Kim Jong-un Moves to Increase North Korea’s Nuclear Strength
Kim Jong-un Moves to Increase North Korea’s Nuclear Strength, NYT, 24 May 20
After another weekslong absence from public view, Mr. Kim convened his top military body to promote top aides specializing in nuclear and missile forces.
USA’s Plan to spend Russia and China ‘into oblivion’ in arms race will bankrupt only America
|
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter In a stunning display of arrogance, ignorance, and hubris, President Trump’s new arms control czar threatens to spend America’s adversaries into “oblivion” in any new arms race. But the joke is on him.
Trump’s newly appointed Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control Marshall Billingslea has breathed new life into an historical interpretation that holds the United States won the Cold War with the Soviet Union by escalating an arms race that turned out to be unsustainable for Moscow, bankrupting the Soviet economy and accelerating the collapse of the Soviet Union as a political entity. In remarks made to the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank, Billingslea noted that the threat of a new arms race would be enough to bring both China and Russia to the negotiating table for the purpose of crafting a new trilateral arms control treaty that would replace the current bilateral New START treaty, scheduled to expire in February 2021. We intend to establish a new arms control regime now, precisely to prevent a full-blown arms race,” Billingslea said. If, however, either Russia or China (or both) decided to forego negotiations and continue to pursue new strategic nuclear weapons, then President Trump “has made clear that we have a tried and true practice here”.
|
|
NPT’s 50th Anniversary Encourages 17 Signatories To Remind Five Nuclear-Weapons States of Their Commitments
 NPT’s 50th Anniversary Encourages 17 Signatories To Remind Five Nuclear-Weapons States of Their Commitments IDN -In Depth News By UN Bureau, 24 May 20, NEW YORK (IDN) – The upcoming 2020 Review Conference of a landmark international treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, presents “a timely opportunity for the States Parties to undertake a comprehensive review and assessment” of its current status, says the Joint Communiqué issued on May 19 by 17 States Party to the NPT.
A total of 191 States have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States – USA; Russia, China, Britain and France – which entered into force in 1970. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, which analysts perceive as a testament to the Treaty’s significance. Signatories to the communique look forward to work with other States Parties. There is no doubt that the implementation of disarmament commitments would have allowed more resources to be allocated for sustainable development as well as international cooperation and preparedness to deal with such public health and global emergencies. “It is now time that States Parties translate words into concrete actions backed by clear and agreed-upon benchmarks and timelines. Only through such efforts can we look ahead towards a successful next 50 years of the NPT, improving on the important achievements of the last 50 years, which we presently commemorate,” accentuates the communique. Following is the full text of the Joint Communique:…… https://www.indepthnews.net/index.php/opinion/3564-five-nuclear-weapons-states-urged-to-fulfil-commitments-on-npt-s-50th-anniversary |
|
Saudi Arabia’s push for nuclear power – a nuclear weapons danger
Arms control experts concerned by Saudi nuclear reactor push, AljazeeraSatellite images show work progressing on Saudi reactor even though international IAEA inspectors are still frozen out. by Jonathan Tirone • Bloomberg. 22 May 2020 Saudi Arabia is pushing ahead to complete its first nuclear reactor, according to satellite images that have raised concern among arms-control experts because the kingdom has yet to implement international monitoring rules.
Satellite photos show the kingdom has built a roof over the facility before putting in place International Atomic Energy Agency regulations that allow inspectors early verification of the reactor’s design. Foregoing on-the-ground monitoring until after the research reactor is completed would be an unusual move normally discouraged under regulations to ensure civilian atomic programs aren’t used to make weapons.
Saudi Arabia has repeatedly pledged that its nuclear program is strictly for peaceful purposes, but Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman also said the kingdom would develop a bomb if its regional rival Iran did so. Those statements made in 2018 raised a red flag within the nuclear monitoring community which is uneasy that it has more ability to access nuclear sites in Iran than it does in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia’s ministry of energy didn’t respond to a request to comment.
While Saudi Arabia has been open about its ambitions to generate nuclear power, less is known about the kinds of monitoring the kingdom intends to put in place. President Donald Trump’s administration sent a letter to Saudi Arabia last year setting requirements to access U.S. atomic technology. The baseline for any agreement is tougher IAEA inspections.
