We may survive the Anthropocene, but need to avoid a radioactive ‘Plutocene’The Conversation, On January 27, 2017, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the arms of its doomsday clock to 2.5 minutes to midnight – the closest it has been since 1953. Meanwhile, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels now hover above 400 parts per million.
Why are these two facts related? Because they illustrate the two factors that could transport us beyond the Anthropocene – the geological epoch marked by humankind’s fingerprint on the planet – and into yet another new, even more hostile era of our own making.
My new book, titled The Plutocene: Blueprints for a post-Anthropocene Greenhouse Earth, describes the future world we are on course to inhabit, now that it has become clear that we are still busy building nuclear weapons rather than working together to defend our planet.
I have coined the term Plutocene to describe a post-Anthropocene period marked by a plutonium-rich sedimentary layer in the oceans. The Anthropocene is very short, having begun (depending on your definition) either with the Industrial Revolution in about 1750, or with the onset of nuclear weapons and sharply rising greenhouse emissions in the mid-20th century. The future length of the Plutocene would depend on two factors: the half-life of radioactive plutonium-239 of 24,100 years, and how long our CO₂ will stay in the atmosphere – potentially up to 20,000 years.
During the Plutocene, temperatures would be much higher than today. Perhaps they would be similar to those during the Pliocene (2.6 million to 5.3 million years ago), when average temperatures were about 2℃ above those of pre-industrial times, or the Miocene (roughly 5.3 million to 23 million years ago), when average temperatures were another 2℃ warmer than that, and sea levels were 20–40m higher than today.
Under these conditions, population and farming centres in low coastal zones and river valleys would be inundated, and humans would be forced to seek higher latitudes and altitudes to survive – as well as potentially having to contend with the fallout of nuclear conflict. The most extreme scenario is that evolution takes a new turn – one that favours animals best equipped to withstand heat and radiation……….
If global warming were to reach 4℃, as suggested by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, chief climate advisor to the German government, the resulting amplification effects on the climate would pose an existential threat both to nature and human civilisation.
Barring effective sequestration of carbon gases, and given amplifying feedback effects from the melting of ice sheets, warming of oceans, and drying out of land surfaces, Earth is bound to reach an average of 4℃ above pre-industrial levels within a time frame to which numerous species, including humans, may hardly be able to adapt. The increase in evaporation from the oceans and thereby water vapour contents of the atmosphere leads to mega-cyclones, mega-floods and super-tropical terrestrial environments. Arid and semi-arid regions would become overheated, severely affecting flora and fauna habitats.
The transition to such conditions is unlikely to be smooth and gradual, but may instead feature sharp transient cool intervals called “stadials”. Increasingly, signs of a possible stadial are being seen south of Greenland………..
Mounting our defence
Defending ourselves from global warming and nuclear disaster requires us to do two things: stop fighting destructive wars, and start fighting to save our planet. There is a range of tactics we can use to help achieve the second goal, including large-scale seagrass cultivation, extensive biochar development, and restoring huge swathes of the world’s forests.
Space exploration is wonderful, but we still only know of one planet that supports life (bacteria possibly excepted). This is our home, and there is currently little prospect of realising science fiction’s visions of an escape from a scorched Earth to some other world.
Nuclear bomb shelter sales are soaring due to North Korean threats, Yahoo Finance Daniel Howley Technology Editor, the saber rattling, coupled with North Korea’s stated objective of developing a nuclear-tipped missile capable of reaching the U.S. mainland, have plenty of people on edge.
And nowhere is that clearer than in the number of nuclear fallout shelters being purchased here in the U.S.
“We’re probably upwards of 1,000% from this time last year,” Gary Lynch, general manager of Rising S Company said of the number of bunkers his company has sold in 2017.
A size for everyone (sort of)
Texas-based Rising S Company, whose tagline is “Safe until the rising sun,” a nod to the Christian belief that the Second Coming of Christ will precede the end of the world, offers bunkers in a variety of price ranges. The base model is an 8 x 12-foot mini bunker for $39,500 while the top-of-the-line “The Aristocrat” luxury bunker, which features a bowling alley, gym, gun range, green house, pool and garage, goes for $8,350,000.
Sharon Packer, CEO of Utah-based Underground Shelters USA, says her company has seen sales of bunkers triple this year, with a significant increase taking place in the last six months. Packer, a nuclear engineer, says her company’s shelters can survive being within 1/4 of a mile from the blast crater of a 1-megaton nuclear bomb.
