Trilateral Track 2 Nuclear Dialogues Consensus Statement
Trilateral Track 2 Nuclear Dialogues Consensus Statement https://www.rusi.org/rusi-news/trilateral-track-2-nuclear-dialogues-consensus-statement News, 4 May 2020
United States, Americas, France, Proliferation and Nuclear Policy, UK, Europe
The 2019 Consensus Statement, signed by all track 2 delegates and published on 13 March 2020, can be found here. Topics discussed during the 2019 dialogues include: the future of the rules-based international nuclear order; the role of alliances; new risks and challenges for escalation and strategy; nuclear responsibility and transparency.
Professor Malcolm Chalmers, RUSI’s Deputy Director-General, states:
Tom Plant, Director of RUSI’s Proliferation and Nuclear Policy programme, observed that:
The 2019 Consensus Statement makes several striking recommendations – on the need for extension of New START, on the role of the Iran nuclear deal as the starting point for any new arrangement, and on the importance of reaffirming at the highest levels the principle that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought” – but perhaps most significant is its call for the UK, US and France to be more open on nuclear weapons issues. In highlighting the potential for information operations to exploit unnecessary secrecy to weaken public and international trust, and to undermine efforts to maintain stability and deterrence, it indicates a valuable and urgent area of focus for our three governments.
Peter Watkins, formerly Director General in the UK Ministry of Defence responsible for strategic defence policy, and currently an Associate Fellow with Chatham House, comments that:
At a time of growing risks to international stability and increasing pressure on the international arms control framework, it is more critical than ever to build political and public understanding of the achievements of arms control – not least the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty itself – and the role of credible, responsible deterrence policies. That is the essential mission of these trilateral talks.
Sir Tony Brenton, formerly the British Ambassador to Russia, and currently a Fellow at Wolfson College Cambridge, highlights that:
In the last few years North Korea has become the world’s ninth nuclear armed state, Russia has announced a radical modernisation of its nuclear arsenal, the deal holding Iran back from going nuclear has collapsed, and the world’s nuclear arms control regime may be on its deathbed. These are deeply worrying developments which underline the importance of the trilateral nuclear dialogue as a way of helping the three Western nuclear powers to stay in close touch on them.
Professor Sir David Omand of the War Studies Department of King’s College London states:
These trilateral discussions provide a unique opportunity to bring together those in the US, UK, and France who had long experience in maintaining responsible nuclear stewardship over many years with current officials who are carrying the responsibility today. It is important that governments, amongst all the other pressing issues facing them, recognise the importance of the nuclear policy and arms control issues that were raised in these discussions.
Tom McKane, formerly Director General for strategy in the UK Ministry of Defence, and currently a Distinguished Fellow at RUSI, outlines that:
At a time when the world felt increasingly unsafe and there are well-founded concerns about the potential for miscalculation and misunderstanding in relation to nuclear deterrence and proliferation, the Trilateral discussions promote real understanding of these important subjects.
Sam Dudin, the UK Nuclear Policy Research Fellow at RUSI, comments that:
These dialogues have called on P3 governments to do more to develop and communicate a narrative supporting their nuclear deterrence policies and nuclear arms control, as part of a genuine, substantive and well-informed debate on nuclear weapons, facilitated by greater transparency with our publics. At a time when the old architecture of nuclear arms control is collapsing, such a debate might outline where there is potential to strike a new arms control deal.
Raytheon selected to Build New Nuclear Cruise Missile [ Trump has shares]
Raytheon to Build New Nuclear Cruise Missile , Arms Control Association, May 2020, By Kingston Reif
The U.S. Air Force announced last month that it plans to continue development of a new fleet of nuclear air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) with Raytheon Co. as the sole contractor.
“After an extensive evaluation of contractor programmatic and technical approach during…preliminary design reviews, the Air Force decided to focus on Raytheon’s design,” according to an April 17 service press release.
