UN nuclear weapons ban treaty negotiations soon to begin in New York
We have the chance to change the world with this instrument. The ban will not magically eliminate these weapons, but it will be a chink in the nuclear armour of those who continue to claim some “security benefit” from these indiscriminate, immoral, genocidal weapons. Nuclear weapons do not provide security. The majority of the world does not have them or need them. It’s time to codify this in international law and set the stage for total elimination.
The world is watching. It’s time to ban the bomb.
We’re Off! to Ban Nuclear Weapons http://www.globalresearch.ca/were-off-to-ban-nuclear-weapons/5594766, By Ray Acheson, Global Research, June 15, 2017 Reaching Critical Will It’s game on for round two of the nuclear ban negotiations! Delegations from governments, civil society, and international organisations are rallying in New York City at the United Nations to start deliberating over the President’s draft treaty text—and to start crafting one of the most ambitious piece of international law ever attempted. People from around the world are also preparing to rally outside of the UN building, and in their home cities, in two days in support of these talks. The Women’s March to Ban the Bomb will see actions in Australia, Canada, Cameroon, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, and the United States! The world is watching: it’s time to ban the bomb.
U.S. Defense Secretary Mattis will consider scaling back some nuclear weapons systems
Jim Mattis says he’s open to rethinking triad, nuclear cruise missile, Washington Examiner, by Jamie McIntyre | Jun 14, 2017 Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told Congress Wednesday he has an open mind about possibly scaling back some nuclear systems, as long as deterrence is not sacrificed, as he faces a more than $1 trillion bill to rebuild America’s arsenal over the next three decades.
Mattis’ comments came under questioning from California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has been waging a lonely fight against one nuclear weapons system in particular, the Long Range Stand-Off, or LRSO, air-launched nuclear cruise missile.
“I do not see it as an effective deterrent weapon,” Feinstein said. “I see it as Russia taking action to counter it and with the cost and the fact that we’ve got new ballistic missile submarines, new bombers, new intercontinental ballistic missiles and new warheads, I wonder why we need to develop this specific weapon? The cost is going to be inordinate.”
Mattis is referring to the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review, a top-to-bottom assessment of U.S. nuclear capabilities and strategy, including the Cold War era “triad” of bombers, submarines and ground missiles designed to ensure the U.S. could counterattack after a first strike……
Feinstein seemed to be encouraged when Mattis said he would be consulting with former Defense Secretary William Perry, who has advocated eliminating one leg of the triad by phasing out the land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Perry is also strongly opposed to developing new nuclear cruise missiles, which he says are “uniquely destabilizing” weapons, because an adversary cannot tell a conventional missile from a nuclear-armed version, risking miscalculation in a crisis.
“I register loud and clear the potential destabilizing view that some people see this weapon bringing and I’m taking that on board,” Mattis said. “But I’ve got to do more study.”
Feinstein said she has had extensive discussions with people in the military and has concerns that the LSRO may in fact represent a new generation of nuclear missiles not just an upgrade of older air-launched missiles.
“It’s got features which concern me greatly,” she said. “I’m not sure for the cost that we’ll end up with a practical deterrent.”…..http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jim-mattis-says-hes-open-to-rethinking-triad-nuclear-cruise-missile/article/2625999
North Korea moving surprisingly fast towards launching long-range, nuclear-capable missile
North Korea edging closer to launch a nuclear ICBM http://www.dw.com/en/north-korea-edging-closer-to-launch-a-nuclear-icbm/a-39230508, 13 June 17 Kim Jong Un’s scientists have surprised many with the speed at which they have overcome the technical obstacles to having a credible and effective long-range, nuclear-capable missile. Julian Ryall reports.
When North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong Un delivered his annual address in Pyongyang on January 1 and declared that his country was in the final stages of developing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that would be capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to targets in the continental United States, many viewed the regime’s claim with skepticism.
But on June 4, North Korea’s state-run Rodong Sinmun newspaper reported that the military would be ready to test-fire an ICBM in the near future. This has left governments and analysts in the region more concerned that Pyongyang’s scientists have made far more rapid progress than anyone had anticipated.
“The great success of test-firing an intercontinental ballistic missile, which we are sure to achieve, will mark a historic watershed moment in the failure of the US hostile policy against us,” an editorial in the newspaper stated.
“Historically speaking, the US has never dared to go to war with a country that possesses nuclear weapons or ICBMs.”