Underground’s best-selling shelter costs about $70,000 and gets you about 32 x 10 feet of space. Packer says you’d be able to stay in one of her company’s shelters for as long as you have access to clean water.
Brian Duvaul, sales manager with American Safe Room, a bunker company based in Oregon, explained that sales generally slow down around fall and winter as the ground becomes difficult to dig, but that so far this fall, sales are looking up…….
The analysis revealed a spike in strontium-90 levels in children born between 1954 and 1955. This coincided with a period of extensive nuclear testing that started in 1953. Among these children, strontium-90 levels were also found to be higher in those who were bottle-fed compared to those who were breastfed.
This observation further emphasized that the children were absorbing the radioactive element from the environment — picture acres of dairy farms showered with rain that has just passed through kilometers of atmosphere containing radioactive dust.
Experiments explained: Baby Tooth Survey In June 1963, shortly after publishing the first phase of the study, Dr. Eric Reiss, one of the main participating scientists, presented the findings in testimony before the American Senate committee. Two months later, the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) between the United States, the Soviet Union, and Britain was signed. This agreement prevented countries from performing test detonations of nuclear weapons, except for those conducted underground.
During a second phase of the study, a 50 per cent decline in strontium-90 was seen in children born in 1968, thanks in part to the PTBT that Franklin and her team helped bring about.
ZAHRA DANAEI/THE VARSITY, Humanity has been fundamentally transformed by the discovery of nuclear radiation and radioactive chemical elements. Marie and Pierre Curie discovered radium in the late 1890s, following Henri Becquerel’s discovery of radioactivity. Since then, World War I has led to the advent of the first X-ray machine, which treated injured soldiers, and World War II has brought upon the development of weapons of mass destruction.
Not long after, scientists began collecting radioactive baby teeth on American land: the unexpected aftermath of harnessing the unprecedented power of nuclear radiation.
One of those scientists was Ursula Franklin, the first female to receive the University Professor distinction at U of T in 1984. Franklin was an academic, an educator, a prolific writer, a highly vocal and active pacifist and feminist, but also held the lesser known titles of metallurgist, archaeometrist, practicing Quaker, and Holocaust survivor.
It is perhaps the result of her impactful social activism and visionary writings on war, globalism, social justice, and technology that some attention has been drawn away from Franklin’s scientific achievements.
One such accomplishment was a high-profile study that started in 1958. In collaboration with a number of scientists, Franklin investigated the impact of ground nuclear weapon testing, which had begun in the early 1940s in prelude to the attack on Japan at the end of World War II. Radioactive elements, one of which was strontium-90, had been released for the first time into the environment due to this nuclear weapon testing. Strontium-90 chemically resembles the important nutritional element calcium, leading to its incorporation along with calcium into the bones and teeth of developing unborn babies, which continues even after their birth.
Over the course of the 12-year study, the team collected more than 300,000 shed baby teeth, mostly from children in St. Louis, Missouri. The researchers incinerated and pulverized the teeth before extracting and analyzing its composite minerals.
The analysis revealed a spike in strontium-90 levels in children born between 1954 and 1955. This coincided with a period of extensive nuclear testing that started in 1953. Among these children, strontium-90 levels were also found to be higher in those who were bottle-fed compared to those who were breastfed.
This observation further emphasized that the children were absorbing the radioactive element from the environment — picture acres of dairy farms showered with rain that has just passed through kilometers of atmosphere containing radioactive dust.
In June 1963, shortly after publishing the first phase of the study, Dr. Eric Reiss, one of the main participating scientists, presented the findings in testimony before the American Senate committee. Two months later, the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) between the United States, the Soviet Union, and Britain was signed. This agreement prevented countries from performing test detonations of nuclear weapons, except for those conducted underground.
During a second phase of the study, a 50 per cent decline in strontium-90 was seen in children born in 1968, thanks in part to the PTBT that Franklin and her team helped bring about.
(CNN)Tensions on the Korean Peninsula have led to a lot of military terms being thrown about by politicians and the media.
To help you cut through the verbiage and hyperbole, here’s a list of common terms and what they really mean.
NUCLEAR POWERED AIRCRAFT CARRIER All active US Navy aircraft carriers are powered by nuclear reactors. They would not, however, typically carry nuclear weapons. US aircraft carriers have a displacement of about 97,000 tons. Japan and the US have smaller ships, with a displacement of 24,000 to 43,000 tons, which look like aircraft carriers but are considered helicopter destroyers and amphibious assault ships, respectively.