In August 2017, the Air Force awarded a $900 million contract to Raytheon and a $900 million contract to Lockheed Martin Corp. to proceed with development of the ALCM replacement, known as the long-range standoff (LRSO) weapon. (See ACT, October 2017.) The contracts were intended to cover a 54-month period of development after which the Air Force would choose one of the contractors to complete development and begin production.
The service’s rationale for focusing on one contractor roughly two years earlier than planned is unclear………The Trump administration is requesting $1.5 billio
n for the missile and warhead in fiscal year 2021.https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2020-05/news/raytheon-build-new-nuclear-cruise-missile
New START is the only U.S.-Russian nuclear treaty still in effect. Time to renew it
|
Minister Lavrov was specific that Washington must agree to extend New START before Russia would agree to include new Russian systems in future negotiations. Secretary Pompeo reiterated the U.S. position that future arms control talks must embrace the White House desire to include China in a trilateral arms control agreement. Frankly, holding New START hostage to Chinese agreement to join a trilateral negotiation makes no sense. Under New START, Russia and the U.S. are permitted to deploy up to 1,550 nuclear warheads. China maintains a minimum deterrence force that the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency recently stated to be a couple of hundred nuclear warheads. Given this large disparity, China has little to gain from negotiating and has shown little interest in doing so. If Russia and the U.S. can bring their numbers down significantly through a new round of negotiations, there could be a basis then to persuade China to join a trilateral negotiation. The Trump administration should immediately accept the Russian offer to extend the New START Treaty and to engage in a new round of strategic arms negotiations. New START is the only U.S.-Russian nuclear treaty still in effect. If the pact is permitted to expire in February 2021, there will be no limits on Russian strategic systems and no inspection regime to verify what types and numbers of systems the Russians are deploying. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Intelligence Community are solidly in favor of extending New START because they know what the adverse impact will be on our ability to assess the threat to U.S. interests and our planning to address that threat. A bold approach the U.S. should consider is to enter into a negotiation now with Russia to extend New START at a lower level of 1,000 deployed warheads from the currently authorized 1,550. During the 2010 negotiations on New START, the Joint Chiefs certified that 1,000 would be adequate to support our deterrence strategy. …….. https://thehill.com/opinion/international/494960-time-to-restart-nuclear-arms-negotiations-with-russia |
|
16 Japanese Financial institutions won’t invest in companies involved in nuclear weapons
Many Japanese lenders refuse to invest in companies linked to nuclear arms https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/05/03/business/corporate-business/many-japanese-lenders-refuse-invest-companies-linked-nuclear-arms/#.Xq8zaqgzbIU
KYODO Sixteen Japanese financial institutions say they refrain from investing in and extending loans to companies involved in the manufacturing of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, according to a Kyodo News survey released Sunday.
The survey found the lenders set guidelines for such issues in an effort to avert international criticism against conducting business with nuclear-related companies amid growing public perceptions about the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
The 16 lenders include three megabanks — MUFG Bank under Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc., Mizuho Bank under Mizuho Financial Group Inc., and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. under Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc. — as well as Japan Post Bank Co. and Resona Bank under Resona Holdings Inc.
Kyodo sent a written questionnaire to a total of 119 city banks, regional banks and online banks from late February to early March. Of those, 35 responded.
About 70 percent of the total did not answer because they said they have never discussed the issue.
A Resona Bank official said the Osaka-based lender drew up written rules in March 2018 that it will not invest in nuclear, anti-personnel mines and other such fields due to rising international criticism against conducting businesses with companies involved in the manufacturing and development of weapons of mass destruction.
Eleven other lenders possessing such guidelines are Saitama Resona Bank in Saitama Prefecture, Aozora Bank in Tokyo, SBI Sumishin Net Bank, Hokkaido Bank and North Pacific Bank in Hokkaido, Tohoku Bank in Iwate Prefecture, Ogaki Kyoritsu Bank in Gifu Prefecture, Kansai Mirai Bank in Osaka Prefecture, Minato Bank in Hyogo Prefecture, Higo Bank in Kumamoto Prefecture and Kagoshima Bank in Kagoshima Prefecture.
