That so much power over the U.S. nuclear arsenal is placed in the hands of one man – any man – bodes ill for humanity, while completely undermining the war power granted to Congress in the U.S. constitution. That the man in question should be Donald Trump, with all his personal flaws, challenges the United States and the world as never before in human history.
Trump, Nuclear Weapons and the Human Future,CounterPunch, byDAVID KRIEGER, 18 Nov 16 “………The most positive policy proposal Trump will bring to the table as president is his desire to improve and strengthen relations between the U.S. and Russia, which have deteriorated badly in recent years. This is one hopeful sign that could lead to renewed efforts by the two countries to reduce their nuclear arsenals and reverse current plans to modernize these arsenals.
The Numerous Negatives
Trump’s behavior during the presidential campaign was often erratic, seemingly based on discernable personality traits, including narcissism, arrogance, impulsiveness, and a lack of predictability. If these traits provide a fair characterization of Trump’s personality, what do they suggest for his control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal?
Trump’s narcissism seems to be reflected in his need to be liked and treated positively. During the primaries, if another candidate criticized him, Trump would respond with even stronger criticism toward his attacker. On the other hand, if someone praised Trump, he would respond with praise. This could result in creating a spiral in either a positive or negative direction. A negative spiral could potentially get out of hand, which would be alarming with regard to anyone with a hand hovering near the nuclear button.
His narcissism was also reflected in his need to be right. Even though Trump is reported to not read very much and to have a limited range of experience, he is often certain that he is right and boldly asserts the correctness of his positions. At one point, for example, he argued that he knew much more than military leaders about the pursuit and defeat of ISIS. His assuredness of his own correctness seems also rooted in arrogance reflecting his fundamental insecurity. This insecurity and his belief in his own rightness, when combined with his success at making money, leads him to be self-reliant in his decision-making, which could result in his taking risks with threatening or using nuclear weapons. He said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program, “My primary consultant is myself.” While this may make consensus easy, the range of perspective is dangerously narrow.
Two other personality traits could also make more likely Trump’s use of nuclear weapons: his impulsiveness and his lack of predictability. Impulsiveness is not a trait one would choose for a person with the power to launch the U.S. nuclear arsenal. When it comes to deciding to use the Bomb, a personality that is calm, clear and measured would seem to inspire more confidence that caution would be employed. Predictability would also seem to inspire confidence that a President Trump would refrain from deciding to respond with overwhelming force when he is in a negative spiral and out of patience with a country or terrorist organization that is challenging the U.S., which he may interpret as mounting a challenge to himself personally.Where Does Trump Stand?
On many issues, including on the use of nuclear weapons, it is not clear where Trump stands, due to his contradictory statements. Here is what Trump said in March 2016 at a town hall event when host Chris Matthews asked him if he might use nuclear weapons:…..
ConclusionPerhaps the singular positive of Trump’s desire to improve the deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Russia will lead to achieving progress toward a world free of nuclear weapons. A lot will depend on who Trump chooses for key cabinet positions, but even more will depend on his consultations with his key advisor (himself).
That so much power over the U.S. nuclear arsenal is placed in the hands of one man – any man – bodes ill for humanity, while completely undermining the war power granted to Congress in the U.S. constitution. That the man in question should be Donald Trump, with all his personal flaws, challenges the United States and the world as never before in human history.David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/18/trump-nuclear-weapons-and-the-human-future/
U.S.-China relations are likely to benefit from the election of Donald Trump as president. Hillary Clinton’s policy toward China emphasized confrontation. In a leaked email she was quoted as privately threatening to “ring China with missile defense” if Beijing didn’t bring North Korea to heel. She also said Americans should “put more of our fleet in the area.”
While Trump primarily emphasized trade issues, Clinton’s approach would have risked a military confrontation while adding new tensions to U.S.-China relations. This approach also would have driven Beijing closer to the ever provocative Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
The DPRK’s nuclear program has become Northeast Asia’s biggest security challenge. Today the North is believed to have enough nuclear materials for up to 20 nuclear weapons. By 2020 Pyongyang could have at least 50 and perhaps as many as 100 nukes.
Marry such an arsenal to accurate long-range missiles and Pyongyang’s mischief-making ability would expand dramatically. China understands the dangers and wants to keep the Korean peninsula nuclear-free……..
America, usually through its secretary state, including Clinton, has made a practice of simply telling the PRC what the U.S. desires and complaining when China does not deliver. Alas, the time, if it ever really existed, when Washington could simply dictate to others has passed. Even more, the time when anyone could dictate to Beijing has passed……..
