How Cheney and His Allies Created the North Korea Nuclear Missile Crisis, December 28, 2017, By Gareth Porter, Truthout | News Analysis, The Trump administration has been telling people for months that the crisis with North Korea is the result of North Korea’s relentless pursuit of a nuclear threat to the US homeland and past North Korean cheating on diplomatic agreements. However, North Korea reached agreements with both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations that could have averted that threat, had they been completed.
Instead, a group of Bush administration officials led by then-Vice President Dick Cheney sabotaged both agreements, and Pyongyang went on to make rapid strides on both nuclear and missile development, leading ultimately to the successful late November 2017 North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) test.
The record shows, moreover, that Cheney and his allies derailed diplomatic efforts to curb North Korean nuclear and missile development, not because they opposed “arms control” (after all, the agreements that were negotiated would have limited only North Korean arms), but because those agreements would have been a political obstacle to fielding the group’s main interest: funding and fielding a national missile defense system as quickly as possible. The story of Cheney’s maneuvering to kill two agreements shows how a real US national security interest was sacrificed to a massive military boondoggle that served only the interests of the powerful contractors behind it………http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/43048-how-cheney-and-his-allies-created-the-north-korea-nuclear-missile-crisis
Trump’s call for some ‘good old global warming’ ridiculed by climate experts. US president again conflates weather with climate to mock climate change. Experts call comments ‘scientifically ridiculous and demonstrably false’,Guardian, Michael McGowan and Joanna Walters, -30 Dec 17, -Donald Trump once dismissed it as a “hoax” created by the Chinese to destroy American jobs, but on a freezing Thursday night in the eastern US the president found himself pining for some of that “good old global warming”.
On holiday in Florida on Thursday, Trump wondered if global warming might not be such a problem after all.
More radioactively contaminated cars, trucks found at Hanford, Tri City Herald BY ANNETTE CARY, acary@tricityherald.com, DECEMBER 27, 2017
The number of vehicles contaminated with specks of radioactive material at Hanford’s Plutonium Finishing Plant has jumped to 19 as checks continue.
As of about 2 p.m. Wednesday, 12 government or contractor vehicles had been found with radioactive contamination, with 55 of 86 vehicles still to be surveyed.The number increased from seven contaminated government and contractor vehicles discovered before the Christmas weekend.
The dozen government and contractor vehicles are in addition to seven worker cars or pickups found to have specks of contamination since demolition was completed Dec. 15 on the most contaminated section of the plant, the Plutonium Reclamation Facility.
Post-demolition surveying found specks of radioactive material, some too small to see, had spread outside the demolition zone set up to control the spread of radioactive contamination. The highly contaminated plant has been cleaned out, but demolition with heavy equipment is still high-hazard work. Contamination that can easily become airborne remains after 40 years of work to process plutonium produced at Hanford into hockey-puck sized “buttons” and plutonium oxide powder to be shipped to the nation’s nuclear weapons production facilities…….http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article191895614.html
How Trump could kill the Iran nuclear deal in January The president will soon face a series of deadlines during which he could deliver on a campaign promise to rip up the 2015 agreement. Politico eu, By MICHAEL CROWLEY, 12/28/17, President Donald Trump allowed the Iran nuclear deal to survive through 2017, but the new year will offer him another chance to blow up the agreement — and critics and supporters alike believe he may take it.
By mid-January, the president will face new legal deadlines to choose whether to slap U.S. sanctions back on Tehran. Senior lawmakers and some of Trump’s top national security officials are trying to preserve the agreement. But the deal’s backers fear Trump has grown more willing to reject the counsel of his foreign policy team, as he did with his recent decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital……..
The deal was negotiated in 2015 by the Obama administration, along with five other nations. It lifted U.S. and European sanctions on Iran in exchange for strict limits on Tehran’s nuclear program. …..
The deadlines for Trump begin on January 11, when the agreement requires him — as it does every 90 days — to certify whether Tehran is meeting its obligations under the deal. International inspectors who visit the country’s nuclear facilities have repeatedly said Iran is doing so. But Trump refused to certify Iranian compliance in mid-October……..
upcoming deadlines for Trump to continue the temporary waiver of U.S. sanctions on Iran, which the deal dictates will not be permanently repealed for several more years. The president must renew the waivers every 120 days. Sources familiar with the law said multiple waiver deadlines arrive between January 12 and January 17, forcing Trump to reassess the deal.
If Trump rejects the waivers and restores biting sanctions, Tehran is certain to claim the U.S. has breached the agreement and — supporters of the deal say — may restart its nuclear program. That could court a military confrontation with the U.S. and Israel. At a minimum, the U.S would find itself isolated abroad given that every other party to the deal — France, the U.K., Germany, China and Russia — all strongly oppose a U.S. withdrawal from the agreement.