According to the survey, nine respondents including Hokkaido Bank, the Bank of Kochi in Kochi Prefecture and Oita Bank in Oita Prefecture said they backed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Of 20 lenders expressing reservation about the 2017 U.N. nuclear ban treaty, five questioned the Japanese government’s reluctance to sign it.
Japan does not possess nuclear weapons but remains under the nuclear umbrella of the United States.
Twelve respondents including Tohoku Bank, Higo Bank and the Bank of Toyama in Toyama Prefecture said they think the adoption of the U.N. pact would generate risks in the future to investment in nuclear-related companies.
None of the 35 respondents said they have provided funds to companies developing intercontinental ballistic missiles, bombers capable of loading nuclear weapons and other nuclear weapons-linked infrastructure.
However, the three megabanks declined to disclose their investments in nuclear-related companies.
While welcoming the 16 lenders for supporting such guidelines, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, or ICAN, a nongovernmental organization and the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, said it suspects some still continue to invest in nuclear-related businesses.
“Companies that manufacture nuclear weapons conduct businesses in other areas,” said Akira Kawasaki, a member of the International Steering Group of ICAN. “We see it as a perception gap between us and some banks that claim they abstain from investing in nuclear weapons manufacturing businesses.”
ICAN wants those banks to disclose details about their guidelines, Kawasaki said.
UK ignored warnings about pandemic danger, cut health funding, spent up big on nuclear weapons
 Pride: why the UK spent billions on nuclear bombs but ignored  pandemic threat https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/pride-why-uk-spent-billions-nuclear-bombs-ignored-pandemic-threat/
A viral outbreak was judged more likely than a nuclear attack – so why was Trident ring-fenced while NHS funding was cut? Richard Norton-Taylor 30 April 2020 We now know that the government was warned last year that a viral pandemic posed the greatest potential threat to the country. In a confidential briefing from the Cabinet Office, which was leaked last week, ministers were told that tens of thousands lives could be at risk if an outbreak occurred. Among the recommendations were stockpiling PPE (personal protective equipment) and establishing plans for a contact tracing system.
It was not the first time that warnings fell on deaf ears. In 2014, the Ministry of Defence advised that “alertness to changing trends” was vital to mitigating the likelihood of a pandemic. Senior civilian and military officials promptly shoved the report into a draw where it was left to gather dust.
To make matters worse, the austerity programme carried out over the last decade, has led to significant cuts to government projects and public services, including the NHS, that would ready us for a pandemic. There has, however, been one notable exception to the cuts – the country’s nuclear weapons arsenal. Tens of billions continue to be spent on weapons that are of no use against the types of attacks judged a possible threat to the UK in the government’s National Risk Register. The latest register, drawn up in 2017, refers only to the need to protect nuclear power stations and the possibility of chemical, biological and nuclear material attacks by terrorists. But it adds that terrorists’ use of conventional weapons is “far more likely”. Successive governments have described Britain’s nuclear arsenal as an “ultimate insurance” against an attack, or blackmail, by a foreign power. If that is the case, then why did the government not increase its healthcare spending as insurance against what it knew was a far greater threat – an infectious pandemic. Defenders of Britain’s nuclear weapons argue that they are needed for political reasons, to preserve Britain’s status as world power. But arguments about whether nuclear weapons would ever be considered a realistic or effective threat against a potential aggressor are dodged. Continue reading |
Could President Trump launch a nuclear attack via Twitter?
|
The proverbial “big red button” is one of the most important responsibilities that a U.S. President has. But Americans know very little about it.
Last week, he said that is ordering the Navy to “shoot down and destroy” Iranian boats that get too close to U.S. ships, and then the Pentagon turned it into a reminder that “our ships retain the right of self-defense.” Do you see any situations where the President says something ambiguous, and then the military has to figure out whether he meant to use nuclear weapons, or some other similarly drastic measure?…….. The modern military has long adapted to the idea that nuclear weapons are a relatively clunky think to imagine using in practice. They might work as a strategic threat, but the United States benefits a lot more from not using them, and from using our many conventional options that are very diverse and capable, instead.