Targeting US
It added that recent missile tests have “proved” that “anywhere in the US” is within the range of North Korean missiles.
On June 8, North Korea fired a salvo of what appeared to be anti-ship cruise missiles at targets off its east coast. The launches were the fifth since Moon Jae-in was sworn in as South Korea’s president on May 10.
The most significant of the North’s recent tests, however, came just four days after Moon’s inauguration and demonstrated the strides that Kim’s scientists have made in a remarkably short space of time.
Defense officials in South Korea and the US confirmed that the launch of the liquid-fuel Hwasong-12 missile was a success. North Korea claimed the weapon reached an altitude of 2,111.5 kilometers and travelled a distance of 787 kilometers before splashing down in the Sea of Japan.
The missile took a steep parabolic route that tested its ability to survive re-entry into the atmosphere.
North Korea’s state media reported that the missile – capable of carrying a “large-size, heavy nuclear warhead” – had come through “the worst re-entry situation” and struck its intended target.
That claim was confirmed by South Korean government sources, who told the JoongAng Daily newspaper that analysis of data communication from North Korea’s missile control center confirmed the warhead survived the 5,000 degrees Celsius and severe vibration it experienced on re-entry.
Mastered guidance and control
After numerous test launches, North Korean scientists have already mastered long-range guidance and control capabilities, while a series of underground tests have demonstrated that the regime of Kim Jong Un has acquired nuclear weapons.
Analysts say the last remaining hurdle that North Korean missiles have to overcome is consistently surviving re-entry, which will probably be the reason for the ICBM launch that the North is planning.
“The speed at which they have developed the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead over a long distance is extremely concerning,” said Kim Jae-chang, a former general in the South Korean Army and joint chairman of The Council on Korea-US Security Studies.
“The exact technical developments that they have made are only estimates, but many experts now believe they will be able to launch an ICBM by the end of this year,” he told DW. “And that is a very serious concern to the South.
“We estimate that the military purpose of North Korea developing an ICBM capability is to prevent the US from augmenting or relieving its forces in South Korea in the event of an emergency,” he said.
The belief is that the North can threaten the US mainland as well as its military bases in the Asia-Pacific region, such as those in Japan, Hawaii or the Pacific island of Guam, and interdict naval forces heading for the Korean peninsula.
In tandem with the threat of an ICBM launch, there are indications that North Korea is preparing to carry out a new underground nuclear test at its Punngye-ri proving grounds.
Media reports have suggested that satellite reconnaissance has picked up renewed activity at the site, with scientists gathering at the facility, more vehicles in the vicinity and roads in surrounding areas closed to non-military traffic. 10 kiloton test
North Korea conducted its last nuclear test in September, with experts suggesting the blast was 10 kilotons, the largest the North has ever carried out.
“Pyongyang’s actions and demands have been surprisingly consistent for many years,” said Garren Mulloy, an associate professor of international relations at Daito Bunkyo University. “They want one-on-one dialogue with the US, because they want to be respected and hope to extract concessions from the rest of the world.
“And they have concluded that the most likely way of succeeding with those aims is to threaten the US to the highest degree possible,” he said.
Read: North Korea crisis: Which country has the strongest military in the region?
The most effective way of threatening the US is through the development of multiple weapons systems, including nuclear warheads, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and ICBMs, Mulloy said.
And recent test launches with long-range missiles surviving re-entry and accurately descending on a target would be cause for serious concern in Seoul, Tokyo and Washington, he said, as the speed at which they travelled would mean that any anti-missile defensive system “would struggle to cope.”
“It is clear that they have put an enormous amount of resources into these weapons development programs and made advances that were far more rapid than I and most other analysts believed were possible,” Mulloy added. “They may have invested so heavily in nuclear weapons and ICBMs because they do not think that they have anything else to bargain with.”
North Korea hints that it could test a long range missile, that could hit New York
North Korea threatens to drop nuclear bomb on New York to prove Donald Trump tweet wrong
‘The DPRK is about 10,400 km far away from New York, but this is just not a long distance for a strike today’ Independent Gabriel Samuels @gabs_samuels 14 June 17 Korea has hinted that it could test a long range missile capable of hitting New York, months after President Donald Trump insisted: “It won’t happen”.
Accusing the US leader of underestimating the secretive Communist state’s capabilities, an article last week in state-run newspaper Rodong Sinmun, suggested that it was close to developing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).