American policymakers understandably are frustrated by China’s continuing support for North Korea. However, threats like that advocated by Clinton almost certainly would be counter-productive. The U.S. is unlikely to apply pressure sufficient to coerce Beijing into acting against its interest. But the attempt would make China less willing to cooperate in the future.
Instead, Washington needs to relearn the art of diplomacy and seek to persuade rather than dictate. Doing so might not be as satisfying as making demands. But such a course would be more likely to succeed. Which should be everyone’s objective in dealing with North Korea. Ironically, despite his bluster, incoming President Donald Trump may be more open to such an approach than would have been a President Hillary Clinton.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/donald-trump-offers-hope_b_13071974.html
India made no additional commitments to Japan for nuclear deal: MEA, DNA, 18 Nov 2016 , New Delhi , PTI
Vikas Swarup clarifies that India made no additional concessions. India on Thursday asserted that the termination clause in the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement (NCA) with Japan was nothing “new” and that New Delhi had made no additional commitments to clinch the deal other than what it had committed itself to while declaring a unilateral moratorium on testing nuclear weapons in 2008.
He also insisted that all clauses in the NCA were binding on the two parties. However, the circumstances of termination, by their very nature, are not specifiable in the NCA and a comprehensive reading of the entirety of the provision to understand the hypothetical possibilities as well as the mitigating circumstances and consequences was required, External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Vikas Sawrup said. “India appreciates the special sensitivities of Japan on nuclear issues. It was felt that a note on views expressed by the Japanese side in the above context could be recorded.
Such a record, to be balanced, also needed an accurate depiction of India s position. “The ‘Note on Views and Understanding’ reiterates the commitments that India made in September 2008. No change is envisaged from those commitments and no additional commitments have been made by India,” Swarup added. He was asked about the termination clause in the Indo- Japan NCA and if India had made any exemptions while inking the deal. The NCA was signed during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Japan last week.
“The NCA, in fact, has a specific article (No. 14) devoted to termination and cessation of cooperation in certain circumstances. This is not new and is similar, in fact almost identical, to the provision in the US Agreement. “Any suggestion that the termination clause in the NCA is not binding on India is factually incorrect. All clauses of the NCA are binding on both parties,” Swarup said…….http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-india-made-no-additional-commitments-to-japan-for-nuclear-deal-mea-2274393
President Donald Trump: The World Turned Upside Down? Huffington Post
Alistair BurnettWriter on Global Affairs14/11/2016 Did American voters just turn the world upside down?
With international affairs pundits saying Donald Trump in the White House means the end of the West as we know it, some certainly believe they did – although many of these obituaries exaggerate US fealty to the rules-based system created after 1945.
It’s not just what he said on the stump about economic, diplomatic and military relations with the rest of the world his critics have in mind; it’s his character.
Trump has displayed personality flaws beyond the dreams of avarice, which, in a politics-as-normal world, would mean he’d be unfit to occupy any political office, let alone the Oval one.
Then there is his impetuosity and lack of experience that introduce a whole new element of uncertainty into world affairs.
If this weren’t bad enough, Trump appears ignorant of the details of key treaties and international law and his track record doesn’t suggest he’s good at taking advice. Some who opposed his election are seeking solace in the fact Trump often says things that are untrue – whether he knows they are or not – so there’s a hope he didn’t mean all the things he said he would do during the campaign.
Others say he will appoint people who do know what they’re doing, but with names like John Bolton being floated for Secretary of State that’s very much open to question.
Still others are making the point that his policies are largely unformed, or at least unarticulated, and argue he will be constrained by Republicans in Congress who don’t agree with him.
For all the caveats, one thing is clear – the Trump wild card means the world is set for even more instability than we’ve seen in recent years……
First and foremost attempts to prevent catastrophic climate change are facing a huge setback.
Trump has been explicit on this. He has played to the deniers and conspiracy theorists saying climate change is a Chinese hoax aimed at undermining the US economy and, whether he really believes this or not, he’s committed to renouncing the Paris Climate Agreement.
With the Republicans retaining control of Congress and the certainty he will appoint at least one new Supreme Court justice, he will try to reverse the limited action President Obama has managed to take in the US itself.
There is a chance individual American states and cities will continue to take progressive measures, but if the US abandons international agreements and goes back on action it has already taken, will the other major emitters like China and India stick to their commitments? Maybe the Chinese would, but I doubt India will.
The first major decision Trump will have to make, though, is how to pursue the campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
The incoming president has been very critical of what he sees as a lack of aggression by the US military and promised to intensify air strikes – which would inevitably lead to more civilian casualties.
He also said he would commit more American ground troops to the fight.