If we normalize the use of nuclear weapons, we are a very big target…….
I do worry about—it’s somewhat clear that the President and the military have a complicated communications relationship. There have a number of things that the President announced via Twitter, that he clearly did not get full consent from the military on or did not even inform them on……. Maybe your secure phone lines don’t work. Maybe your regular phone lines don’t work. You could imagine a situation in which Twitter is the only channel by which the President can communicate with the military, and he would tweet out an order on it, but it would have to be a very well-formed order. ……
if the President’s Twitter account suddenly started tweeting legitimate nuclear authentication codes and nuclear launch orders, I think that would raise a lot of questions for the military. Even in that situation, assuming they don’t see incoming missiles coming at them—which is to say, they’re not under any belief that this is a true, obviously unambiguous nuclear war situation—I think that would go through rather extreme efforts to contact the White House, or the Secretary of Defense, and/or anybody around there, just to find out if this was real or not.
That would definitely be a weird way for the world to end. |
|
Russia warns US against using low-yield nuclear weapons, threatening all-out retaliation
Russia warns US against using low-yield nuclear weapons, threatening all-out retaliation, SCMP, 29 Apr 20
US State Department had argued that deploying such warheads in submarines would help counter new threats from China and Russia
Moscow says any attack involving submarine-launched missiles will be perceived as nuclear aggression
, warning that an attempt to use such weapons against Russia would trigger an all-out nuclear retaliation.
The US State Department argued in a paper released last week that fitting the low-yield nuclear warheads to submarine-launched ballistic missiles would help counter potential new threats from Russia and China…… https://www.scmp.com/news/world/russia-central-asia/article/3082226/russia-warns-us-against-using-low-yield-nuclear
U.S. govt disregards nuclear diseconomics, pushes new nuclear power to support nuclear weapons
On April 23 the strongly pro-nuclear results of the Nuclear Fuel Working Group (NFWG) were made public by the US Department of Energy (DoE)
Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette announced the NFWG’s results and urged:
- Taking immediate and bold action to strengthen the uranium mining and conversion industries and restore the viability of the entire front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle.
• Utilizing American technological innovation and advanced nuclear RD&D investments to consolidate technical advances and strengthen American leadership in the next generation of nuclear energy technologies.
• Ensuring that there will be a healthy and growing nuclear energy sector to which uranium miners, fuel cycle providers, and reactor vendors can sell their products and services.
• Taking a whole-of-government approach to supporting the U.S. nuclear energy industry in exporting civil nuclear technology in competition with state-owned enterprises.”
Brouillette’s announcement also undermines the long-cultivated narrative that ‘peaceful / civil use’ and military application of nuclear power would be separate – instead, it explicitly references the connection between the civil and military nuclear sectors:
“The United States currently has two well-defined future defense needs for domestic uranium supply: low-enriched uranium needed to produce tritium required for nuclear weapons in the 2040s, and highly-enriched uranium needed to fuel Navy nuclear reactors in the 2050s.
The Strategy also recognizes that U.S. national security is truly integrated with the health of the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle – the United States needs a strong civil nuclear industry to enable national defense.” (underlining not in the original)
US DoE at the same date published a NFWG Factsheet: Strategy to Restore American Nuclear Energy Leadership
Poll shows that Americans favour a no-first-use of nuclear weapons policy
|
Poll: What the American public likes and hates about Trump’s nuclear policies, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jonathon Baron, Stephen Herzog, April 27, 2020 It is difficult to overstate the importance of nuclear policy in determining a US presidential candidate’s fitness to be commander-in-chief. Such priorities are evident in the Bulletin’s recently published special issue dedicated to discussing nuclear weapons policy ahead of the 2020 election. Nuclear issues played a prominent role in the 2016 election, but despite some anomalies, they have hardly factored into the 2020 campaign. This is almost certain to change even as priority is given to the COVID-19 pandemic response. Nevertheless, very few recent polls (with one notable exception) have attempted to identify preferences among the US population for President Donald Trump’s nuclear policies.