“Trump blustered early this year that the DPRK’s final access to a nuclear weapon that can reach the US mainland will never happen,” the editorial said, using an abbreviation for the country’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. …..http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear-bomb-new-york-donald-trump-tweet-mocking-missile-capabilities-a7787686.html
Call to Canadians to join talks for the Convention on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
CANNINGS: We must work tirelessly for a nuclear weapons free world http://infotel.ca/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/cannings-we-must-work-tirelessly-for-a-nuclear-weapons-free-world/it43381 By Richard Cannings, MP South Okanagan-West Kootenay 13 June 17 Last week I listened to Setsuko Thurlow, a Hiroshima survivor, speak eloquently of what it was like to have her family, her neighbourhood, her city, vaporized in an instant of mass destruction. I wish everyone in this country could have heard her moving words. Setsuko has devoted her life to advocating for nuclear disarmament, to ensure that her experience will never be repeated.
Some would say it was that threat of mutually assured destruction through nuclear warfare that kept worldwide conflict at bay through the Cold War. Even now, 25 years after the end of the Cold War, there are more than 15,000 nuclear warheads in the world. The risk to the planet was, and remains, incalculable.
Canadians have long recognized the threat of nuclear proliferation and long called for nuclear disarmament. In 2010, the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion that called on the government to deploy a major diplomatic initiative to increase the rate of nuclear disarmament.
The Liberal Party of Canada, only last year, adopted a resolution at their Winnipeg policy convention that urged the government—their Liberal government—to convene an international conference to commence negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention that would ban nuclear weapons.
And yet the government’s actions in the past year go completely against that resolution.
The international community—over 130 countries are involved—is currently carrying out negotiations on the Convention on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, just as the Liberal Party resolution requested. The problem is, not only is Canada not leading this process, it is boycotting it completely. Canada is not back on the international scene, it is backing away from its traditional leadership role in promoting a more peaceful world.
And Canada is backing away under pressure from the United States. Justin Trudeau said in the House of Commons last week that joining the negotiations would be “useless” as the nuclear powers are not present. Yet Canada led the world in the banning of land mines through a process in which the land mine powers, including the United States, did not, initially, participate.
These UN negotiations for nuclear disarmament are still going on. Canada could join and take a real and meaningful role in this essential project. But as I write this, the government is voting against an NDP motion to join these talks.
Opponents to a nuclear ban treaty say that disarmament must happen step-by-step, and that the time is not right for these negotiations, the world is not secure enough.
We have reached the edge of this cliff step by step over the last 60 years. The world will never be fully secure. We cannot wait for better conditions. We cannot afford to wait at all.
Yes, the nuclear powers will always oppose nuclear disarmament. But we must not bow to their wishes. We need to radically change the worldview of the nuclear powers. It will not be easy. It will not happen overnight. But we must be bold; we must live up to our convictions and our moral duty, and work tirelessly for a nuclear weapons free world.— Richard Cannings is the Member of Parliament for South Okanagan-West Kootenay.
Scottish 6 to join historic global conference to agree nuclear weapons ban treaty
Common Space Michael Gray @GrayInGlasgow, 13 June 17, SCOTTISH CAMPAIGNERS will join the global movement to ban nuclear weapons this week in New York as pressure builds on the rogue nuclear states to ditch weapons that threaten the future of life on earth.
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican) has made substantial progress in establishing a Nuclear Ban Treaty, with 123 countries backing progress towards a weapons ban last October at the United Nations. The UK was one of 38 nations opposed.
A cross-group civil society delegation of six will represent Scotland at the June-July session on the recently published draft Treaty document. With support from over 40 states, the Treaty will have legal status and, if successful, will enter a process of ratification. ….https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/11159/scottish-6-join-historic-global-conference-agree-nuclear-weapons-ban-treaty
Increased activity around N. Korean test site may indicate 6th nuclear test
Activity around N. Korean test site may foretell 6th nuclear test, Asahi Shimbun, By YOSHIHIRO MAKINO/ Correspondent, June 11, 2017 SEOUL–Activity has intensified in the area around a North Korean nuclear test site, indicating Pyongyang may be preparing a sixth nuclear test, which it warned last month was “imminent.”
The preparations near the Punggyeri site match those of past occasions before North Korea conducted a nuclear test.
According to sources knowledgeable about what is occurring in North Korea, scientists who oversee nuclear materials as well as evaluate the nuclear tests have gathered at the Punggyeri site.
In addition, traffic to the site has been apparently shut down at the checkpoints leading to the area in northeastern North Korea.