This would likely result in the conflict between the West and violent jihadism dragging on even longer, with all the implications that has for the stability of Muslim countries, relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, and the prospect of ending jihadi terrorism around the world…….
despite his bombastic rhetoric about making America great again, Trump’s presidency could well see the strain in relations with Russia ease. We could even see the two nations cooperating in the campaign against ISIS in Syria
We are yet to see how Trump and Putin will really get on, and it may not all be sweetness and light.
If Trump follows through on what he’s said about modernising America’s nuclear arsenal, this would antagonise Russia given the importance it attaches to its nuclear arsenal as the guarantee of its security and great power status.
This would also matter because, despite the fact there is less overt concern about the prospect of nuclear war since the end of the Cold War, some strategic commentators and elder statesmen think there is a greater risk of a nuclear conflict now than in the past……..
While a Clinton presidency would have probably seen a further deterioration in relations, Trump’s approach to China poses a much greater risk to global stability.
Unlike Russia, for Donald Trump, China is a direct threat to American national interests.
If he sticks to what he’s proposed during the campaign – an even greater military build-up around Chinese waters and retaliation for alleged unfair trade practices – we are headed for a major escalation in tension.
And with the unpredictable and untested Trump as commander-in-chief and a Chinese leadership which has built its political legitimacy on the back of making China stand tall again in the world, the risk that an accidental clash in the South China Sea could blow up into a major conflagration is much greater……..
What the world really needs now is a true acceptance in Washington of how the global balance of power is changing and the need to engage with other countries on a genuinely equal and respectful basis – this is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition to restoring some sort of order to global affairs.
But, Donald Trump, who may prove to be the most unprepared, uninformed president ever to enter office, shows no sign of having applied much thought to such questions and is inclined to shoot from the hip.
A questionable nuclear deal, Japan Times NOV 15, 2016
In recent years, Japan has concluded a series of civilian nuclear cooperation pacts with such countries as Vietnam, Jordan and Turkey in an effort to export its nuclear power plant technology and equipment. But the latest deal with India carries different ramifications. It marks a deviation from Japan’s emphasis on the NPT regime as the international framework for nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament, which is already threatened by North Korea’s repeated nuclear weapons tests.
India carried out nuclear weapons tests in 1974 and 1998 and is believed to possess at least 100 nuclear warheads. It has refused to join the NPT, which limits possession of nuclear arms to the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China, nor has it signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The international community for years prohibited civilian nuclear cooperation with India, but the U.S. administration of President George W. Bush in 2008 concluded such a pact with New Delhi with an eye on building nuclear power plants in the rapidly growing South Asian economy — a move followed by other countries including Japan…….
Japanese businesses involved in nuclear power meanwhile see promising markets overseas for export of their technology and equipment since the Fukushima disaster made it difficult for utilities to build new nuclear plants in Japan and the restart of idled plants remains slow. These strategic and business considerations were prioritized as Tokyo pushed for the nuclear deal, which also authorizes India to reprocess spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium. Japan is reported to have compromised on its earlier demand that the pact include an explicit provision that cooperation would be halted if India resumed nuclear weapons tests. …..http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/11/15/editorials/questionable-nuclear-deal/#.WCtw59J97Gg
Trump seeking quickest way to quit Paris climate agreement, says report, Guardian, 13 Nov 16
The president-elect wants to bypass the theoretical four-year procedure to exit the accord, according to a Reuters source, Donald Trump is looking at quick ways of withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement in defiance of widening international backing for the plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, Reuters has reported.
But, according to Reuters, a source in the Trump transition team said the victorious Republican, who has called global warming a hoax, was considering ways to bypass a theoretical four-year procedure for leaving the accord.
“It was reckless for the Paris agreement to enter into force before the election,” said the source, who works on Trump’s transition team for international energy and climate policy, speaking on condition of anonymity. The Paris agreement went into force on 4 November, four days before last Tuesday’s election.
Alternatives were to send a letter withdrawing from a 1992 convention that is the parent treaty of the Paris agreement, voiding US involvement in both in a year’s time, or to issue a presidential order simply deleting the US signature from the Paris accord, the source told Reuters.
Many nations have expressed hopes the United States will stay. Morocco, the host for the talks, said the agreement that seeks to phase out greenhouse gases in the second half of the century was strong enough to survive a pullout.
“If one party decides to withdraw that it doesn’t call the agreement into question,” foreign minister Salaheddine Mezouar told a news conference.
Despite the threat of a US withdrawal, US secretary of state John Kerry said on Sunday that he would continue his efforts to implement the Paris agreement until Barack Obama leaves office on 20 January.