To fill this gap, we worked with the firm YouGov in late 2018 after the release of the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review to conduct a nationally representative survey of 1,000 Americans. Previous surveys have illuminated US public attitudes on nuclear energy, extending the New START treaty, and even hypothetical nuclear retaliatory scenarios. It isn’t clear, however, how Americans view the core elements of the Trump administration’s nuclear policy: its Nuclear Posture Review and its overall strategies toward Iran and North Korea. We report our study results publicly for the first time here, offering insights for policymakers and presidential candidates as they weigh their positions on nuclear issues Nuclear Posture Review. The study highlights how the US public as a whole and various demographic groups view Trump’s positions on nuclear weapons. To begin, we asked respondents to indicate whether they supported, opposed, or were unsure about key parts of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. Of course, many elements of the Trump administration’s nuclear posture are continuations of longstanding US policy that have been preserved by Republican and Democratic presidents alike. Our survey questions did not indicate the current US administration’s policy on different parts of the Nuclear Posture Review. So the results convey the respondents’ natural preferences for the policies themselves, not for the current occupant of the White House. Such data should prove useful to politicians staking out campaign stances on nuclear weapons that would have broad public appeal. Our findings reveal that Americans overall express fairly low support for the administration’s nuclear weapons policies, though indecision also runs high among the public. Further, the table of group preferences indicates—with a few surprising exceptions—that males, Republicans, and older Americans are the most likely groups to back President Trump on nuclear issues. Even so, support is relatively modest among Trump’s base, and several elements of the Nuclear Posture Review do not receive majority or even plurality support from Republicans……. Only 34 percent of Americans support the longstanding policy of providing the nuclear umbrella in principle, and that number drops to 27.9 percent for nuclear deployments in Europe. …..men and Republicans remain the most supportive of the nuclear umbrella and forward-deployed B61 nuclear bombs. Women, Democrats, and Independents respond less favorably. Additionally, Americans who came of age during the Cold War are more favorable toward these policies than their Millennial and Generation Z counterparts……. fewer than 20 percent of Americans support possible US first use of nuclear weapons. By contrast, disapproval stands at 63.5 percent……The public is also broadly unsupportive of using nuclear weapons in response to cyberattacks……. a majority of every demographic group of Americans—whether by gender, political party, age, race, education, income, or region of residence—oppose a first-use doctrine. Public opinion may accordingly present opportunities for presidential candidates to favor a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons………. https://thebulletin.org/2020/04/poll-what-the-american-public-likes-and-hates-about-trumps-nuclear-policies/# |
|
|
Taxes, COVID-19 and nuclear weapons funding – America’s priorities
While dealing with the surreal impact of the current COVID-19 health crisis, the nuclear arms race forges ahead, spiraling out of control, as the U.S. pushes to lead the way in building a nuclear arsenal whose sole purpose — if it ever were to be used — is threatening to end life as we know it on our planet. Climate change is the second human-caused existential threat and is also connected to the threat of recurring pandemics and nuclear war.
The COVID-19 pandemic demands that we reassess our priorities through the lens of caring for one another and our basic human needs addressing income, health and environmental inequities across the nation that are so apparent at this time.
As the planet warms, habitat for animals, bacteria, parasites and viruses change — bringing the health of animals, humans and the planet into a new reality. In addition, climate changes human migration and resource availability, causing conflict which — under the right circumstances — can lead ultimately to war. We need to rethink how we spend our financial resources to address these interconnected issues.
Each year, Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles publishes our Nuclear Weapons Community Costs Program. Now in its 32nd year, the program is used around the country to highlight the fiscal disparities in our communities and build support for nuclear weapons abolition work and for divestment from nuclear weapons — similar to what was done in South Africa to end apartheid.
As our nation grapples with the health and economic impacts of COVID-19, we continue to fund nuclear weapons programs — by our calculation — in the amount of $67.6 billion for fiscal year 2020.
These wasted expenditures deprive cities, counties and states across the nation of critical funds in the midst of this pandemic, compounding our ongoing daily health crisis dealing with nearly 90 million Americans without any, or with inadequate health insurance. The expenditures vary by community, as do each community’s financial needs.