NUCLEAR SUBMARINE All active US Navy aircraft carriers are powered by nuclear reactors. They would not, however, typically carry nuclear weapons. US aircraft carriers have a displacement of about 97,000 tons. Japan and the US have smaller ships, with a displacement of 24,000 to 43,000 tons, which look like aircraft carriers but are considered helicopter destroyers and amphibious assault ships, respectively.
FRIGATE Frigates are at the smaller end of what are called major naval surface combatants, displacing around 2,400 to 4,100 tons. The US Navy has no frigates. They have been succeeded by littoral combat ships, lighter-armed more maneuverable next generation vessels. North Korea, South Korea and Japan also operate frigates. Frigates can be armed with a combination of missiles, shells and torpedoes.
DESTROYER The middle range of surface combatants, the destroyer (8,200 to 9,700 tons) is the backbone of the US Navy’s fleet, with more than 60 in service. Destroyers can be armed with a combination of missiles, shell-firing guns and torpedoes. US destroyers carry the Aegis missile defense system, designed to shoot down ballistic missiles. They also carry Tomahawk cruise missiles that can hit targets far inland. Japan and South Korea also operate destroyers.
CRUISER In the US Navy, the Ticonderoga-class cruisers (9,700 tons) are considered the largest of major surface combatants. They are armed with a combination of cruise missiles, standard missiles, shell-firing guns and torpedoes. Some carry the Aegis missile defense system. They are also used to coordinate the air defenses of aircraft carrier task forces. Japan and South Korea also operate cruisers.
STEALTH FIGHTER Stealth fighters are jets designed to be invisible to radar, making it much easier for them to evade enemy air defenses. The US military has two types of stealth fighters, the F-22 and the newer, more versatile F-35. Japan and South Korea are also acquiring F-35s.
STEALTH BOMBER The B-2 is the US bomber with the ability to be invisible to enemy radar. The four-engine jets can be armed with conventional or nuclear weapons. The US has only 20 of the billion-dollar bombers. The US is the only country with stealth bombers.
FIGHTER The US Air Force operates a variety of fighter aircraft, including F-15s and F-16s, as well as F-22s and F-35s. The US Navy and Marines operate F/A-18 aircraft from carriers. Although designated as fighters — an air-to-air combat term — all can attack ground targets with bombs and missiles. Japan and South Korea have versions of the F-15.
BOMBER Besides the B-2, the US operates B-1 and B-52 bombers. B-1s carry only conventional weapons while B-52s can be armed with conventional or nuclear bombs.
ICBM ICBM stands for intercontinental ballistic missile. The US defines missiles this way: intercontinental missiles have a range of more than 5,500 kilometers; intermediate-range missiles have a range of 3,000 to 5,000 kilometers; medium-range missiles have a range of 1,000 to 3,000 kilometers; and short-range missiles have a range of up to 1,000 kilometers. Ballistic missiles are fired on a lofted trajectory, usually going outside the Earth’s atmosphere. The missiles can be tipped with warheads, either nuclear weapons, conventional explosives or chemical agents.
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE (THAAD AEGIS, PATRIOT) Ballistic missile defense systems are designed to intercept enemy missiles before they reach a target. THAAD — or Terminal High Altitude Area Defense — is a ground-based radar and missile system designed to intercept ballistic missiles on their descent. Aegis, operated from US Navy as well as Japanese warships, is designed to kill enemy missiles mid-flight. Aegis and THAAD use kinetic, non-explosive energy to stop a missile, essentially like a bullet hitting a bullet. Patriot systems are designed to shoot down missiles at closer range than THAAD or Aegis.
LIVE-FIRE DRILL, UNILATERAL OR COMBINED A live-fire drill means the military units involved are using real ammunition during the exercise rather than simulating the combat experience. Unilateral drills are carried out by one country or branch of service. Combined drills are carried out by more than one country or branch of service.
HYDROGEN BOMB VERSUS ATOMIC BOMB Hydrogen bombs, or H-bombs use fusion, the same process that powers the sun. In a hydrogen (thermonuclear) bomb, “heavy” isotopes of hydrogen are forced together to release a much bigger punch — hundreds or even thousands of times more powerful than the only nuclear weapons that have been used in warfare. Atomic bombs use a process called fission. They split plutonium and/or uranium into smaller atoms in a chain reaction that releases massive amounts of energy. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, at the end of World War II were atomic bombs.