Speaking in New Zealand following a trip to Antarctica, Kerry appeared to take a swipe at Trump when he listed some of the ways in which global warming could already be seen. He said that there were more fires, floods and damaging storms around the world, and sea levels were rising.
Nuclear weapons: how foreign hotspots could test Trump’s finger on the trigger, Guardian, Julian Borger, 13 Nov 16, “……….Trump has claimed he could improve relations with Russia, and in particular with Vladimir Putin personally, that would defuse the high tensions over Ukraine and Syria. Such deals could well be at the expense of the people of those countries, but could conceivably lessen the chances of a complete end to arms control and the return to an expensive and dangerous nuclear arms race. Hans Kristensen, a nuclear expert at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), points out that the deepest cuts in nuclear arsenals have been achieved by Republican administrations.
“Republicans love nuclear weapons reductions, as long as they’re not proposed by a Democratic president,” Kristensen wrote on an FAS blog
“That is the lesson from decades of US nuclear weapons and arms control management. If that trend continues, then we can expect the new Donald Trump administration to reduce the US nuclear weapons arsenal more than the Obama administration did.”
The current arms treaty limiting the strategic arsenals of both countries, New Start, expires in 2021. A decision will have to be made whether to replace it or let arms control wither. Both Putin and Trump could save tens of billions of dollars by cutting arsenals. As part of any deal, however, Putin would ask for the scrapping of the US missile defence system currently being erected in eastern Europe. Any concessions on the US trillion-dollar nuclear weapon modernisation programme, which Trump endorses in his transition website, would bring him in direct conflict with the Republican establishment.
Termination clause in nuclear deal with Japan not binding
on India, insists govt, First Post, 13 Nov 16 New Delhi: The just-signed historic civil nuclear deal with Japan has a “termination” clause which the government here insists is not binding on India but merely records the “views” of the Japanese side considering its “special sensitivities”.
The government insisted that India has made “no additional commitments” over the similar agreements signed with the US and other countries.
In the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, signed in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe in Tokyo on Friday, there is a note on ‘Views and Understanding’ wherein the Japanese side has cited India’s September 2008 declaration of unilateral moratorium on atomic tests and said if this commitment is violated, the deal will terminate.
Indian government holds that this is merely recording of the views of the two sides.
“The termination clause is there in other NCAs (nuclear cooperation agreements) we have signed, including with the US (Article 14). However the circumstances triggering a possible termination are never sharply defined. Consideration also has to be given to mitigating factors,” a source here said.
“That note is simply a record by the negotiators of respective views on certain issues. It is not the NCA which is what is binding,” the source said.
The sources added that given Japan’s special sensitivities as the only nation to have suffered a nuclear attack, “it was felt that their views should be recorded in a separate Note. The Note is a record by the negotiators of respective views on certain issues.
“The termination clause is there in other NCAs (nuclear cooperation agreements) we have signed, including with the US (Article 14). However the circumstances triggering a possible termination are never sharply defined. Consideration also has to be given to mitigating factors,” a source here said.
“That note is simply a record by the negotiators of respective views on certain issues. It is not the NCA which is what is binding,” the source said.
The sources added that given Japan’s special sensitivities as the only nation to have suffered a nuclear attack, “it was felt that their views should be recorded in a separate Note. The Note is a record by the negotiators of respective views on certain issues………
German Chancellor Angela Merkel Issues CHILLING Warning To Donald Trump, BiPartisan Report , By Sarah MacManus –November 9, 2016 German Chancellor Angela Merkel isn’t going to let up on newly minted President-elect Donald Trump any time soon. The European stateswoman issued a very carefully worded statement to the press on Wednesday, not so subtly hinting that she’d be keeping an eye on the Republican and letting all parties know that her cooperation — and that of Germany — comes with conditions.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel reacts to Donald Trump as elected President (english subtitles)
It could mean the cooperation of our European allies, as well. Merkel also serves as the de facto leader of the European Union, and was listed by Forbes as one of the world’s second most powerful individuals in the last five years.
Donald Trump would do well to heed her warning.
Trump took a swing at Merkel during his campaign over her refugee policy, criticizing her willingness to accept refugees and immigrants into Germany and stating: “What Merkel did to Germany is a shame, it’s a sad, sad shame.”
Merkel’s even-handed statement of congratulations to the Republican was composed with the utmost precise wording and couched in tones of warning……..
“Please accept my congratulations on your election as President of the United States of America.
“You will assume office at a time in which our countries are jointly facing many different challenges.
“Germany’s ties with the United States of America are deeper than with any country outside of the European Union. Germany and America are bound by common values — democracy, freedom, as well as respect for the rule of law and the dignity of each and every person, regardless of their origin, skin color, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or political views. It is based on these values that I wish to offer close cooperation, both with me personally and between our countries’ governments.