…….. At issue is the weak and outdated set of IAEA safeguard rules, called the “Small Quantities Protocol,” or SQP, that Saudi Arabia continues to follow, according to Laura Rockwood, the IAEA’s former chief lawyer who drafted stricter inspection guidelines to which the vast majority of countries adhere.
Satellite images show that a thick lattice of roof beams is now covering the 10-meter (33 feet) high steel reactor vessel. Argentina’s state-owned INVAP SE sold the low-powered research reactor to Saudi Arabia.”The problem is that design-information verification has to be carried out while it’s being constructed,” said Rockwood, who now directs the Open Nuclear Network in Vienna
While Saudi Arabia adheres to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the bedrock agreement that regulates the spread of material needed to induce fission, it still has to implement monitoring rules in line with its nuclear program development.
“Saudi Arabia’s agreement right now is completely minimal, out of date, and unequal to the task of providing the kind of transparency that the IAEA and other member states need about Saudi Arabia’s nuclear program,” said Sharon Squassoni, a researcher and former diplomat on non-proliferation issues at George Washington University.
–With assistance from Verity Ratcliffe. https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/arms-control-experts-concerned-saudi-nuclear-reactor-push-200521155658787.html
Trump wants USA to hugely increase its nuclear weaponry
- Russian president said his arsenal also should be strengthened
- Obama has sought to both modernize and reduce U.S. weapons
President-elect Donald Trump said Thursday the U.S. should increase its nuclear arsenal, an apparent reversal of a decades-long reduction of the nation’s atomic weaponry that came hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated calls for his country’s arsenal to be reinforced.
“The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes,” Trump said in a Twitter post…….(subscribers only) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-22/trump-says-u-s-nuclear-arsenal-must-be-greatly-expanded
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty at risk, due to Donald Trump’s accusations ?
The report made waves for raising “concerns” about China’s adherence to a “zero-yield” nuclear testing standard, as called for by the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Although neither the United States or China has ratified the treaty, both have signed it, and both claim to abide by a nuclear testing moratorium.
US allegations in this regard are nothing new……….
Although US accusations are unlikely to be true, they could give a convenient pretext to officials who want to withdraw the US signature from the treaty, allowing the United States to resume its own nuclear testing. In fact, that may be the entire point. ……..
The treaty bans nuclear explosions, including hydronuclear testing, but it doesn’t prohibit all nuclear experiments. For example, it doesn’t prohibit preparations for nuclear tests, meaning that nuclear-weapon states can continue to maintain and staff their sites, and even place devices in boreholes or tunnels, provided that they don’t set them off. Both Russia and the United States conduct subcritical experiments (weapons-related work not involving an explosive chain reaction) and have been for decades. Since they are not generating yield, they are permissible under the treaty. In its rebuttal of the compliance report, Russia makes clear that it carries out “so-called subcritical tests, which,” it adds, “in no way run counter to our obligations in this area.”………
Why withdrawal would be lose-lose. If the United States is simply looking for a pretext to withdraw its signature so it can resume nuclear testing, that would be a lose-lose proposition.
First, it would give up a constraint on its strategic rivals, without receiving any clear benefits from its newfound freedom of action. While most nuclear weapon states have retained their capabilities to conduct tests by maintaining their tests sites and keeping staff on the books, they would all face different challenges to a resumption.
For China and the Russia, these obstacles can be overcome quickly, due to the nature of their political systems. Their test sites are maintained and appear to be in a state of readiness. For them, the main question would be whether they want to lose their diplomatic advantage by moving first to break the moratorium………
Perhaps the worst consequence of withdrawal, though, is that the United States would give up leverage to prevent future North Koreas from trying to join the nuclear club………..