Our nation’s capital will contribute in excess of $236 million for FY 2020 toward nuclear weapons programs. Large states like New York, and New Jersey — grappling with the devastation of COVID-19 and the inadequate resources to handle it — are spending in excess of $4.5 billion and $2.2 billion respectively, while California is spending over $8.7 billion on nuclear weapons programs, robbing their treasuries of critical funds necessary at this time. This is immoral, insane and wrong.
As physicians and health practitioners, we — just like our local elected officials — are first responders. The current pandemic with all of its global devastation pales by comparison with any nuclear conflict. Cities are being paralyzed as they try to deal with the crisis at hand. In a nuclear attack, there would be no adequate medical or public health response. The outcome is predictable and must be prevented.
The only way to prevent nuclear war is by the complete and verifiable abolition of nuclear weapons.
As with COVID-19, we must prevent that which we cannot cure. The world is moving to abolish nuclear weapons through the Treaty on The Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted at the U.N. in July 2017 and already ratified by 36 nations on its way to the 50 nations necessary to enter into force, like treaties dealing with all other weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. must take a leadership role to support this treaty and abide by our 50-year commitment under Article VI of the NPT Treaty to work in good faith to eliminate nuclear weapons. The rest of the world has grown weary and skeptical of the hollow promises of the U.S. and other nuclear nations to this obligation and are refusing to be held hostage any longer.
Shame on our legislative leaders for the continued funding of these weapons of mass destruction that have no utility and threaten our continued survival. There are no winners of nuclear war. In the words of our last great military General, President Dwight Eisenhower, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”
We are one interconnected human family in this nation and on this planet — and at long last, it is time to recognize this fact. COVID-19 has made this imminently apparent. It is time to come together to abolish nuclear weapons and to direct the dollars wasted on them to address the economic, environmental and health inequities in our communities. We must all make our voices heard to prevent nuclear war, which would be the last epidemic.
Robert Dodge, M.D., is a family physician practicing in Ventura, Calif. He is the President of Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles (www.psr-la.org), and sits on the National Board serving as the Co-Chair of the Committee to Abolish Nuclear Weapons of National Physicians for Social Responsibility (www.psr.org). Physicians for Social Responsibility received the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize and is a partner organization of ICAN, recipient of the 2017 Nobel Peace Price.
France: The Forgotten Nuclear Power That Could Kill Billions of People
|
France: The Forgotten Nuclear Power That Could Kill Billions of People
Paris might not have a massive stockpile of nukes, but they could do some serious damage if need be. National Interest, by Caleb Larson, 26 Apr 20, The French nuclear arsenal is pretty substantial, with air- and sea-based components. Here is a breakdown of French nuclear capabilities. Nuclear Dyad Unlike the United States or Russia, who maintain a nuclear triad of land-based, submarine-launched, and air-launched missiles, France has a dyad of submarines that can launch nuclear ballistic missiles and a stockpile of air-launched nuclear cruise missiles. M51 Ballistic Missile The M51 is the heart of French nuclear deterrence at sea. Each missile has six to ten Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs), and each of those MIRVs is guessed to be in the 75 to 110 kiloton range. Its range is estimated at 8,000 kilometers, or just under 5,000 miles and the missiles are launched from the nuclear-powered Triumphant-class submarines. Air-Sol Moyenne Portée The Air-Sol Moyenne Portée is the air-launched component of French strategic deterrence. The missiles play a unique role in French deterrence, where their use would be considered a warning shot of sorts before the more widespread use of nuclear weapons would be used in a conflict. …….. Hadès The Hadès missile system was at one point a land-based component of French strategic deterrence — though only at the tactical, not strategic level, due to the system’s relatively short 480 kilometer, or about 300 mile range……. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/france-forgotten-nuclear-power-could-kill-billions-people-148396 |
|
North Korea already has its nuclear arsenal. even if Kim should die.
|
Even if Kim Jong Un dies, he has given North Korea the nuclear arsenal it needed to deter the U.S.