“Partnership with the United States is and will remain a keystone of German foreign policy, especially so that we can tackle the great challenges of our time: striving for economic and social well-being, working to develop far-sighted climate policy, pursuing the fight against terrorism, poverty, hunger, and disease, as well as protecting peace and freedom in the world.
With Trump, Asia’s Nuclear Crisis Expands Next to North Korea and fearing U.S. abandonment, South Korea and Japan weigh their own options, WSJ, By DAVID FEITH Nov. 11, 2016 Seoul
The nuclear crisis in Northeast Asia was bound to be one of the most dangerous challenges facing the next U.S. president, no matter who won on Tuesday. With Donald Trump’s surprise victory, though, it could metastasize in dramatic ways: If you thought North Korea’s nuclear march was disconcerting, consider that South Korea and Japan may now pursue nuclear programs of their own, raising the risks and stakes of war not only with North Korea but China too…….
It’s possible Mr. Trump will drop his enthusiasm for South Korean and Japanese nuclearization upon entering the Oval Office. His campaign advisers tended to ignore the subject in public statements, likely a reflection of the decades-old bipartisan consensus against nuclear proliferation in Washington. But as with other issues, the approach of President Trump will depend on who he brings into the White House for advice, and whether he listens to them……..
South Korea’s civilian nuclear infrastructure—24 plants providing 30% of the country’s energy—could be used to produce 5,000 bombs worth of fissile material, Mr. Cheong says, dwarfing Pyongyang’s capability. Embracing the necessary technologies, including plutonium reprocessing, could be “the game-changer that will enable South Korea to manage North Korean problems.”………
Several potential candidates in South Korea’s looming presidential election back nuclearization, including former National Assembly floor leader Won Yoo-cheol and Nam Kyung-pil, governor of the country’s most populous province. Mr. Cheong, who acknowledges that “experts and technocrats have tended to be against going nuclear,” says that officials have privately expressed greater interest since Pyongyang’s latest nuclear test in September. Once Pyongyang completes a hydrogen bomb, he says, “many experts will switch their views.”
“A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.” The words of his vanquished opponent, Hillary Clinton, are perhaps the biggest anxiety hanging over the shock election of Donald Trump to the US presidency: can he be trusted with the power to launch Armageddon?
Every US president has constant access to a nuclear launch device only he can activate. Born in the Cold War, it is designed for when Russian nuclear missiles are detected making their 30-minute flight to the US, allowing 10-15 minutes to decide to order a counter-strike which would not be countermanded. But it could be used in other scenarios. “There is nothing to prevent a launch for very little reason,” says Paul Ingram of the British American Security Information Council, an arms control think-tank in London.
Would Trump hit the button? He has said he would be “very, very slow on the draw” but has refused to rule out using nukes, asking several times during the campaign, if they are never used, “why do we make them?”
The answer is deterrence: so fear of retaliation will deter any nuclear attack. Trump’s refusal to rule out their use is in fact close to existing US policy, but he has also suggested using them against ISIS, even though conventional weapons would have similar tactical effects.
“The very fact that one person, whoever it is, can decide to launch a nuclear strike is very worrying,” says Ingram.
Hair-trigger alert The president’s ability to respond rapidly is to allow the launch of 450 US land-based missiles before they are destroyed in an attack – for which reason they are kept on hair-trigger alert.
One way to reduce the risk of a rash launch would be for President Obama to take US missiles off hair-trigger alert before he leaves, which would be politically delicate to reverse. Or Trump, who wants better relations with Russia, might do it himself.
The use of existing nukes is one thing; proliferation is another. Trump has said he will “renegotiate” last year’s agreement with Iran to limit its uranium enrichment. Arms control experts say we are never likely to get a better deal, so Trump’s plan could see Iran resume its efforts.
And as North Korea approaches nuclear capability, Trump has suggested its neighbours might develop their own nuclear weapons. In April he said that US allies should pay more for the nuclear protection offered by the US umbrella – or defend themselves, “including with nukes”.
Japan and South Korea, under threat from North Korea, are already under pressure to do that. But both are non-nuclear states in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and have sworn never to develop their own weapons. Their abandonment of that pledge could well be the death-knell of the treaty. While it has failed to disarm the major nuclear powers, it has kept other countries, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, from trying to develop the bomb.
Anti-nuclear norms Its failures in disarmament led a large majority of UN members to vote in October to start work on a new treaty that simply bans nuclear weapons for everyone. Existing nuclear nations rejected the idea (apart from North Korea, which voted for it), as, ominously, did Japan and South Korea. Non-nuclear NATO members backed it in the hope of strengthening global anti-nuclear norms.