…..the United States and Russia, if both were parties, could agree to mutual visits falling short of on-site inspections. They could decide on close monitoring of nuclear test sites. They could agree on the notification and monitoring of permitted activities, such as subcritical testing. Because the United States has not ratified, these options are not on the table. But it’s not too late. https://thebulletin.org/2020/05/will-the-trump-administrations-accusations-doom-the-nuclear-test-ban-treaty/
USA wants thousands of Hypersonic Missiles, using artificial intelligence
 The Coming Nuclear Menace: Hypersonic Missiles, CounterPunch, by KARL GROSSMAN 18 May 20, The United States is seeking to acquire “volumes of hundreds or even thousands” of nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles that are “stealthy” and can fly undetected at 3,600 miles per hour, five times faster than the speed of sound.Why so many? A Pentagon official is quoted in the current issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology as saying “we have to be careful we’re not building boutique weapons. If we build boutique weapons, we won’t—we’ll be very reluctant to—use them.”
The article in the aerospace industry trade journal is headlined: “Hypersonic Mass Production.” A subhead reads: “Pentagon Forms Hypersonic Industry ‘War Room.’” On March 19, 2020, the U.S. conducted its first hypersonic missile test from its Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, Hawaii. “Fast and Furiously Accurate” is the title of an article about hypersonic missiles written by a U.S. Navy officer which appeared last year on a U.S. Naval Institute website…….. The U.S. under President Trump withdrew last year from the INF treaty, a landmark agreement which had banned all land-based ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of from 310 to 3,420 miles. It had been signed in 1987 by President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. The treaty “marked the first time the superpowers had agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals, eliminate an entire category of nuclear weapons, and employ extensive on-site inspections for verification,” notes the Arms Control Association. “Hypersonic missiles may be unstoppable. Is society ready?” was the headline of an article in March in The Christian Science Monitor. This piece notes: “Hypersonic missiles are not just very fast, they are maneuverable and stealthy. This combination of speed and furtiveness means they can surprise an adversary in ways that conventional missiles cannot, while also evading radar detection. And they have injected an additional level of risk and ambiguity into what was already an accelerating arms race between nuclear-armed rivals.” The article raises the issue of the speed of hypersonic missiles miring military decisions. “For an incoming conventional missile, military commanders may have 30 minutes to detect and respond; a hypersonic missile could arrive at that same destination in 10 minutes.” Thus “artificial intelligence” or “AI” would be utilized…….. The hypersonic missiles will indeed likely be “invincible.” And they would be at the ready because of the withdrawal by the Trump administration of the INF treaty and other international arms control agreements, one after another. With the vast numbers of hypersonic nuclear-capable missiles being sought, the world will have fully returned to the madness in the depths the Cold War—as presented in the 1964 film Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. Apocalypse will be highly likely. Artificial intelligence is not going to save us. These weapons need to be outlawed, not produced and purchased en masse. And we must, indeed, “invest in diplomacy to develop community”—a global community at peace, not a world of horrific and unstoppable war. https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/05/18/the-coming-nuclear-menace-hypersonic-missiles/ More articles by:KARL GROSSMAN Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, and is the author of the book, The Wrong Stuff: The Space’s Program’s Nuclear Threat to Our Planet. Grossman is an associate of the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion.
|
|
Coronavirus likely to put a dint in USA’s nuclear weapons spending
ORDER FROM CHAOS, How COVID-19 might affect US nuclear weapons and planning Brookings Institute, Steven Pifer, May 18, 2020 Editor’s Note: As it examines the administration’s proposed fiscal year 2021 defense budget, Congress should carefully consider the trade-offs and press the Pentagon to articulate how it weighed the trade-offs between nuclear and conventional forces, writes Steven Pifer. This piece original appeared in the National Interest.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND BUDGETS
For the foreseeable future, the United States will continue to rely on nuclear deterrence for its security and that of its allies (whether we should be comfortable with that prospect is another question). Many U.S. nuclear weapons systems are aging, and replacing them will cost money, lots of money. The Pentagon’s five-year plan for its nuclear weapons programs proposes $29 billion in fiscal year 2021, rising to $38 billion in fiscal year 2025, as programs move from research and development to procurement. The plan envisages a total of $167 billion over five years. And that total may be understated; weapons costs increase not just as they move to the procurement phase, but as cost overruns and other issues drive the costs up compared to earlier projections……….
