dealt another blow to public confidence. The IEA argues that the most important reason for the collapse of investor appetite for new nuclear plants in Europe and the US, however, has been the industry’s failure to deliver projects on time and on budget. At a time when the costs of renewable energy have been plunging, the cost of nuclear power has been soaring. The estimated cost of the EPR reactor that French utility EDF is building at Flamanville in Normandy, for example, has soared from €3bn to €11bn. François de Rugy, France’s environment minister, said this week that the start date for the reactor was still uncertain. Such stories are the rule rather than the exception for new nuclear plants built in Europe and the US over the past 15 years.
As a result, investing in new nuclear plants is very difficult for the private sector. Of 54 under construction worldwide today, 47 are being built by state-owned companies, and six of the seven in the private sector have price regulation in place to give them some certainty about their revenues. But beyond that, even keeping existing plants running is becoming increasingly difficult …..
The IEA suggests a range of policy measures for supporting nuclear power, including operating lifetime extensions from regulators, electricity market designs that reward nuclear plants for their advantages including high levels of availability, and payments that put nuclear on an even footing with renewable sources as low-carbon power. In practice, the blunt realities of energy politics have meant that moves to help nuclear power have not always played out in the best possible ways for curbing emissions. In the US, New York, Illinois and most recently New Jersey have put measures in place to support their nuclear plants. A similar plan is being debated in Pennsylvania, and although it has come too late for Three Mile Island, it could save the state’s other nuclear plants.
There have been vigorous arguments over all of these initiatives, but the most controversial of all has been the plan now moving through the legislature in Ohio, which links support for nuclear power to help for coal-fired plants and an attack on policies favouring renewables and energy efficiency. The state’s House of Representatives this week approved a bill that would create new payments for Ohio’s two nuclear plants, while cutting support for energy efficiency and scrapping the state’s mandated standard requiring 12.5 per cent of its generation to come from renewable sources by 2027. The legislation now goes to the state’s Senate. The plan has won bipartisan support, but it has been a particularly critical issue for Ohio’s Republicans.
A senior adviser to President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign has been urging state lawmakers to back the plan, because of the thousands of jobs that would be lost if the nuclear plants closed. “The message is that if we have these plants shut down we can’t get Trump re-elected,” a source told Politico.
In another example of how the changing energy landscape of the US has shaken up old enmities and alliances, the campaign against the bill has united environmentalists and the oil and gas industry. Neil Waggoner of the Sierra Club, the environmental group, described the legislation as “a farce” and “an absolute embarrassment for Ohio”. The American Petroleum Industry warned that customers would “pay the price” for the bill, and urged the state Senate to “protect Ohio taxpayers and reject this legislative bailout”.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki slam U.S. subcritical nuclear test, The governors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki prefectures sent letters of protest May 26 over the latest subcritical nuclear test in the United States. http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201905270043.html, May 27, 2019 Hiroshima’s Hidehiko Yuzaki addressed his letter to President Donald Trump, who is now visiting Japan. He urged Trump to visit Hiroshima, which was leveled by atomic bombing in 1945, to fully “understand the reality of total destruction caused by a nuclear weapon.”
The United States conducted a subcritical nuclear test in Nevada on Feb. 13, according to a May 24 announcement by the U.S. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Yuzaki called the test “extremely regrettable.”
He said, “It destroys the hopes of Hiroshima residents who strongly wish the abolition of nuclear weapons.”
Trump arrived in Japan as state guest on May 25. He will wind up his visit on May 28.
Nagasaki Governor Hodo Nakamura, along with prefectural assembly chairman Mitsuyuki Segawa, also denounced the subcritical nuclear test.
They sent protest letters to U.S. Ambassador William Hagerty on May 26.
Nuclear watchdog chief: no evidence that Russia is violating test ban, US general said Moscow had ‘probably’ violated moratorium, Guardian, Julian Borger 31 May 19
Lassina Zerbo contradicts claims of testing at remote island The head of the international watchdog that monitors signs of nuclear testing has said there is no evidence to support a US allegation that Russiahas conducted low-yield tests in violation of an international ban.Lassina Zerbo, the executive secretary of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO), said the agency had already investigated the claim made on Wednesday by the head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt Gen Robert Ashley, that Russia had “probably” violated the moratorium on tests of any yield.