However, movement of vehicles and humans within the test site continues to be active.
It is unclear if that flurry of activity is a precursor to a nuclear test or simply an exercise to prepare or inspect the site.
With the international community continuing to exert strong pressure on Pyongyang, a South Korean government source said, “there is a low possibility of North Korea going ahead with a nuclear test, which could end up being an act of suicide.”
There is the possibility of even further economic sanctions, such as suspension of petroleum imports, should North Korea continue with military provocations.
According to sources knowledgeable about China-South Korea ties, similar activity around the Punggyeri site was observed in April.
China took those preparations to be a sign that North Korea was about to conduct a nuclear test. Chinese officials explained to their counterparts in the United States and South Korea that pressure was applied at that time on North Korea in the form of a temporary suspension of Air China flights between Beijing and Pyongyang.
Meanwhile, North Korea has shown little sign of being cowed by the sanctions…….http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201706110023.html
USA government renews old bunkers, for political leaders and other top brass, in event of nuclear war
This is where the government will hide during a nuclear war, New York Post, 11 June 17 As nuclear threats loom from countries like Iran and North Korea, the US is knocking the dust off decades-old bunkers intended to protect government officials — and even start a new civilization — in the case of just such a nightmare event.
Journalist Garrett Graff takes readers through the 60-year history of the government’s secret Doomsday plans to survive nuclear war in his painstakingly researched book “Raven Rock: The Story of the U.S. Government’s Secret Plan to Save Itself — While the Rest of Us Die” (Simon & Schuster), out now.
He focuses on the Cold War-era government bunkers across the country that were built to house the President and various Washington elites — members of a so-called “shadow government” in the worst nuclear Armageddon scenario.
Since September 11, 2001, Congress has intensified their interest in and funding of top secret “Continuity of Government” (COG) in ways not seen since the Cold War. With hundreds of newly declassified documents, the book, currently in development with NBC as a TV show, includes never-before-heard intel on the country’s top secret bunkers — mythical places like Raven Rock and Mount Weather.
Raven Rock
Lillington, NC • For military
Built near Camp David to house the military, as a backup for the Pentagon — and perhaps even the President — during an emergency, Raven Rock has retained an air of secrecy ever since construction started in 1948……….
Peters Mountain
Appalachian Mountains, Virginia • For intelligence agencies………
Mount Weather
Bluemont, Va. • For civilian government
The President could end up at any of the Doomsday facilities, but in general terms Mount Weather is designed to hold the civilian leadership of the US government, including the President, the Supreme Court, Cabinet officials, and some senior congressional leaders……
NORAD Colorado Springs, Colo. • For air defense
Unlike Raven Rock and Mount Weather, the military’s North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) was never kept secret from the public. “NORAD is specific to North American defense — it includes the command post responsible for defending both Canada and the US from air attacks, whether that’s terrorists, Russian bombers, or North Korean missiles,”…..
The most mysterious of all bunkers is this one, located right in the heart of our nation’s capital.
“There’s definitely a bunker under the White House, known as the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), which is where Dick Cheney was rushed on September 11th and where he spent the day helping to lead the government’s response. …..http://nypost.com/2017/06/10/this-is-where-the-government-will-hide-during-a-nuclear-war/
Auckland commemorates 30 years of nuclear-free New Zealand
Aucklanders celebrate anniversary of nuclear-free New Zealand, 11/06/2017, Newshub staff It’s been 30 years since New Zealand became the first country in the world to declare itself Nuclear Free.
On Sunday, hundreds formed a human peace symbol at the Auckland Domain, similar to the one made in 1983, in order to commemorate the anniversary of the passing of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act. …….
The anniversary comes just days before a United Nations conference involving 132 countries which will negotiate a treaty to ban nuclear weapons. http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/06/aucklanders-celebrate-anniversary-of-nuclear-free-new-zealand.html
The world on the brink of nuclear war in 1983
In 1983, A NATO Military Exercise Almost Started a Nuclear World War III, The National Interest, Warfare History Network, 11 June 17, On the night of November 20, 1983, Armageddon went prime time. Over 100 million Americans tuned in to the ABC television network to watch the two-hour drama The Day After. This depiction of a hypothetical nuclear attack on the United States attracted a great deal of publicity and controversy. Schools made watching the film a homework assignment, discussion groups were organized in communities across the country, and even the secretary of state at the time, George Schulz, took part in a question-and-answer session hosted by ABC after the film’s broadcast. That a mere made-for-TV movie could garner such attention from a leading figure in the Reagan administration indicates how real the fear of a nuclear apocalypse was at the time. But almost no one watching that Sunday night realized just how close fiction came to reality in the fall of 1983.