World War 3 threat: Hawaii residents ordered to ‘prepare for North Korea nuclear attack’ OFFICIALS in Hawaii have have told islanders to prepare for a nuclear attack from North Korea, saying it was time to take the threat from King Jong-un “seriously”.The Independent, By ROSS LOGANAuthorities held a secret meeting last week to discuss contingency plans in the event of Pyongyang launching a deadly missile at the US islands.
North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un has threatened to drop a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific Ocean amid fears Pyongyang has developed a nuclear missile capable of reaching Hawaii.
A document shared at the private talks, and obtained by local paper Honolulu Civil Beat, featured chapter headings such as “Enhance missile launch notification process between U.S. Pacific Command and the State Warning Point.”
The US state, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, will also begin testing a warning siren system in November, giving residents between 12 and 15 minutes to take refuge.
Resident wil then be advised to stay indoors for 72 hours after an attack.
State representative Gene Ward told the Washington Post: “Now it’s time to take it seriously.”
Will North Korea sell its nuclear technology? The Conversation, Daniel Salisbury
Earlier this month CIA Director Mike Pompeo suggested “the North Koreans have a long history of being proliferators and sharing their knowledge, their technology, their capacities around the world.”
My research has shown that North Korea is more than willing to breach sanctions to earn cash.
A checkered history
Over the years North Korea has earned millions of dollars from the export of arms and missiles, and its involvement in other illicit activitiessuch as smuggling drugs, endangered wildlife products and counterfeit goods.
No choice for US but to accept a nuclear North Korea, ex-CIA analyst sayshttp://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2113296/no-choice-us-accept-nuclear-north-korea-and-more 28 Sept 17,US acceptance of a nuclear North Korea might include a nuclear-armed South Korea, said Su Mi Terry, who served under former US president George W. Bush. The US has no choice but to accept the nuclearisation of North Korea and China may need to live with a South Korea that is nuclear-armed or at least more heavily weaponised than the US’s ally is now, said a northeast Asia analyst formerly with the CIA.
US acceptance of a nuclear North Korea would need to come with military measures that include at minimum a robust missile defence system in South Korea regardless of how China might react to such a scenario, Su Mi Terry, who served as a senior North Korea analyst in the CIA under former President George W. Bush, told the South China Morning Post.
“We can be creative about containment and deterrence,” Terry, now a senior adviser at Bower Group Asia, a consultancy specialising in Asia-Pacific issues, said in an interview.
A containment and deterrence policy “doesn’t have to mean that we just sit around and say ‘that’s OK’. It may mean missile defence. It may mean ultimately after North Korea acquires its capability to attack the United States with a nuclear-tipped ICBM, it may mean that South Korea will have to go nuclear”.
Terry’s remarks reflect what some analysts are saying about realistic outcomes for the stand-off on the Korean Peninsula, but run counter to the official line in Washington and Beijing.
While the US and China have cooperated on passing unanimously a series of sanctions against Pyongyang and condemnations of the country’s nuclear weapons programme, the deployment of a US missile defence system in South Korea has stirred China’s anger.
In addition to her role at Bower Group, Terry is also a senior research scholar at the Columbia University’s Weatherhead East Asian Institute
China has consistently opposed the deployment of the US’s Terminal High Altitude Defense (THAAD) system in South Korea, saying it would do little to deter the missile threat from North Korea while allowing the US military to use its radar to look deep into China’s territory and at its missile systems.
The US and South Korea have resisted such calls, arguing that THAAD is a defensive system only. Yet, an effective missile defence for South Korea would likely require even more than the existing THAAD deployment.
The likelihood that the US and China will clash over containment and deterrence options has risen following a volley of militaristic threats between US President Donald Trump and Kim.
North Korea “will have to continue with the provocations, they will have to continue and complete their [nuclear] programme because Kim Jong-un has made it personal and Trump has made it personal”, Terry said.
“You see Kim Jong-un’s statement which came out after Trump made his UN speech. I’ve never seen anything like that, where he says he takes it personally, writing in the first person on the front page of Rodong Shimbun (an official North Korean government newspaper) and putting his name to it. There’s no way Kim Jong-un is going to back down from that. If he was going to back down he would not have made it so personal.”
Terry was referring to Kim’s response to a threat Trump made in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly last week to “totally destroy” North Korea. Kim said in his response carried by state media: “I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged US dotard with fire.”
China and the US remain engaged in finding a solution to their concerns around North Korea, with both sides aiming for denuclearisation.