Those may not last long in the Trump era. He has long called NATO “obsolete” and questions US commitments to Europe. The threat of losing reliable US defence could lead to military build-up in Europe, handing nuclear deterrence to the small UK and French nuclear arsenals, which would then be more likely to go ahead with expensive upgrades.
Thomas Homer-Dixon at the Balsillie School of International Affairs in Waterloo, Canada, sees a more insidious threat. He believes Trump could pick fights abroad and incite attacks on alleged enemies at home to generate a constant “emergency” to bolster his support. Russia’s Vladimir Putin, whom Trump has long admired, uses such tactics.
“The risk of a slide into war which ultimately involves nuclear weapons is very real,” he says. “Trump has an insatiable need to dominate, and he seems incapable of ignoring a slight.” The deadly nuclear winter predicted to follow even a limited nuclear exchange could one day answer the president-elect’s question: if we have these weapons, why don’t we use them?
Donald Trump and the nuclear codes Mr Trump will soon control America’s nuclear codes http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21709999-mr-trump-will-soon-control-americas-nuclear-codes-donald-trump-and-nuclear-codesNov 12th 2016 IN A ritual out of sight of the cameras on Inauguration Day in January, America’s “nuclear briefcase” will change hands and President Donald Trump will receive a card, sometimes known as the “biscuit”. The card, which identifies him as commander-in-chief, has on it the nuclear codes that are used to authenticate an order to launch a nuclear attack. At that point, should he wish, Mr Trump can launch any or all of America’s 2,000 strategic nuclear missiles.
There are no constitutional restraints on his power to do so. Even if all his advisers have counselled against it, as long it is clearly the president giving the command, the order must be carried out. There are no checks and balances in the system. Moreover, once the order is given there is likely to be only a matter of minutes in which it could be rescinded. Once the missiles are flying, they cannot be called back or disarmed. Mr Trump, from what he has said, does not take this responsibility lightly. Indeed, he has often stated that he believes nuclear weapons to represent the greatest threat to humanity and that he will not be trigger-happy, “like some people might think”. But in common with his predecessors, he does not rule out their use. With little more than ten minutes to take a decision that could kill hundreds of millions of people, even the calmest individual would be under intolerable stress if informed that America was under imminent attack. It is not Mr Trump’s fault that the system, in which the vulnerable land-based missile force is kept on hair-trigger alert, is widely held to be inherently dangerous. Yet no former president, including Barack Obama, has done anything to change it.
Of greater concern would be how Mr Trump might behave in an escalating confrontation if Russia were to rattle its nuclear sabre even more loudly. It is possible that his apparent desire to be buddies with Vladimir Putin might help defuse a dangerous situation. He is, however, notoriously thin-skinned and unable to stop himself responding to any perceived slight with vicious (verbal) attacks of his own. He also revels in braggadocio and is known to be reluctant to take advice. Marco Rubio, a rival for the Republican nomination, questioned whether he had the temperament to be put in charge of the nuclear codes. So did Hillary Clinton. They were right to do so. But it is now Mr Trump, not them, who takes the biscuit.
There’s no way around it: Donald Trump looks like a disaster for the planet Vox by Brad Plumer@bradplumerbrad@vox.com Nov 9, 2016 This is happening. Donald Trump is going to be president of the United States.
And there’s no way around it: What he’s planning to do looks like an absolute disaster for the planet (and the people on it). Specifically, all the fragile but important progress the world has made on global warming over the past eight years is now in danger of being blown up.
Trump has been crystal clear about his environmental plans. Much of the media never wanted to bring it up, never wanted to ask about it in debates, never wanted to turn their addled attention away from Hillary Clinton’s email servers to discuss what a Trump presidency might mean for climate change. But the warning signs were there:
Trump called global warming a Chinese hoax. He couldn’t have been blunter about this. He also tapped Myron Ebell, an avowed climate denier, to head his EPA transition team.
Trump has said, straight up, he wants to scrap all the major regulations that President Obama painstakingly put in place to reduce US carbon dioxide emissions, including the Clean Power Plan. If Trump wants to rewrite these rules through executive action, he can. Or Republicans in Congress could try to pass a law forbidding the EPA from ever regulating CO2 again.
Trump has also hinted he wants to downsize the EPA. “What they do is a disgrace,” he has said. He now has the power to rewrite or scale back other regulations on mercury pollution, on ground-level ozone, on coal ash, and more.
Trump has said he wants to repeal all federal spending on clean energy, including R&D for wind, solar, nuclear power, and electric vehicles. This would require Congress, but it’s not impossible.