The possibility of the world’s two greatest military powers destroying each other and the earth in a full-scale thermonuclear war was a fear shared by many throughout the world. At the time, both the United States and the USSR maintained huge nuclear arsenals of over 20,000 nuclear warheads each. In North America and Western Europe, nuclear freeze movements were gaining new members daily, with mass demonstrations that routinely numbered in the tens of thousands.
World events seemed to only reaffirm people’s fears. It was the third year of the presidency of Ronald Reagan, a man who had built his political career on a virulent hatred for all things communist. His 1980 victory over incumbent President Jimmy Carter had largely been the result of his hard-line stance against the Russians. A former film actor with a natural flair for the dramatic, Reagan both inspired and shocked people with his hardcore rhetoric, such as his statement before the British House of Commons in 1982 that the Marxist ideology would be relegated to the “ash heap of history.” Perhaps his most memorable and antagonistic remarks came on March 8, 1983, when Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as the “focus of evil in the modern world” and an “evil empire.”……
“Star Wars” and Fleetex 83: On the Brink of Nuclear War
On March 23, 1983, Reagan took the superpower rivalry to a new level when he unveiled the Strategic Defense Initiative Program during a live television address. The SDI program, more popularly referred to as “Star Wars,” was to provide an orbital shield that would protect the United States—at least partly—from a nuclear strike…..
To Yuri Andropov, then general secretary of the USSR, Reagan’s intentions spelled trouble…….http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/1983-nato-military-exercise-almost-started-nuclear-world-war-21111
Defiant North Korea vows to continue its nuclear weapons development
North Korea “fully rejects” new UN sanctions and vows to continue its nuclear weapons development
Kim Jong-un’s rogue state described the sanctions resolution as “a crafty hostile act”, The Sun By Jon Lockett 4th June 2017,
USA’s President Trump sets the world stage for a new nuclear arms race
Is President Trump setting the stage for a new nuclear arms race?, https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/06/03/stealthy-cruise-missile-spurs-worries-amid-trump-call-for-revived-nuclear-arms-race/QlgPJLsn01ru4SaHFuGicM/story.html By Christopher Rowland GLOBE STAFF JUNE 03, 2017 WASHINGTON — President Trump has called for a new global arms race, and the Pentagon is ready. It has a nuclear weapon on the drawing board that the military considers essential but that critics fear could put the United States on the inside lane to Armageddon.
The new weapon is the planned update of the Air Force’s nuclear cruise missile. Price tag: at least $20 billion. Fear factor 
for arms-control advocates: maximum.
Trump’s newly released budget for 2018 contains hundreds of millions of dollars to speed up development of the Long Range Stand Off missile — a jet-propelled nuke designed to be launched from an airborne bomber and stealthily zip to a target virtually anywhere in the world.
It will carry a “variable yield’’ warhead that can be adjusted to deliver an atomic blast ranging from 5 to 150 kilotons — that is, from about one-third of a Hiroshima-sized bomb to as much as 10 Hiroshima bombs.
The ability to limit the scope of devastation and highly flexible targeting offer a powerful allure to Air Force generals, but are also precisely what worry antiproliferation specialists. They contend these capabilities make the idea of a “limited’’ nuclear strike on a target like Iran or North Korea — aggressive provocateurs but not superpowers — more likely, with a high risk for catastrophic escalation. It could also give Pentagon planners an intriguing option as they study ways to deter Russia’s ambitions to reassert sway over Eastern Europe.
The new missiles are part of a $1 trillion upgrade of America’s nuclear arsenal kicked off by President Barack Obama, replacing missiles, submarines, and planes that have been in service for decades. Now Trump is positioning the military to pursue those plans aggressively, with $1 billion in his new budget to keep the Pentagon on an accelerated course for updating warheads, including a refurbished warhead for the 1,000 new, improved cruise missiles.
“It is very dangerous to have this excessive, unnecessary rebuilding of the arsenal take place under the Trump administration,’’ said Tom Collina, policy director at the Ploughshares Fund, a nonprofit organization that advocates for the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons development. “The United States wants a new arms race, and is willing to push for it, and willing to pay for it, and we’re going to see other countries including Russia respond in kind, which is not good for global security.’’