Some look at these figures and the overall defense budget (the Pentagon wants a total of $740 billion for fiscal year 2021) and calculate that the cost of building and operating U.S. nuclear forces will amount to “only” 6-7 percent of the defense budget. That may be true, but how relevant is that figure?
By one estimate, the cost of building and operating the F-35 fighter program for the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy and U.S. Marines over the program’s lifetime will be $1 trillion. Amortized over 50 years, that amounts to $20 billion per year or “only” 2.7 percent of the Defense Department’s fiscal year 2021 budget request. The problem is that these percentages and lots of other “small” percentages add up. When one includes all of the programs, plus personnel and readiness costs as well as everything else that the Pentagon wants, the percentages will total to more than 100 percent of the figure that Congress is prepared to appropriate for defense.
OPPORTUNITY COSTS
The defense budget is unlikely to grow. Opportunity costs represent the things the Pentagon has to give up or forgo in order to fund its nuclear weapons programs. The military services gave an indication of these costs with their “unfunded priorities lists,” which this year total $18 billion. These show what the services would like to buy if they had additional funds, and that includes a lot of conventional weapons…………
These are the opportunity costs of more nuclear weapons: fewer dollars for aircraft, ships, attack submarines and ground combat equipment for conventional deterrence and defense…………..
If the United States and its allies have sufficiently robust conventional forces, they can prevail in a regional conflict at the conventional level and push any decision about first use of nuclear weapons onto the other side (Russia, or perhaps China or North Korea depending on the scenario).The other side would have to weigh carefully the likelihood that its first use of nuclear weapons would trigger a nuclear response, opening the decidedly grim prospect of further nuclear escalation and of things spinning out of control. The other side’s leader might calculate that he/she could control the escalation, but that gamble would come with no guarantee. It would appear a poor bet given the enormous consequences if things go wrong. Happily, the test has never been run.
This is why the opportunity costs of nuclear weapons programs matter. If those programs strip too much funding from conventional forces, they weaken the ability of the United States and its allies to prevail in a conventional conflict—or to deter that conflict in the first place—and increase the possibility that the United States might have to employ nuclear weapons to avert defeat………
The United States and NATO still retain the option of first use of nuclear weapons. If the U.S. president and NATO leaders were to consider resorting to that option, they then would be the ones to have to consider the dicey bet that the other side would not respond with nuclear arms or that, if it did, nuclear escalation somehow could be controlled.
Assuring NATO allies that the United States was prepared to risk Chicago for Bonn consumed a huge amount of time and fair amount of resources during the Cold War…….
In modernizing, maintaining and operating a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent, the United States should avoid underfunding conventional forces in ways that increase the prospect of conventional defeat and/or that might tempt an adversary to launch a conventional attack. If Washington gets the balance wildly out of sync, it increases the possibility that the president might face the decision of whether to use nuclear weapons first—knowing that first use would open a Pandora’s box of incalculable and potentially catastrophic consequences.
GETTING THE BALANCE RIGHT IN THE COVID19 ERA
This means that the Department of Defense and Congress should take a hard look at
|
the balance. The Pentagon presumably has weighed the trade-offs, though it is not a unitary actor. “Nuclear weapons are our top priority” has been the view of the leadership…….. The response to the virus and dealing with the economic disruption it has caused have generated a multi-trillion-dollar budget deficit in 2020 and likely will push up deficits in at least 2021. It would be wise now to consider the impact of COVID19. Having added trillions of dollars to the federal deficit, and facing an array of pressing health and social needs, will Congress be prepared to continue to devote some 50 percent of discretionary funding to the Department of Defense’s requirements? Quite possibly not. ………. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/05/18/how-covid-19-might-affect-us-nuclear-weapons-and-planning/ |
|
USA’s F-35’s Nuclear Weapons Upgrade Delayed as Program Costs Top $1.6 Trillion
According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a congressional watchdog agency, the F-35’s planned Block 4 upgrade has been delayed by nine months, pushing the plane’s full-rate production decision back to sometime between September 2020 and March 2021
While Block 4 will integrate a number of new weapons into the F-35’s repertoire, such as Naval Strike Missile, the Meteor and SPEAR missiles and several laser-guided bombs, by far the most consequential weapon is the B61 nuclear gravity bomb, which is small enough to fit inside the F-35’s internal weapons bay.