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson left Washington for Beijing on Thursday and will be there until October 1 for talks that will include Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programmes.
Tillerson and his Chinese counterparts “will discuss a range of issues, including [President Donald Trump’s] planned travel to the region, the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula and trade and investment”, the US State Department said in an announcement earlier this week.
Former NATO military chief: there’s a 10% chance of nuclear war with North Korea
And a 20-30% chance of a conventional one. Vox by Yochi DreazenRetired Navy Adm. James Stavridis spent 37 years in the military, including four years as the supreme allied commander of NATO. Hillary Clinton vetted him as a possible running mate. President-elect Donald Trump considered naming him secretary of state. He is a serious man, and about as far from an armchair pundit as it’s possible to be.
And that’s precisely what makes his assessment of the escalating standoff with North Korea so jarring. Stavridis believes there’s at least a 10 percent chance of a nuclear war between the US and North Korea, and a 20 to 30 percent chance of a conventional, but still bloody, conflict.
“I think we are closer to a significant exchange of ordnance than we have been since the end of the Cold War on the Korean peninsula,” he said during a panel I moderated Tuesday at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perry World House.
His estimate of the potential death toll from even a nonnuclear war with North Korea is just as striking. North Korea has at least 11,000 artillery pieces trained on Seoul, South Korea’s capital of 25 million people, and would be certain to use them during any conflict. The US would be just as certain to mount a sustained bombing campaign to destroy those artillery pieces as quickly as possible.
The result? “It’s hard for me to see less than 500,000 to 1 million people, and I think that’s a conservative estimate,” he said.
Remember: That’s assuming North Korea doesn’t use its arsenal of nuclear weapons, which can already hit Seoul and much of Japan.
Speaking at the same event, Michèle Flournoy, formerly the No. 3 official at the Pentagon in the Obama administration, said Trump’s harsh rhetoric toward Pyongyang — which has included deriding North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as “Little Rocket Man” — created the real risk of an accidental war between the two countries.
“My worry is that all of this heated rhetoric has really charged the environment so that it’s much more likely now that one side or the other will misread what was intended as a show of commitment or a show of force,” she said. “It could be the basis of a miscalculation that actually starts a war that wasn’t intended at that moment.”…….
Here’s why the odds of war with North Korea are rising
Both Stavridis and Flournoy see Kim as a fundamentally rational leader whose overriding goals are to ensure the survival of his regime and his personal control over North Korea. Nuclear weapons, in Flournoy’s words, are “the ace that he could play if there was a conflict to say, ‘Stop, you’re not going to take me out without risking nuclear war.’”
Author challenges British denial over Pacific nuclear legacy http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/340397/author-challenges-british-denial-over-pacific-nuclear-legacy The author of a new book on Pacific nuclear weapons testing says he hopes it will shed more light on Britain’s tests in the region. US and French nuclear tests at Bikini atoll in the Marshall Islands and Murorua and Fangataufa atolls in Tahiti feature regularly in discussions about the environmental and social legacy of Pacific nuclear testing.
But the author Nic McLellan says the fallout of Britain’s hydrogen bomb tests at Kiritimati island in Kiribati isn’t as well documented.
Mr McLellan says unlike the US and France, Britain refuses to accept any responsibility for the negative impacts of its tests on the health of local men, women and children as well as its own soldiers and those from Fiji and New Zealand who observed the tests.
“The British of course tested in my own country Australia with atomic weapons and yet the hydrogen bomb tests in Kiribati are not very well known. And so the book is compiling a lot of information gathered and presents portraits of people who are opposed to the tests. It is really important to recognise that in the 1950s there was widespread opposition to these tests going ahead.”
North Korea’s foreign minister, Ri Yong Ho, said Monday that President Donald Trump had “declared war” on his country and that it had the right to shoot down U.S. bombers. Ri cited a tweet by Trump on Friday threatening the annihilation of Kim Jong Un’s regime. The White House rejected that it had declared war on North Korea, calling the claim “absurd.”
With that war of words and North Korea’s claim of a successful hydrogen bomb test this month as a backdrop, the United Nations again pressed for the end of nuclear weapons worldwide and specifically called on Trump and Kim to end the volley of threats.
“The prevailing security challenges cannot be an excuse for continued reliance on nuclear weapons and for abrogating our shared responsibility to seek a more peaceful international society,” U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in a statement.
As North Korea seeks to join the community of nuclear armed nations, this is what’s known about the current state of nuclear arsenals around the world.