Under an order Trump signed soon after he took office, the Pentagon is beginning a Nuclear Posture Review, due for completion by the end of the year. It gives the new administration a chance to articulate the president’s nuclear vision and decide what atomic weapons and strategies he deems most important.
Trump’s White House has not yet provided details of the president’s views, but in some of his remarks, he appears prepared to push the United States closer to a Cold War footing, a shift in tone and possibly in tactics that could have an impact on global nuclear security long after he leaves office.
“Let it be an arms race,’’ Trump, then president-elect, was quoted by MSNBC as saying in December. “We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.’’
Tough talk, or something more? Certainly the tone runs sharply counter to the trend over the last three decades. Since the destruction of the Berlin Wall, there has been a sharp reduction in nuclear arms deployed by the United States and Russia.
Obama’s own 2010 Nuclear Posture Review concluded that the United States should continue seeking to reduce the balance of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War era, not add new nuclear weapons systems to the mix of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-based missiles, and missiles on long-range bombers. But to win Republican support for the ratification of the New START arms control treaty with Russia in 2010 — which limited both sides to 1,550 strategic warheads and set up new inspection regimes — Obama softened his stance and agreed to the sweeping modernization of the smaller nuclear force. The $1 trillion price tag, coming due over 30 years, includes new strategic bombers, submarines, and rebuilt intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Among all the nuclear systems, the plan to update the air-launched cruise missile is the most controversial, because of what critics consider its “destabilizing’’ effect. The missile is designed to be used in a survivable, limited nuclear conflict — survivable, meaning it doesn’t result in mutual annihilation. Intended to replace an existing, less capable system built in the 1980s, it would be widely deployed by 2030, with the first one ready by 2025.
‘Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.’
Donald Trump, as quoted by MSNBC in December
It could be shot thousands of miles away from enemy territory, and then fly low and fast to its target. The new version will have a stealthy profile and skin, making it difficult to detect by radar.
Proponents in the Air Force have said the missile is indispensable because it eliminates the need for long-range strategic bombers to enter enemy airspace. They contend it can act as an even stronger deterrent than ballistic missiles.
“We want our adversaries to think we have the capability — and the will — to use our nuclear weapons,’’ said Adam Lowther, director of the Air Force’s School for Advanced Nuclear Deterrence Studies, at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. With the new missile, he said, “we’re not in a situation where it is all or nothing.’’
It is in America’s interest to keep the Russians guessing if the “crazy Americans’’ will pull the trigger, he said. Enemies know that America will be extremely reluctant, he said, to deliver an atomic blast from an ICBM, given the almost certain retaliation that would follow.
Unlike Obama’s review, which called for reductions in the risks of global annihilation, the Trump review is expected to highlight the benefits of nuclear weapons to America’s power, Lowther predicted. He anticipates the review will be “a more positive view of the role of nuclear weapons, and nuclear deterrence.’’
Critics say the cruise missile makes the frightening logic of deterrence all the more fragile.
“This weapon makes fighting nuclear wars even more possible. Its accuracy and potency will be greater. We don’t need it. It’s dangerous. And the weapons that we have already can do the job,’’ said Senator Edward Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat and longtime proponent of a freeze and reduction on nuclear weapons.
“We’re going to ask other countries to engage in restraint while we’re making . . . nuclear war-fighting even more possible, even more imaginable,” he said.
Markey has sponsored Senate legislation that would cap development money for the next-generation nuclear cruise missile at current levels until Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review is complete. The bill has little chance of passage. Most of the Republicans who control Congress and a number of Democrats whose states depend on jobs and military bases that support nuclear weapons favor a full-speed-ahead approach.
North Dakota is home to the B-52 bombers that carry the old nuclear cruise missiles. Both of the state’s senators, Democrat Heidi Heitkamp and Republican John Hoeven, were among a bipartisan group who wrote the Pentagon last summer urging that the full nuclear modernization continue.
They wrote the letter after published reports said Obama was thinking about scaling back the modernization in his last year in office, including canceling the new cruise missile.
“We must modernize these forces to preserve their deterrent capabilities,’’ Hoeven, Heitkamp, and the other senators wrote. “We . . . need a new [air-launched cruise missile] to hold the broadest possible array of targets at risk.’’
The gears of Pentagon procurement bureaucracy are already turning, supported by weapons manufacturers.
Early development of the cruise missile’s updated warhead is under way at Sandia National Laboratories . Requests for bids for the full missile systems were issued last year; prime bidders are expected to be Waltham-based Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin, according to defense trade journals.