Via the F-35 Block 4, NATO partners who wield US nuclear weapons thanks to nuclear sharing agreements will be able to continue to carry out nuclear strikes. With the Panavia Tornado exiting service with most European partners, a delay in fielding the F-35 Block 4 could leave a gap in NATO’s nuclear capabilities, especially for the Italian, Dutch and Belgian air forces.
However, the GAO report also notes the enormity of the Block 4 upgrade has driven up costs in the already colossal lifetime budget for the F-35. Noting that in 2019 it projected a baseline increase of $8 billion because of Block 4, the GAO stated in its Tuesday report that the update’s development and procurement costs are now estimated to be $13.9 billion and “that the sustainment costs to operate and maintain the F-35 fleet for its planned 66-year life cycle are $1.2 trillion, bringing the total cost of the F-35 program to over $1.6 trillion.”
“The planned $13.9 billion Block 4 effort exceeds the statutory and regulatory thresholds for what constitutes a major defense acquisition program, and Block 4 is more expensive than many of the other major weapon acquisitions already in DOD’s portfolio,” the GAO further states.
To provide better oversight into Block 4 activities, in 2016, we recommended that the Secretary of Defense hold a milestone B review – a critical point in an acquisition program leading to the engineering and manufacturing development phase – and manage it as a separate major defense acquisition program. DOD did not concur with our recommendation, and it continues to manage Block 4 within the larger F-35 program. We maintain that DOD should manage the Block 4 activities as a separate program.”The oversight office further advised the Pentagon to continue oversight reports on Block 4 upgrade progress through 2026, even though its budget only provides for updates through 2023.
A mistaken idea, to put U.S. nuclear weapons in Poland
|
US nukes in Poland are a truly bad idea, Brookings Institute, Steven PiferMonday,May 18, 2020 On May 15, the U.S. Ambassador in Warsaw, Georgette Mosbacher, suggested relocating U.S. nuclear weapons based in Germany to Poland. One hopes this was just a mistake by a political appointee unfamiliar with NATO nuclear weapons issues, not a reflection of official U.S. government thinking. Moving nuclear weapons to Poland would prove very problematic.
The U.S. Air Force maintains 20 B61 nuclear gravity bombs at Buchel Air Base in Germany (as well as B61 bombs on the territory of four other NATO members). Kept under U.S. custody, the bombs could, with proper authorization in a conflict, be made available for delivery by German Tornado fighter-bombers. This is part of NATO’s “nuclear sharing” arrangements.
The Tornados are aging, and the German Ministry of Defense is considering purchasing F-18 aircraft to continue the German Air Force’s nuclear delivery capability. That has reopened debate within Germany about the presence of U.S. nuclear arms there, with Social Democratic Party (SPD) parliamentary leader Rolf Mützenich calling for their removal……….
First, moving U.S. nuclear weapons to Poland would be expensive……
Second, deploying the B61 bombs in Poland would make them more vulnerable to Russian preemptive attack in a crisis or conflict……
Third, placing nuclear weapons in Poland would be hugely provocative to Russia. …..
Fourth, a U.S. proposal to relocate its nuclear weapons to Poland would prove very divisive within NATO. The members of the alliance stated in 1997 that “they have no intention, no plan, and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new [NATO] members.” They incorporated that into the “Founding Act” that established relations between NATO and Russia…… https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/05/18/us-nukes-in-poland-are-a-truly-bad-idea/
|
|
Britain’s Ministry of Defence continues its costly mistakes in nuclear weapons and submarines
Dundee Courier 16th May 2020, A Fife MP has lifted the lid on “astonishing and deeply worrying”
mistakes made by the Ministry of Defence, which have led to the costs of replacing Britain’s nuclear weapons and nuclear submarines soaring by a staggering £1.35 billion.
Glenrothes and Central Fife SNP MP Peter Grant, who sits on parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, has described the situation as “unacceptable” following the release of a new report that
suggests errors made by the MoD are being repeated more than 30 years after
they were first highlighted by Britain’s public spending watchdog.