While North Korea is still among the world’s most impoverished nations, living standards are rising for the ruling elite in Pyongyang. Kim has shown he can endure crushing economic sanctions,National Post, Bloomberg News, Jihye Lee and Jon Herskovitz, April 23, 2020 Whatever the state of Kim Jong Un’s health, he has already put North Korea in its strongest position to resist U.S. pressure in decades. Eight years after Kim filled the power vacuum left by the death of his reclusive father, Kim Jong Il, North Korea is more secure and less isolated. The 36-year-old supreme leader has achieved two key marks of legitimacy long sought by his predecessors: a nuclear arsenal that can credibly deter an American attack and a personal relationship with the U.S. president, including three face-to-face meetings with Donald Trump. While North Korea is still among the world’s most impoverished nations, living standards are rising for the ruling elite in Pyongyang. Kim has shown he can endure crushing economic sanctions, illustrated by a United Nations report published Tuesday accusing the regime of widespread evasion. Moreover, the Kim dynasty holds a renewed pledge of strategic support from its ultimate guarantor, China. “The country has pole-vaulted in their nuclear-destruction potential and missile-delivery capabilities compared to capabilities under grandfather or father Kim,” said Soo Kim, a Rand Corp. policy analyst who specializes in Korean peninsula issues. “The specter of a North Korean nuclear attack breeds enough unease in the international community to lean more towards accommodation than confrontation.”…….. North Korea has given up little since Kim’s unprecedented handshake with Trump almost two years ago in Singapore. Besides halting launches of missiles that can reach the U.S. mainland and demolishing some testing facilities, Kim has signed only a vaguely worded pledge to “work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” …… https://nationalpost.com/news/world/despite-kim-jong-un-health-north-korea-has-little-to-worry-about-u-s-sanctions |
|
|
North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un’s health speculation raises question over nuclear weapons future
|
North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un’s health speculation raises question over nuclear weapons future, 9 news, By CNN, Apr 22, 2020 Confusing and sometimes conflicting reports have emerged about the health of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
Those were followed by intense speculation on his whereabouts, his medical condition and the future of the world’s only hereditary communist state.
Initial rumblings began after North Korea’s most important holiday came and went on April 15 without an appearance by Kim, which was unusual.
Then Daily NK, an online publication based in South Korea that focuses on the north, reported that Kim had received a cardiovascular system procedure on April 12 and was being treated in a villa in Hyangsan County.
The reports have also sparked speculation over the security and question of what happens to North Korea’s nuclear weapons in the event of some sort of leadership transition, which is likely of concern in Washington, Seoul and Beijing……..
North Korea’s nuclear weapons are another closely guarded secret inside the country.
Little is known about how many Pyongyang has, how reliable they are, if its missiles and submarines could successfully fire them or even how Kim oversees their command and control apparatus…….
Though North Korea is still technically at war with the South and the United States, many of Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons may be sitting disassembled and “there are probably very few ready systems,” Narang said.
But Narang said he wouldn’t be terribly concerned about the security of North Korea’s nuclear weapons in the event Kim died of natural causes……. https://www.9news.com.au/world/north-korea-kim-jong-un-health-status-confusion-nuclear-weapons-future-usa-south-korea-world-news/6c8663e8-9416-4635-ab90-9036d3e63246
|
|
Russia dumps its plans for costly huge Nuclear Destroyer and supersized Frigate Programs
Russia Has Abandoned Its Massive Nuclear Destroyer And Supersized Frigate Programs, The Drive BY JOSEPH TREVITHICK APRIL 21, 2020 The state-run shipbuilding company responsible for both programs now has concerns about its long-term finances
Eussia’s Severnoye Design Bureau has stopped development entirely of its Project 23560 destroyers, also known as the Lider class, and the Project 22350M frigate, an expanded derivative of the Project 22350 Admiral Gorshkov class. The company has said these ships are among its most promising future offerings and the halting of the two programs has raised quThe Lider destroyer, also referred to at times as the Shkval, was clearly an extremely ambitious project, perhaps overly so, from the very beginning. Though originally intended to be a conventionally powered warship, plans subsequently shifted to a nuclear-powered design. Its expected displacement also grew from already massive 12,000 to 13,000 tons to 19,000 tons, stretching its classification as a “destroyer.” estions about its long-term financial stability.