How many nuclear weapons are there?
Since the Cold War ended, nuclear-armed countries have significantly reduced the number of weapons from more than 70,000 in 1986 to nearly 15,000 in 2017, according to FAS.
The U.S. and Russia own and control 93 percent of all nuclear warheads in the world, according to the watchdog. Although the vast majority of weapons are either stockpiled or retired, FAS currently estimates that the U.S. has 1,800 nuclear weapons at the ready, compared to Russia’s 1,950.
The remaining nuclear-armed states hold only a few hundred weapons.
Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at FAS, said there’s still a great deal of work to be done to reduce nuclear stockpiles. Kristensen said he believes both the U.S. and Russia are continuing to create and store weapons in an attempt to compete with each other.
“Clearly there is a special responsibility on the part of the U.S. and Russia to continue to draw down their weapons,” he said. “It is an enormous overkill and vastly in excess of what we need for national security and international commitments.”
What’s being done to reduce nuclear weapons?
On Sept. 20, more than 50 U.N. member states signed the first legally binding international treaty to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons. The document, called the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, represents a historic step in the decades-long crusade to rid the world of nuclear weapons — but not a single nuclear-armed state signed the treaty.
But that doesn’t mean other armed nations aren’t also working to reduce their global nuclear arsenal.
Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at FAS, said there’s still a great deal of work to be done to reduce nuclear stockpiles. Kristensen said he believes both the U.S. and Russia are continuing to create and store weapons in an attempt to compete with each other.
“Clearly there is a special responsibility on the part of the U.S. and Russia to continue to draw down their weapons,” he said. “It is an enormous overkill and vastly in excess of what we need for national security and international commitments.”
What’s being done to reduce nuclear weapons?
On Sept. 20, more than 50 U.N. member states signed the first legally binding international treaty to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons. The document, called the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, represents a historic step in the decades-long crusade to rid the world of nuclear weapons — but not a single nuclear-armed state signed the treaty.
But that doesn’t mean other armed nations aren’t also working to reduce their global nuclear arsenal.
But he also inherited from the Obama administration a commitment to modernize the U.S. nuclear program. Kristensen said he believes that that will form the basis of Trump’s approach to the U.S. nuclear program.
In January, Trump directed the secretary of defense to begin a review of the country’s nuclear posture. That process officially began in April, and a final report will be issued at the end of the year, according to the Pentagon.
What about North Korea?
There are no concrete estimates on the number of nuclear warheads in North Korea, but Kristensen and other analysts agree that Kim Jong Un’s regime has produced enough nuclear fissile material to arm and assemble a ballistic missile.
“They’re making progress,” Kristensen said. “And if they don’t already have the capability to launch a nuclear weapon, they will certainly have it in the near future.”
Kristensen estimates that Kim could have from 20 to 40 nuclear weapons in his arsenal. But he said he’s more worried about the unpredictability of the ongoing war of words between Trump and Kim than he is about the North Korean dictator launching a missile.
“It’s spinning out of control, that’s the fear,” he said. “Every single time Trump puts out one of his tweets and starts his boxing-ring kind of arguments, it feeds totally into the North Korean agenda back home.
“There doesn’t seem to be much strategy to what the administration is doing, other than the gut-reaction kind of responses.”
查看繁體中文版 By RICK GLADSTONE and DAVID E. SANGER,North Korea threatened on Monday to shoot down American warplanes even if they were not in the country’s airspace, stating that President Trump’s comments suggesting he would eradicate North Korea and its leaders were “a declaration of war.”
U.S. knows ‘for sure’ it has A-Bomb, foreign minister says
Korea, Japan, China, Russia may suffer if things get violent
North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons is preventing the U.S. from launching a first strike against the rogue nation, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview.
“The Americans won’t strike because they know for sure — rather than suspect — that it has atomic bombs,” Lavrov said Sunday on Russia’s NTV television. “I’m not defending North Korea right now, I’m just saying that almost everyone agrees with this analysis.”
Lavrov said the U.S. attacked Iraq “solely because they had 100 percent information that there were no weapons of mass destruction left there,” refuting arguments the American government made at the time.
Tensions between the nations ratcheted up this weekend as President Donald Trump and North Korea Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho traded threats. On Saturday, U.S. Air Force B-1B bombers flew over international waters east of North Korea.
Lavrov said thousands of innocent people will suffer, in North Korea and in bordering South Korea, Japan and even maybe China and Russia, in the absence of a diplomatic solution.