French government tries to downgrade radiation risk, avoid compensating Polynesian victims of nuclear testing
Outrage in Tahiti over French nuclear law moves, https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/416865/outrage-in-tahiti-over-french-nuclear-law-moves There has been an outcry in French Polynesia over moves by the French National Assembly to slip a clause about compensation over nuclear weapons testing into Covid-19 legislation.
A French Polynesian member of the French Assembly Moetai Brotherson said it was a scandal that this was added into deliberations when French Polynesia’s members were away from Paris because of the pandemic.
The nuclear test veterans organisations, Moruroa e tatou and Association 193, also expressed outrage.
The French government wants to re-introduce the concept of neglible risk of the tests in compensation cases after a court ruling had done away with it.
Over a 30-year period of France’s weapons tests in the South Pacific some of the atmospheric blasts irradiated most islands.
Mr Brotherson said he had only just heard about the National Assembly move and wondered what the French Polynesian people had ever done to be so detested by the French state.
Hiro Tefaarere of Moruroa e tatou said he was outraged but not surprised about the way France was going about it.
He said all presidents, from de Gaulle to Macron, couldn’t care less about Polynesians, and although France was responsible for public health in Tahiti it failed to keep a register to see how many people died because of fallout from the weapons tests.
Auguste Uebe Carlson, who heads Association 193, said France kept refusing to recognise the impact of the tests, using instead propaganda to say they were clean or a thing of the past.
He said nothing was recognised, with health problems now being attributed to poor diet and life-style choices.
ast year, French Polynesia’s social security agency calculated that it had so far spent $US770 million on health care costs for people deemed to have radiation-induced illnesses.
Iran’s Nuclear and Military Efforts in the Shadow of Coronavirus and Economic Collapse
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Notwithstanding the difficult challenges of the coronavirus crisis and a deteriorating economy, Iran is pushing ahead with its uranium enrichment and missile and space programs as well as its activities in Syria. It also has yet to concede to the US in their clash over sailing in the Gulf. Tehran fears that any sign of weakness might endanger the Islamist regime, particularly as resentment continues to grow among ordinary Iranians. With that in mind, it is doing all it can to flex its muscles for both domestic and international audiences………
The latest IAEA report says the agency continues to liaise with Iranian authorities regarding IAEA inspections of natural (non-enriched) uranium particles of an anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) source from an Iranian site that has not yet been declared to IAEA: the warehouse in Turkuzabad, a suburb of Tehran, which was unveiled by Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu in a speech to the UN General Assembly on September 27, 2018. According to the BBC on March 3, the IAEA dispatched a document to several member states claiming that Iran has rejected a request to allow inspection access to three other unidentified sites as well. According to the document, the inspectors want to find out if natural uranium is being used at any of the sites from which they are being barred. At another site, the IAEA says there have been activities that are “consistent with efforts to sanitize part of the location.”
Iran’s violations of the nuclear agreement—its raising of the uranium enrichment rate to 4.5% and accumulation of uranium in excess of the 300 kg UF6 limit—does not currently have a military aspect. This is because uranium enriched at a rate of less than 5% is suitable solely as a nuclear fuel for power reactors and cannot be used for nuclear weapons (for which the enrichment degree required is at least 90%). Iranian officials claim these violations are meant to pressure the EU into neutralizing the sanctions imposed on Iran by the US……..
Iran’s overall situation is quite distressing. The Iranian people have lost faith in the regime—especially now, in view of the ravages of the coronavirus pandemic. The people (along with the rest of the world) doubt the official casualty figures. At this writing, the regime is claiming about 110,000 cases and about 6,800 deaths, but the true numbers are estimated to be much higher. This distrust became stronger against the backdrop of the authorities’ false reporting of the downing of a Ukrainian passenger jet on January 8 after takeoff from Tehran (most of its passengers were either Iranian or of Iranian origin).
The coronavirus outbreak has dealt a new blow to the Iranian economy, which had already collapsed in 2018 as a result of US sanctions. The real (the Iranian currency) plummeted to unprecedented lows, and the Iranian street expressed its anger that the regime had wasted so much money on its operations in Syria. According to the London Arab newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat on January 1, 2020, Iranian president Rouhani said damage to the Iranian economy resulting from sanctions by the end of 2019 was $200 billion…….