Christopher Rowland can be reached at christopher.rowland@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @GlobeRowland.
New York’s plan for nuclear civil defence – not much change from the 1950s
New York’s plan for nuclear fallout is basically “duck and cover” https://qz.com/979520/heres-new-york-citys-sort-of-plan-for-the-nuclear-apocalypse/ 4 June 17 In April, a rumor spread that 600,000 people were evacuated from Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea, because they wouldn’t all be able to fit in the city’s network of bomb shelters in case of an attack. That report was later debunked, but rising tensions between North Korea and the US have a lot of people on edge. North Korea’s series of recent missile tests are unlikely to help matters.
The latest ballistic missile fired by North Korea is believed to have fallen in the sea of Japan, within Japan’s exclusive economic zone. Relatedly, in March, Japan ran its first evacuation drill designed for the possibility of a North Korean missile attack. With these reminders of some kind of nuclear threats, and the doomsday clock the closest to midnight it’s been in decades, it seems fair to wonder how safe would American cities be, in such scenario?
We looked at New York—because it’s the most densely populated, and it is, after all, the only city in America to ever have suffered an aerial attack (not counting Pearl Harbor in 1941). Sure, climate change will probably kill New Yorkers before a nuclear explosion does. But still, should the city follow Hawaii’s (or Japan’s) lead in updating fallout shelters?
New York Civil Defense drill. 1950’s
There isn’t much of a plan
That said, New Yorkers could face nuclear exposure from two other sources: A terror attack utilizing a low-yield radioactive device, or a radiation leak following an accident in one of the plants somewhere near the city. (Just as an example, on May 9, a tunnel collapsed in a plutonium finishing plant in Hanford, Washington. According to news reports, it was full of highly contaminated nuclear waste. Though luckily no one was harmed, workers were instructed to take cover, ensure the ventilation was working in buildings, and “refrain from eating and drinking.”)
The latter scenario is the least dangerous, for a number of reasons. Brooke Buddemeier, a certified health physicist (also known as a radiation safety specialist) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, tells Quartz that due to the workings of nuclear plants, accidental explosions within the plants are not actually nuclear and are very small in comparison to a nuclear bomb explosion. In the unlikely event of an accident, most of the radioactive material would be contained by the reactor containment itself, limiting the damage to structures and people in the immediate vicinity of the plant. Further, any radioactive plant leak would likely take some time and release radioactive material at much slower rates than an explosion, allowing for an evacuation of the area to prevent or reduce exposures to the public.
A bomb is different. If an improvised radioactive device—a so-called “dirty bomb”— were to go off in New York City, Buddemeier said, we’d be “looking at a low-yield explosive going off at ground level.” The explosive power of such a device could be of a magnitude comparable to the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the dangers would be twofold: The immediate explosion, and the radioactive fallout.
When it comes to the explosion, the danger (at least in terms of dying from the explosion itself, or developing acute radiation sickness) would decline drastically after the first half mile, remaining serious for anyone standing within the first mile of the blast, then somewhat concerning for those within three miles of the explosion.
The fallout—or the radioactive debris that would fall from the sky following an explosion—would cover an area between 10 to 20 miles, with the so-called “hot zone” covering up to 100 miles.
Gone are the days when New York’s “busy millions” were involved in city-wide drills: The city’s Emergency Management department said today it’s much safer to simple find the closest building and stay indoors rather than looking for a designated fallout shelter.
On the site PlanNowNYC, New York maintains lists of possible disasters—including biological attacks, dirty bombs, and cyber attacks—and gives advice on how to handle them. For a radioactive attack, the official government suggestion is again to stay indoors, remove possibly contaminated clothes, take a warm shower, and don’t use conditioner (it can bind radioactive particles to your hair protein).
In case of any kind of radioactive attack, “New Yorkers should immediately take shelter in the center or basement of any nearby building. Expect to stay there until instructed to leave by emergency personnel,” a New York City spokesperson wrote to Quartz in an email.
But is that enough of a plan? And how many people can actually fit in basements and building halls, anyway?
“An east coast city like New York offers some good protection,” says Buddemeier. “[The key] is getting into the nearest solid structure and staying indoors.” Examples of structures that provide good protection are basements, multistory buildings, and underground areas including parking garages or subways.