Trump has said he wants to pull the United States out of the Paris climate deal. There’s nothing stopping him here. Technically, the US can’t officially withdraw for four years, but for all practical purposes, the Trump administration could ignore it.
So what happens if Trump gets his way? More air pollution, more carbon emissions. Exactly how much more remains to be seen. There are, after all, plenty of other factors pushing down US emissions that Trump has no control over. Natural gas from fracking would continue to kill coal power. Wind and solar would continue to grow. But it’s nearly impossible to imagine emissions under Trump dropping at the sharp pace necessary to slow global warming. And emissions could even rise, as this analysis from Lux Research suggests.
Even more importantly, the impact of Trump’s moves on the rest of the world could be seismic.
The world is making cautious progress on global warming. Trump wants to blow that all up.
For the last eight years, the Obama administration has been using every regulatory lever at its disposal to push down US greenhouse gases — aiming for a 28 percent cut below 2005 levels by 2025. Obama has also been trying to coax countries like China to participate in a global climate deal, in which every country would voluntarily pledge to restrain its emissions and meet regularly at the UN to ratchet up ambitions over time.
That plan finally came to fruition last December, when the world agreed to a sweeping climate agreement in Paris. The Paris deal was always delicate, and the current pledges weren’t nearly enough to avoid dangerous global warming, defined as 2°C or more. But the deal was a start. And the hope was that by cooperating and exerting diplomatic pressure on each other, all countries would steadily increase action over time.
This plan, which Clinton wanted to build upon, was far from a sure bet to halt global warming. But it was arguably the most plausible and promising accord yet proposed in the history of international climate talks.
Now it’s in peril. If Trump yanks the United States out of the Paris agreement, the deal won’t die, but momentum could wane. One can imagine China and India deciding they don’t need to push nearly as hard on clean energy if the world’s richest and most powerful country doesn’t care. At best, progress would slow. At worst, the entire arrangement could falter, and we set out on a path for 4°C warming or more.
These are decisions that will reverberate for thousands of years and affect hundreds of millions of people. We can’t easily undo the effects of all that extra carbon dioxide we keep putting into the air. Without drastic reductions in emissions (or possibly risky geoengineering), global temperatures will keep rising. The ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica will keep melting. Once that process gets underway, we can’t reverse it. The seas will rise. South Florida will eventually vanish beneath the oceans. Megadroughts will become more likely in the Southwest. For generations and generations.
Deal with India undermines nuclear nonproliferation, Editorial Asahi Shimbun, November 9, 2016 Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to arrive in Japan on Nov. 10 for a summit with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to sign a bilateral deal that will open the way for Japan’s nuclear reactor exports to India.
When the two prime ministers reached a basic agreement on this deal in December last year, we expressed our opposition. We now renew our objection and strongly urge the Japanese government to reconsider.
India became a nuclear power without becoming a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). To provide nuclear technology to such a nation flatly contradicts Japan’s traditional calls for nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Naturally, objections to the Japan-India treaty have been raised, not only by Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors but also by citizens of many countries demanding the abolition of nuclear weapons.
The NPT recognizes only five nuclear powers–the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia–while promoting nuclear disarmament. The treaty also guarantees all other nations their right to peaceful use of nuclear power, such as operating nuclear reactors, provided they refrain from developing nuclear weapons.
In essence, the NPT prevents nations of the world from competing to develop nuclear weapons.
India has remained a nonsignatory to the NPT, objecting to the treaty’s unequal treatment of the nuclear powers and the rest of the world. But India has proceeded with nuclear development in the meantime on the pretext that this is for “peaceful purposes.”
We must say India has trampled on the very spirit of nuclear nonproliferation……..
India’s freeze on nuclear tests is merely voluntary, and the country has not even signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).
The Japanese government appears to be hoping to include in the bilateral agreement a clause to the effect that Japan will withdraw cooperation if India conducts a nuclear test.
But is there any guarantee that India will never extract plutonium from spent nuclear fuel from reactors made with Japanese technology and use the plutonium to build nuclear weapons?
When the United Nations adopted a resolution late last month to start negotiations on the Nuclear Weapons Convention, Japan opposed the resolution, saying it could undermine the NPT and the existing nuclear disarmament negotiations.
But the Japan-India nuclear deal may further weaken and even destroy the NPT.
Come to think of it, is it really appropriate for Japan, which caused the nuclear disaster at Fukushima, to export nuclear reactors to India?