Turning to another source of tension, Lavrov also added that he can’t rule out that the U.S. plans for Syria go beyond fighting terrorism. The Americans “swear that they have no goal in Syria other than eliminating terrorists,” he said. “When it happens, we’ll see if this was true or the U.S. nonetheless pursues some political goals, which we yet don’t know of.”
Amid deepening anxiety over the risk of war between the United States and North Korea, much of the international community is embracing the new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This historic global agreement formally opened for signature at UN headquarters on Wednesday.
Presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers and ambassadors from 50 nations lined up to ink the accord, affirming their commitment to disarmament and categorically rejecting, for all time, the most destructive weapons ever created. More leaders are expected to sign in the coming days and weeks.
The signatories hope that, over time, the treaty will establish a powerful global norm against the use and possession of nuclear weapons by any state. Their ultimate objective: to convince all the world’s nations to sign and comply with the treaty, eliminating the nuclear-weapon threat completely.
At the signing ceremony, UN Secretary-General António Guterres declared the treaty open for signature. “There remain some fifteen thousand nuclear weapons in existence,” he reminded those gathered. “We cannot allow these doomsday weapons to endanger our world and our children’s future.”
Peter Maurer, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, also participated in the ceremony. “Humanity simply cannot live under the dark shadow of nuclear warfare,” he said, describing the new treaty as a light “illuminating a pathway towards a world without nuclear weapons.”
Of the 50 nations that signed the treaty on Wednesday, three—Guyana, the Holy See, and Thailand—also deposited their instruments of ratification, thereby formally consenting to be bound to the treaty. Once 50 such instruments have been deposited, the treaty will enter into legal force.
The large number of signatures on the opening day is a remarkable show of support for a treaty that fundamentally challenges the status quo in nuclear diplomacy—one that goes beyond traditional arms control and non-proliferation approaches and embraces an abolitionist agenda.
In the weeks leading up to the ceremony, the United States worked energetically to dissuade nations from signing, perhaps with the aim of preventing it from entering into legal force. But its behind-the-scenes lobbying appears to have been largely unsuccessful.
If ever there were a moment for leaders to declare their total opposition to nuclear weapons, it is now. The dire international security environment is precisely why this treaty is such a vital initiative.
How We Got to North Korea’s Pacific Nuclear Test Threat and What Comes Next It would be the first above-ground detonation in decades and would send tensions into uncharted territory. The Drive BY JOSEPH TREVITHICK, SEPTEMBER 22, 2017 In ever escalating war of words between the United States and Kim Jong-un’s totalitarian regime in North Korea has reached an entirely new level since President Donald Trump threatened to “totally destroy” the Hermit Kingdom in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly. It seems all but guaranteed that the rhetoric will lead to new North Korean provocations, but what’s unprecedented and potentially game-changing is that they could potentially include a full demonstration of a nuclear-armed ballistic missile, or at least an above-ground nuclear weapon test, either which in turn would similarly demand some form of American response.
This latest escalation in tensions between the U.S. government and North Korean officials began on Sept. 19, 2017, when Trump addressed the United Nations General Assembly for the first time with fiery remarks, lashing out at not only North Korea, but also Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and other critics of American foreign policy more broadly. He vowed to put the United States interests first in all matters and encouraged the other assembled leaders to do the same. But he reserved some of the most incendiary comments for Kim, who he has now nicknamed “Rocket Man,” and his regime.
“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,” he declared. “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The United States is ready, willing and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary.”
This particular statement drew “audible gasps” from some of the world leaders in attendance, according to The Associated Press. The North Korean delegation had already walked out in protest before Trump even began speaking……..
The string of threats, especially Nikki Haley’s comments, suggest the United states and its allies could easily handle the increasingly worrisome situation with military force if it runs out of other options. This of course is entirely untrue and major conflict with North Korea would be devastating for all the involved parties.
Not surprisingly, this has not prompted a change in the behavior of the North Korean regime or Premier Kim. As we at The War Zone have noted for months, these statements feed into the country’s existing paranoid and propaganda that the United States and its allies are actively looking to destroy it and forcefully eliminate its government.
It has only appeared to give North Korea more of a reason to continue to develop advanced ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons to achieve some relative parity with the United States in order, if nothing else, to preserve the regime’s very existence. Kim said as much himself in a televised rebuttal on Sept. 21, 2017……
Trump continued the cycle on Sept. 22, 2017, as part of a series of Tweets on various topics. “Kim Jong Un of North Korea, who is obviously a madman who doesn’t mind starving or killing his people, will be tested like never before!” he posted on the social media site.