It is highly doubtful that the Iranian people are ready to eat grass in order to bring the regime’s dreams of an Iranian nuclear bomb to fruition. Though the mullahs’ goal of becoming a regional power that controls Shiite Islam across the Middle East remains unfulfilled, the regime continues to do what it can to demonstrate its power. The object is to show the world that Iran is not capitulating to the US in any way—not regarding its nuclear and space programs, and not militarily. It also seeks to project an image of strength to the increasingly resentful Iranian people, as it fears that signs of weakness could bring an end to its rule. However, the regime’s investments in security at the expense of the nation’s welfare may turn out to boomerang against it. https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/iran-nuclear-military-efforts/
Pacific nuclear bomb tests interfered with rain patterns in UK
Pacific nuclear bomb tests made it rain 1,000s of miles away in UK, Reading University scientists find, Berkshire Live
During the Cold War, detonations in locations as remote as the Nevada Desert or Pacific islands had unforeseen consequences elsewhere in the world By Ian Hughes 17 MAY 2020
Nuclear bomb tests during the Cold War changed rainfall patterns thousands of miles from the detonation sites, according to scientists at the University of Reading.
They found electric charge released by radiation from detonations – carried out predominantly by the US and Soviet Union in the 1950s and 1960s – affected rain clouds at the time.
It means tests in remote locations such as the Nevada Desert or Pacific islands, had an effect on precipitation as far away as the Shetlands – 300 miles off the coast of Scotland.
A study used historic records between 1962-64 from a research station on the Scottish island.
Scientists compared days with high and low radioactively-generated charge, finding that clouds were visibly thicker, and there was 24 per cent more rain on average on the days with more radioactivity…………
It is thought researchers will now have a better understanding of important weather processes.
Although detonations were carried out in remote parts of the world during the Cold War, radioactive pollution spread widely throughout the atmosphere.
Radioactivity ionises the air, releasing electric charge.
The researchers, from the Universities of Reading, Bath and Bristol, studied records from well-equipped Met Office research weather stations at Kew near London and Lerwick in the Shetland Isles.
Shetland, in particular, was relatively unaffected by other sources of anthropogenic pollution. This made it well suited as a test site to observe rainfall effects which, although likely to have occurred elsewhere too, would be much more difficult to detect.
The Shetland rainfall on more than 150 days showed differences which vanished after the major radioactivity episodes were over.
The study was published in Physical Review Letters. https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/reading-berkshire-news/pacific-nuclear-bomb-tests-made-18248407
Nuclear war between India and Pakistan very unlikely
|
‘Very dim chances of India, Pakistan nuclear war’
2 neighbors became nuclear power in May 1998 triggering new arms race in region, AA, Aamir Latif |15.05.2020 KARACHI, PakistanPakistan’s top nuclear scientist sees “very dim” chances of a nuclear war with neighboring India despite mounting tensions between the two arch-rivals in recent months. “I won’t say a zero chance but there are very dim chances of a war between the two neighbors involving nuclear arsenal despite escalating tensions,” Samar Mubarakmand, a former chairman of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), and head of a team of the scientists that conducted six “successful” nuclear tests in remote Chaghi district of southwestern Balochistan province on May 28, 1998……… “The leadership of both countries are fully aware of the catastrophe a nuclear war can cause. They won’t go for that option no matter how tense the situation is,” observed Mubarakmand, who served at PAEC from 1962 to 2007 and played a key role in developing the country’s nuclear program. Conventional provocations, he said, would continue between the two longtime rivals but, he reckoned, both sides would not “cross the limit” to go for nuclear option. Both countries have long been reeling from poverty, illiteracy, and other health and economic issues. Wars or undue competition in arms race are not in the interest of the two nations,” he maintained. Nuclear powers India boasts the world’s third-largest army after the US and China, with an active troop strength of over 1.3 million. Pakistan, meanwhile, stands eighth on the list with a 600,000-man army……… https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/-very-dim-chances-of-india-pakistan-nuclear-war/1841657 |
|
|
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (82)
- 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)
- June 2025 (348)
-
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 