Top Trump officials, including National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, all hope to avoid that outcome, telling others that while they may not love the nuclear deal, the potential fallout from a unilateral U.S. withdrawal would be too great to risk……….https://www.politico.eu/article/iran-how-donald-trump-could-kill-the-iran-nuclear-deal-in-january/
North Korea will not be accepted as a nuclear power by US or Russia, say Rex Tillerson and Sergei Lavrov Both sides agree to pursue a ‘diplomatic solution’ to the crisis, The Independent, Mythili Sampathkumar New York @MythiliSk 28 Dec 17 The US and Russia have insisted they will not accept North Koreaas a “nuclear state”, amid a series of missile tests by the East Asian nation and increased rhetoric from both Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump.
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke by phone on a myriad of issues, but both agreed on their stance regarding Pyongyang’s continued development of nuclear weapons despite United Nations sanctions.
State Department Heather Nauert said in a statement that “both sides agreed that they will continue to work towards a diplomatic solution to achieve a denuclearised Korean peninsula”. However, on the same call on Tuesday, Mr Lavrov criticised President Donald Trump’s “aggressive rhetoric” towards North Korea……..
Late last week, the UN Security Council also unanimously passed – including votes from Russia and China who have closer ties to Pyongyang – more sanctions on North Korea, further limiting its oil supplies and slave labour market. …..
Exposing the misinformation of Michael Shellenberger and ‘Environmental Progress’ Jim Green,Nuclear Monitor Issue: #853 4689 30/10/2017 “………….Fake scientists and radiation quackery
Environmental Progress’s UK director John Lindberg is described as an “expert on radiation” on the EP website.38 In fact, he has no scientific qualifications whatsoever let alone specialist qualifications regarding the health effects of ionizing radiation. Likewise, a South Korean article39 reposted on the EP website (without correction) falsely claims that Shellenberger is a scientist; in fact, he has a degree in cultural anthropology.
Lindberg is an ‘Associate Member’ of Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information (SARI)40, a group comprised mostly of quacks, cranks, non-scientists and conspiracy theorists whose views are directly at odds with those of scientific associations such as UNSCEAR.
SARI is at war with the linear, no-threshold (LNT) model ‒ the group’s short ‘Charter & Mission’ insists three times that LNT is “misinformation”.41 Yet LNT enjoys heavy-hitting scientific support. For example the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation states that “the risk of cancer proceeds in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and … the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans.”34 Likewise, a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences states: “Given that it is supported by experimentally grounded, quantifiable, biophysical arguments, a linear extrapolation of cancer risks from intermediate to very low doses currently appears to be the most appropriate methodology.”42
A 2010 UNSCEAR report isn’t sold on the linear part of LNT but it is at odds with SARI (and EP) on the question of a threshold. The UNSCEAR report states that “the current balance of available evidence tends to favour a non-threshold response for the mutational component of radiation-associated cancer induction at low doses and low dose rates.”43By contrast, SARI promotes hormesis ‒ the discredited view that low-dose radiation exposure is beneficial to human health.44 https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/853/exposing-misinformation-michael-shellenberger-and-environmental-progress
South Carolina Spent $9 Billion on Nuclear Reactors That Will Never Run. Now What?The legislature must decide whether residents will keep being charged, possibly for decades, for the failed project. Governing. BY ALAN GREENBLATT| JANUARY 2018 It has to be one of the greatest wastes of money in any state’s history. Last summer, two utility companies halted construction on nuclear reactors in South Carolina. They had already sunk more than $9 billion into the project, which will never be completed or generate a kilowatt of power. The state is now trying to figure out who’s to blame, and who will pay.
The story started a dozen years ago. Back in 2006, South Carolina, along with several other states, passed legislation to try to jumpstart the moribund nuclear construction industry………
Customers have already been billed some $2 billion for the reactors. Under current regulations, the utilities continue to collect $37 million per month. That means the average ratepayer is paying an additional $250 per year, or 18 percent of the bill. This could go on for 60 years. “You will literally have your children and grandchildren pay for this mistake,” says Bursey.
Some legislators have argued that consumers shouldn’t be on the hook for the billions already charged. But it may not be legally possible to recover the money. It may not even be feasible. The utilities don’t have the cash to give back, even if they wanted to. “That would be the fair thing, but it’s not realistic,” Massey says.
Instead, the fight in the legislature this year will be about whether to curtail additional payments going forward. Needless to say, the utilities are opposed to that idea. They insist they must collect the money, or they won’t be able to continue operating or have access to capital. They aren’t sympathetic actors, but Santee Cooper is state-owned so legislators will have to take its concerns seriously…..http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-south-carolina-nuclear-reactors.html
Exposing the misinformation of Michael Shellenberger and ‘Environmental Progress’ Jim Green,
Nuclear Monitor Issue: #853 4689 30/10/2017 “…..Chernobyl and Fukushima
Shellenberger says that at a recent talk in Berlin: “Many Germans simply could not believe how few people died and will die from the Chernobyl accident (under 200) and that nobody died or will die from the meltdowns at Fukushima. How could it be that everything we were told is not only wrong, but often the opposite of the truth?”4
There’s a simple reason that Germans didn’t believe Shellenberger’s claims about Chernobyl and Fukushima ‒ they are false.