Russian newspaper Interfax reported the new developments at Severnoye, which is part of the country’s state-owned United Shipbuilding Corporation, on Apr. 18. The information was reportedly contained in an annual review of the shipbuilder’s activities in 2019, which the outlet had obtained……
The Lider destroyer, also referred to at times as the Shkval, was clearly an extremely ambitious project, perhaps overly so, from the very beginning. Though originally intended to be a conventionally powered warship, plans subsequently shifted to a nuclear-powered design. Its expected displacement also grew from already massive 12,000 to 13,000 tons to 19,000 tons, stretching its classification as a “destroyer.” …… HTTPS://WWW.THEDRIVE.COM/THE-WAR-ZONE/33099/RUSSIA-HAS-ABANDONED-ITS-MASSIVE-NUCLEAR-DESTROYER-AND-SUPERSIZED-FRIGATE-PROGRAMS
Saudi Arabia’s nuclear reactor will eventually lead to a Saudi nuclear weapon, and to its use
Saudi Arabia’s Nuclear Reactor Nears Completion, Bringing Prospect Of Saudi WMD – OpEd https://www.eurasiareview.com/19042020-saudi-arabias-nuclear-reactor-nears-completion-bringing-prospect-of-saudi-wmd-oped/, April 19, 2020 Richard Silverstein Bloomberg reported last week that Saudi Arabia’s first nuclear reactor is nearing completion. It purchased the reactor from the Argentinian company, INVAP. But construction and installation of the plant has proven a huge payday for companies in several European countries and the U.S.
After the Obama administration hesitated to support the project, Trump offered full-throated support. One of the most attractive propositions in the deal for him was the lucrative contracts for U.S. businesses who participated.
The reactor is one of the crowning achievements of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (aka “the Headchopper”) in his plan to “modernize” and “reform” the Saudi Arabian economy and military. Part of his ambition has been to project his country’s power and interests in more muscular fashion in the region. One of the ways he did this was to invade Yemen and rain terror upon the Houthi regions of that country killing 100,000 Yemenis and starving even more with a crippling blockade.
Saudi Arabia’s chief regional rival has been Iran. The purpose of the reactor is to send a loud and clear message that Iran’s nuclear ambitions will be met step-for-step by MBS. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, the Crown Prince wants to be right behind. The problem with this approach is that Iran, which has not made such a weapon though it could have if it wanted, has pursued a careful, calibrated approach. While the Saudis have pursued a reckless, aggressive approach in every operation they undertake to project their military power.
If they can decimate Yemen as they have, sinking themselves into a costly quagmire, why would anyone think they would use the products of their nuclear reactor in any more responsible way? Does MBS’s order to murder Jamal Khashoggi, cut his body into pieces and disappear it in acid, give anyone confidence that he wouldn’t be willing to do the same to entire countries he saw as implacable enemies?
Iran has never threatened to use nuclear weapons. Just the opposite, Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa declaring them forbidden. MBS, despite the fact that his country is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact, would never swear off such weapons. In fact, the moment that he has the ability to build and deliver WMD will likely be the day he threatens to use it.
Every party which collaborated with the Saudis in this project will have blood on their hands when (not if) that country becomes nuclear-capable.
Only a decade ago, the Obama administration supported a regional conference planned to promote a Middle East nuclear-free zone. Israel, with its 200 nuclear weapons, objected strenuously and the idea died of neglect. There will come a time in the near future when the world will regret this tragically-missed opportunity.
Despite boilerplate statements that the reactor is for civilian power and research purposes, mark my words: Saudi Arabia’s nuclear reactor will eventually lead to a Saudi nuclear weapon. That weapon will exponentially increase the likelihood it will be used someday. Again, not “if,” but “when.”
This article was published by Tikun Olam
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 