In a public appearance in Washington, Ashley did not give details, and in response to follow-up questions, he said only that Russia had the “capability” to carry out such tests. The US has long voiced suspicions that Russia could be carrying out low-yield testing at a remote Arctic island base, Novaya Zemlya.
Zerbo said the agency had conducted a test of its global network of sensors on Wednesday to estimate what size of nuclear blast it would be able to detect at Novaya Zemlya.
The test found that its monitoring system would have picked up a blast of 3.1 on the Richter scale, which would be roughly equivalent, in that area, to a nuclear detonation of 100 tons – tiny in comparison to the yield of most nuclear warheads, which are normally measured in thousands of tons. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 15 and 20 kilotons, respectively………
It is unclear why Ashley chose to revive the allegation about Russian low-yield testing now, in the apparent absence of any new evidence. Some observers pointed to the fact that Ashley made the claim that testing had “probably” taken place only in his prepared remarks, but did not repeat the claim in a question and answer session, leading to speculation the claim could have been inserted into Ashley’s speech by the White House. The national security adviser, John Bolton, has a long record of hostility to arms control agreements.
On his watch, the US has pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) agreement with Russia. He is believed to be opposed to the extension of the New Start agreement, signed in 2010 with Russia, limiting deployed strategic nuclear warheads and their delivery systems on both sides. It is due to expire in 2021.
Sarah Bidgood, Eurasia programme director at the Centre for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, suggested the issue had been rehashed “in order to support the narrative that Russia is an unreliable partner in arms control, with whom verification does not work”. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/30/nuclear-watchdog-no-evidence-russia-violating-test-ban
IAEA issues quarterly inspections report on Iran program
Tensions rising in region between Iran, U.S. and Gulf states
Nuclear inspectors reported Iran continued adhering to its 2015 accord with world powers, giving European nations room to pursue their troubled efforts to prevent a total collapse of a pact facing intensifying U.S. pressure.
International Atomic Energy Agency monitors said Iran’s inventories of enriched uranium and heavy water remained below the thresholds allowed under the 2015 agreement, according to a restricted report seen by Bloomberg News.
It’s the 15th consecutive quarterly report showing that Iran has observed its obligations, and comes amid growing concerns that the Trump administration’s campaign to counter Iranian influence in the Middle East could spill into war.
The IAEA conducted snap inspections “to all the sites and locations in Iran which it needed to visit,” read the 6-page IAEA report that was circulated Thursday among diplomats in Vienna. “Throughout the reporting period, Iran’s total enriched uranium stockpile has not exceeded” the maximum permitted 300 kilograms, it said.
Iran’s president signaled May 8 that stockpiles of nuclear material would soon exceed limits after the U.S. revoked waivers permitting it to be shipped abroad. That declaration was made on the one-year anniversary of the U.S. decision to unilaterally exit the nuclear accord and reimpose sanctions, including on vital oil exports. With its economy plunging into recession, Iran said it will violate even more sensitive provisions of the deal unless European signatories deliver the financial relief offered in return for moderating its nuclear program.
Tensions have since spiked further after the U.S. accelerated the deployment of a carrier strike group to the Gulf to counter unspecified Iranian threats, suggested without providing proof that Iran and its proxies were to blame for attacks on ships in the crucial waterway as well as a Saudi oil pipeline, and sent more troops to the region.
President Donald Trump has made confronting Iran a cornerstone of his foreign policy and is squeezing its economy to force it to roll back its ballistic missile program and support for groups such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah, which the U.S. deems a terrorist organization.
The White House is counting on Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies to form a united front to contain Iran, prompting a series of meetings involving regional leaders in the kingdom this week.
The stockpile of low-enriched uranium rose 7%, to 174 kilograms (384 pounds), the IAEA said. Its inventory of heavy-water was unchanged at 125 metric tons, less than the 130 metric tons permitted by the agreement.