The degree of protection offered by a building depends on its size, the material it’s built with, and where one stands in it. Basements (particularly corners) are generally the best bets, or the center of a tall concrete building. Taking shelter in the center of a tall concrete building would cut the potential radiation exposure from a dirty bomb down by a factor of 1,000 to 10,000, according to calculations from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. But even sheltering in a one story wooden house would cut radiation exposure down by a factor of 10.
People who are outside at the time of the explosion should seek the nearest, most effective shelter—but getting indoors sooner is more important than finding the perfect protection. Similarly, those who are indoors should just stay there, and wait: Even a few hours will significantly reduce the radiation intensity.
“Radiation is one of the gifts that keeps on giving,” explains Buddemeier. But while some level of radiation could be detectable in the area of an explosion for years to come, its intensity would be drastically reduced after the first day. Within the first hour, radiation is cut in half, and loses 80% of its power after the first day, so protecting oneself during this initial period of time should hopefully reduce the risk of acute radiation sickness.
Reducing exposure as soon and as drastically as possible, Buddemeier says, will also help stave off the long-term effects of radiation, such as cancer or genetic mutations. Drinking water and eating food is OK, he says, and though “you don’t want to go out and start harvesting fresh vegetables.” Food that is stored indoors can be consumed and “if you need to wash off or are thirsty, by all means, get water.” While bottled is preferable, even the water in the city system would do in a pinch.
Importantly, these safety and emergency measures actually apply to a nuclear explosion of any kind—even a much more powerful one: The difference of course would be the size of the prompt impact zone, and how far downwind people would need to find shelter in order to avoid significant fallout exposure
Israel’s secret plan to detonate nuclear weapon in 1967
Deadly border battles between nuclear rivals India and Pakistan
INDIA AND PAKISTAN CONFLICT ERUPTS IN ‘DEADLY’ BORDER BATTLES BETWEEN NUCLEAR RIVALS, NewsWeek, BY ON 6/3/17 Recent clashes between neighboring rivals India and Pakistan have turned fatal, according to the Pakistani military, which said it has killed a number of Indian soldiers Saturday in a cross-border revenge attack in Kashmir.
In response to the Indian military allegedly opening fire Friday and wounding two Pakistani civilians in the sector of Nezapir, a Pakistani army spokesman, Major General Asif Ghafoor, claimed in a tweet that the force killed up to five Indian soldiers, wounding many more and destroying bunkers. India, however, denied it had suffered any military casualties and instead accused the Pakistani army of injuring a female civilian. It said Pakistan was using 82 mm and 120 mm mortars indiscriminate small arms fire along the Line of Control, which forms the disputed de facto border between the two countries, the Economic Times reported.
“A woman was injured as Pakistani troops violated ceasefire twice in two sectors of Poonch district by firing mortar shells on forward posts and civilian areas along the Line of Control, army to retaliate,” an Indian defense spokesperson said, according to Reuters.
The restive region of Jammu and Kashmir, which both India and Pakistan claim as their own, has long seen violent clashes between the South Asian nations that have gone to war three times since Pakistan declared independence from India as part of a U.K.-backed agreement in 1947…….
In addition to tensions mounting in the border region, both India and Pakistan have taken steps recently to revamp their nuclear weapons policies. India isbelieved by analysts to possess around 120 nuclear warheads and Pakistan around 130. Neither country is a signatory to the 1968 Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. According to a report released Friday by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, India was preparing to expand its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan, which has also expressed a desire to bolster its nuclear force, celebrated Sunday its Youm-e-Takbir, or “Day of Greatness,” commemorating the nation’s first successful nuclear detonation, in 1998, Russia’s Sputnik News reported. http://www.newsweek.com/india-pakistan-conflict-erupts-deadly-border-nuclear-620295
1 This Month
22 June – Virtual Event –Climate Change: New Data, New Debate
Monday, June 22, 2026 2:30 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. CT
YouTube. Register here
25 June- THE PUKE ON NUKES
Thursday, June 25, 2026
7pm Central Time (8pm ET, 6pm MT, 5pm PT) UTC – 5
From NRC & DOE Deregulation to Techno-Fascist Billionaires Going Nuclear, Plus a Few Songs from Atomic Cabaret REGISTER
26 June – Radiation Trainwreck at the NRC / Join the Protect Better Campaign – https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/4ZlZ5_qLSHGiLSCg8FF6Bg#/registration
1st July – Webinar Waste of Space: The Environmental Harm of Military and Civil Space Activity st July, 7 pm
Report Launch Online: We are seeing an increasing exploitation of space for military and commercial purposes. This must change.
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (221)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 