We can never condone the folly of only seeking immediate commercial gains in selling nuclear reactors to a country that is turning its back on nuclear nonproliferation. http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201611090023.html
The ‘flexible’ carbon mitigation mechanism of National Determined Contributions that makes contribution to emission cuts voluntary allows for the watering down of the historic and current responsibility of big polluter countries like the United States and China. Pressure is unjustly put on low carbon economies of developing countries when there should be none in the first place.
There are no concrete commitments and mechanisms that will ensure adequate and unconditional support for climate vulnerable countries. Even more marginalized was the proposed mechanism for ‘Loss and Damage’ that sought to facilitate compensation from industrialized nations to vulnerable nations that are already suffering climate impacts.
Transnational corporations and financial institutions, meanwhile, are given free rein to promote multi-billion dollar false climate solutions such as mega hydro, clean coal, and nuclear power plants, timber plantations, carbon credits, and other projects that displace communities and degrade the environment.
These are just the tip of the iceberg.
There are bigger battles outside the Paris Agreement http://opinion.inquirer.net/98960/there-are-bigger-battles-outside-the-paris-agreementINQUIRER.net November 04, 2016 LEON DULCE
Campaign Coordinator Kalikasan People’s Network for the EnvironmentWe write with regard to the resurgence of debate on President Rodrigo Duterte’s ambivalence over the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, as it comes in a time when deeper public discourse and action on the climate crisis is urgently needed.
World leaders will gather at the United Nations “COP22″ climate talks once again to attempt to concretize the Paris Agreement’s agreed common actions on mitigating carbon emissions that induce climate change, adapting communities to worsening climate impacts, and ensuring financing, technology transfer, capacity building, and loss and damage mechanisms.
COP22’s commencement fittingly coincides with the Philippines’ commemoration of the third anniversary of Super Typhoon Yolanda (international name Haiyan). World leaders should be reminded that some 16 million people were severely affected by Yolanda’s powerful winds, floods and storm surges across the Philippines, and that these impacted communities are still struggling to recover three years later—a preview of what future climate norms are in store for us if climate disruption is left unfettered.
An alarming evidence of this was the findings of current Social Welfare Secretary Judy Taguiwalo that at least 200,000 Yolanda survivors have yet to receive emergency shelter assistance from the state because of discrimination by local politics during the Aquino administration.
Meanwhile, the specter of ‘disaster capitalism’ continues to haunt Yolanda survivors. Initial findings of an environmental investigation mission held by the Center for Environmental Concerns and scientist group AGHAM regarding the proposed P7.9-billion Leyte Tide Embankment Project revealed how the biggest post-Yolanda mega-infrastructure solution actually threatens the livelihood and environment of some 10,000 residents across the east coast of Leyte.
Unfortunately, there is still a yawning gap between the abject plight of Yolanda survivors and other frontline communities and the reality of the Paris Agreement.
The ‘flexible’ carbon mitigation mechanism of National Determined Contributions that makes contribution to emission cuts voluntary allows for the watering down of the historic and current responsibility of big polluter countries like the United States and China. Pressure is unjustly put on low carbon economies of developing countries when there should be none in the first place.
There are no concrete commitments and mechanisms that will ensure adequate and unconditional support for climate vulnerable countries. Even more marginalized was the proposed mechanism for ‘Loss and Damage’ that sought to facilitate compensation from industrialized nations to vulnerable nations that are already suffering climate impacts.
Transnational corporations and financial institutions, meanwhile, are given free rein to promote multi-billion dollar false climate solutions such as mega hydro, clean coal, and nuclear power plants, timber plantations, carbon credits, and other projects that displace communities and degrade the environment.
These are just the tip of the iceberg. It is hard not to cast a shadow of doubt over the Paris Agreement and the uphill battle to step up the pact’s ambition in the upcoming COP22. It is actually commendable how President Duterte asserts our people’s right to develop as the foundation of his argument, a right of vulnerable and poor nations that is given only tokenisms in the agreement.
The climate talks, however, are still a legitimate venue to advance the concrete needs and aspirations of our people.
President Duterte can take a leaf from the book of Bolivian President Evo Morales, who called out global capitalism as the root of the climate and environmental crises in his plenary speech at COP21 last year, or from Pope Francis who also called for system change with his encyclical “Laudato Sii.”
At COP22, Duterte can take up the cudgels for the Filipino people struggling for climate justice, from the Lumad, Igorot, and other indigenous peoples resisting big coal and metallic mines to the Yolanda survivors that will march once again on ‘ground zero’ come November 8 to assert their demands for resilient homes and livelihoods.
These are the bigger battles outside the Paris Agreement that need to be fought, as these are the ones winning the struggle against the global system that perpetuates climate injustice. Let these stories of struggles in the frontlines be at the core of the climate talks.
nuclear-news 