Iran has been enriching uranium well below capacity and should be able to boost its rate of production, according to a senior diplomat with knowledge of Iran’s program. The country said May 22it would ramp up the rate at which it produces the material by four times. That implies accumulating as much as 18 kilograms of new low-enriched uranium a month rather than some 4 to 4.5 kilograms previously, the person said.
The stored uranium is still well shortof what would be needed to construct a bomb, were the material to be further enriched, and if Iran made the decision to pursue weapons. Iran had previously accumulated enough of the heavy metal to construct more than a dozen weapons before the agreement forced it to eliminate some 97% of its stockpile. Tehran says its nuclear program is solely for civilian energy and medical use.
Heavy water, so named because it contains extra hydrogen atoms, can moderate neutrons inside a nuclear reactor or act as a tracer in medical applications. Iran had been shipping excess inventory to Oman before the U.S. blocked that activity. IAEA inspectors continued to confirm Iran’s Arak reactor, for which the heavy water production was originally intended, remained disabled as agreed under the 2015 accord. Tehran says it could reconstitute that project in the third quarter without sanctions relief.
The IAEA report follows U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton’s statement on Wednesday in the United Arab Emirates that a violation of the deal would show Iranians haven’t “constrained their continuing desire to have nuclear weapons.” The Trump administration has threatened to sanction Europeans for trying to hold the atomic pact together via a non-dollar-denominated financial channel.
Critically, the IAEA report said Iran continued allowing access to sites under what its director general has called “the most robust verification system in existence anywhere.” Inspectors conducted a record number of surprise visits in Iran last year.
Iran has also stuck to the number of centrifuges — the supersonic spinning machines that separate uranium isotopes — allowed for enrichment. Iran is holding “technical discussions” about new generations of more powerful centrifuges that are undergoing testing.
SBS, 1 June 19 In her commencement address delivered at Harvard University in the United States, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has urged the world to join together to combat climate change.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday urged the world to do “everything humanly possible” to combat climate change and pledged to do her part.
“Climate change poses a threat to our planet’s natural resources,” Ms Merkel said in her commencement address delivered at Harvard University in the United States.
Lightbridge fuel development gains DOE funding, WNN 30 May 2019, Framatome has received a voucher through the US Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) programme to support development of Lightbridge Fuel in collaboration with Idaho National Laboratory (INL).
….. Enfission – a joint venture of Lightbridge Corporation and Framatome – was set up in January 2018 to commercialise nuclear fuel assemblies based on this technology.
The GAIN initiative was launched in November 2015 to provide a way to fast-track nuclear innovation,…..
This is Framatome’s third GAIN voucher and its first supporting the Lightbridge Fuel design.
Framatome said its collaboration with INL under this GAIN voucher will “leverage the laboratory’s experience in fuel and material development, as well as its performance knowledge, to facilitate Framatome’s understanding of phenomena unique to uranium-zirconium metallic fuel”.
National Security Adviser John Bolton Accuses Iran of Seeking Nuclear Weapons, TIME BY JON GAMBRELL / AP , MAY 29, 2019 (ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates)— President Donald Trump’s national security adviser warned Iran on Wednesday that any attacks in the Persian Gulf will draw a “very strong response” from the U.S., taking a hard-line approach with Tehran after his boss only two days earlier said America wasn’t “looking to hurt Iran at all.”
John Bolton’s comments are the latest amid heightened tensions between Washington and Tehran that have been playing out in the Middle East.
Bolton spoke to journalists in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, which only days earlier saw former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis warn there that “unilateralism will not work” in confronting the Islamic Republic……..
A longtime Iran hawk, Bolton blamed Tehran for the recent incidents, at one point saying it was “almost certainly” Iran that planted explosives on the four oil tankers off the UAE coast. He declined to offer any evidence for his claims.
…….Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has repeatedly criticized Bolton as a warmonger. Abbas Mousavi, a spokesman for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, said later Wednesday Bolton’s remarks were a “ridiculous accusation.”
Separately in Tehran, President Hassan Rouhani said that the “road is not closed” when it comes to talks with the U.S. — if America returns to the nuclear deal. However, the relatively moderate Rouhani faces increasing criticism from hard-liners and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei over the collapsing accord…….
Bolton also said the U.S. would boost American military installations and those of its allies in the region. …..
nuclear-news 