If his remarks in front of the United Nations seemed likely to generate a North Korean response, the Tweet sounded closer to a direct challenge. Given Kim’s immediate response to Trump’s threat of total destruction, it seems he will have little room but to make a provocative move in response to this new “test.”
After Kim’s own televised address, North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho had already said the North Korean response could include detonating a hydrogen bomb in or over the Pacific Ocean. Earlier in September 2017, North Korea tested what experts believe to be a working thermonuclear device…….
In the future, North Korea may simply need to conduct nuclear weapons tests outside of its own borders since the Punggye-ri underground test site may simply not be able to survive the strain of more powerful thermonuclear designs. The nuclear test earlier in September 2017 appeared to cause the tunnel containing the device to collapse, highlighting the limits of underground testing.
Even if the atmospheric test went as intended, it could be difficult to be entirely sure there would be no inadvertent casualties and the resulting fallout could easily fall on civilian mariners or populated areas……..
despite Nikki Haley’s and H.R. McMaster’s insistence that there are available military options to respond to these growing provocations, as well as Trump’s vague threats, any direct action would be fraught with its own dangers. One of the most likely courses of action, shooting down the missile, carries significant risks as the impact of the interceptor could trigger the device or the radioactive debris could fall over populated areas.
Perhaps more importantly to the viability of America’s still largely unproven ballistic missile defense shield, if the intercepting weapon misses or otherwise fails to achieve the desired effect, it would expose a serious vulnerability to not just North Korea, but the rest of the world…..
In particular, systems that engage the missile as it comes falling back down to earth, such as the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) system, have a very narrow window to achieve a “kill.” Furthermore, this means that personnel manning the interceptors would likely be in the direct path the incoming weapon, and if it was fully armed, a nuclear test.
There is very little room for failure in any of these scenarios. Even if the shoot down were to go smoothly, it is possible that it could trigger a larger and immensely destructive conflict on the Korean Peninsula or throughout East Asia. The War Zone’s Tyler Rogoway has highlighted these various issues previously in a deep dive into the United States’ available options in responding to North Korea’s continued provocations……..
All of these options still come with their own risks, though, and there’s still no indication that they would convince Kim to change course. If the North Korean regime’s primary goal is its own survival, it is perfectly rational for them to continue to demonstrate their resolve to respond in kind to American threats.
And despite his comments, Trump’s first step, on Sept. 21, 2017, was to sign a new executive order penalizing any individual or business doing business with North Korea. This follows a trend of steady sanctions against actors and firms outside of North Korea that the United States accuses of enabling the reclusive country’s government.
Trump and other members of his administration repeatedly question Kim’s mental stability, but as we at The War Zone have noted before, he clearly has a coherent plan. We’re still not sure that U.S. government has developed a thought-out strategy to dissuade him from his chosen path.
North Korea ‘threatens Pacific nuclear test’ Sky News, , 22 September 2017 North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho says he believes the North could consider a hydrogen bomb test on the Pacific Ocean of an unprecedented scale, South Korea’s Yonhap news agency reports.
Mr Ri was speaking to reporters in New York when he was asked what North Korean leader Kim Jong-un had meant when he threatened in an earlier statement the ‘highest level of hard-line countermeasure in history’ against the United States.
North Korea could consider a hydrogen bomb test, Mr Ri said, although he did not know his leader’s exact thoughts, Yonhap reported.
In an earlier statement Mr Kim said Mr Trump was ‘mentally deranged’ and his comments were ‘the most ferocious declaration of a war in history,’ Mr Kim said the US president’s UN speech on Tuesday confirmed Pyongyang’s nuclear program has been ‘the correct path’.
‘His remarks … have convinced me, rather than frightening or stopping me, that the path I chose is correct and that it is the one I have to follow to the last,’ Mr Kim said in the statement carried by the North’s official KCNA news agency, promising to make Trump ‘pay dearly for his speech’.
Mr Trump had warned the North Korean leader in his UN address on Tuesday that the United States, if threatened, would ‘totally destroy’ the country of 26 million people and mocked Kim as a ‘rocket man’ on a suicide mission………
He offered more vitriol for Mr Trump, saying he was ‘unfit to hold the prerogative of supreme command of a country, and he is surely a rogue and a gangster fond of playing with fire, rather than a politician.’