Shellenberger claims that “under 200” people have died and will die from the Chernobyl disaster. In fact, the lowest of the estimates of the Chernobyl cancer death toll is the World Health Organization’s estimate of “up to 9,000 excess cancer deaths” in the most contaminated parts of the former Soviet Union.29 And of course there are higher estimates for the death toll across Europe.30,31
Shellenberger claims that the Fukushima meltdowns “killed precisely no one” and that “nobody died or will die from the meltdowns at Fukushima”.4 An EP report has this to say about Fukushima: “[T]he science is unequivocal: nobody has gotten sick much less died from the radiation that escaped from three meltdowns followed by three hydrogen gas explosions. And there will be no increase in cancer rates.”3
In support of those assertions, EP cites a World Health Organization report that directly contradicts EP’s claims. The WHO report concluded that for people in the most contaminated areas in Fukushima Prefecture, the estimated increased risk for all solid cancers will be around 4% in females exposed as infants; a 6% increased risk of breast cancer for females exposed as infants; a 7% increased risk of leukaemia for males exposed as infants; and for thyroid cancer among females exposed as infants, an increased risk of up to 70% (from a 0.75% lifetime risk up to 1.25%).32
Applying a linear-no threshold (LNT) risk factor to the estimated collective radiation dose from Fukushima fallout gives an estimated long-term cancer death toll of around 5,000 people.33 Nuclear lobbyists are quick to point out that LNT may overestimate risks from low dose and low dose-rate exposure. But LNT may also underestimate the risks. The 2006 report of the US National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) states: “The committee recognizes that its risk estimates become more uncertain when applied to very low doses. Departures from a linear model at low doses, however, could either increase or decrease the risk per unit dose.”34 And the BEIR report states that “combined analyses are compatible with a range of possibilities, from a reduction of risk at low doses to risks twice those upon which current radiation protection recommendations are based.”34
Fukushima evacuation
Shellenberger claims that the Fukushima evacuation was “entirely unnecessary and indeed counterproductive” and it was the “outcome of the kind of fear-mongering engaged in by Moon, FOE, and Greenpeace.”4 But of course Moon Jae-in, FOE and Greenpeace had nothing to do with the evacuation of 160,000 people in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster. Evacuations were ordered not on the basis of fear-mongering by nuclear critics; they were ordered on the basis of multiple fires, hydrogen explosions and presumed meltdowns.
EP states: “In 2013, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) concluded that the vast majority of the Fukushima evacuation zone is safe and nearly all residents could have returned long ago ‒ indeed, most should never have left.”3 But the UNSCEAR report didn’t conclude that the vast majority of the Fukushima evacuation zone is safe or that nearly all residents could have returned long ago, and it didn’t state that most evacuees should never have left.35 The UNSCEAR report states: “The actions taken to protect the public significantly reduced the radiation exposures that could have been received. This was particularly the case for settlements within the 20-km evacuation zone and the deliberate evacuation zones, where the protective measures reduced the potential exposures in the first year by up to a factor of 10.”35
An EP report berates the Japanese government for failing to follow “normal protocols” by ordering Fukushima residents to evacuate instead of sheltering in place.3 EP cites a 2015 IAEA report36 in support of that argument, but nowhere in the IAEA report (or any IAEA report) is there a proscription against evacuation in response to nuclear accidents. No IAEA report states that sheltering in place should be the “normal protocol” in the event of a nuclear accident ‒ the appropriate response depends entirely on the circumstances. A 2011 IAEA report points to the impracticality of sheltering in place as a long-term response to elevated radiation levels following nuclear accidents: “Lesson 12: The use of long term sheltering is not an effective approach and has been abandoned and concepts of ‘deliberate evacuation’ and ‘evacuation-prepared area’ were introduced for effective long term countermeasures using guidelines of the ICRP [International Commission on Radiological Protection] and IAEA.”37
The 2015 IAEA report notes that radiation levels were astronomical in some areas in the days after the Fukushima disaster ‒ even in some locations beyond the 20 km exclusion zone, dose rates of the order of a few hundred microsieverts per hour were measured from 15 March 2011 onward.36 Thus the annual public limit of 1 millisievert from anthropogenic sources would be reached in just a few hours, and the Japanese government’s new limit of 20 millisieverts in Fukushima-contaminated regions would be reached in just a few days.https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/853/exposing-misinformation-michael-shellenberger-and-environmental-progress
New York Removes Old Nuclear Fallout Shelter Signs in Move That Seems Premature, Gizmodo
Matt Novak,28 Dec 17, Experts on nuclear confrontation say that a nuclear war is a very real possibility here in the 21st century. The US and North Korea are just one misstep away from nuclear destruction. But that hasn’t stopped New York City officials from beginning to take down outdated nuclear fallout shelter signs posted at public schools. And even though it might be a practical decision, removing the signs somehow feels premature.
As Reuters reports, many of the old nuclear shelter signs you see on buildings around New York are from the 1960s and direct you to areas that are no longer nuclear fallout shelters. Community fallout shelters were first coordinated in public spaces like schools and libraries by the Office of Civil Defense, which was dissolved in 1970.
Fallout shelter signs are still seen all around the country, and while they disappear on occasion when an old building is torn down, major cities like New York have typically made no coordinated effort to remove them. That changed recently when the city’s Department of Education decided it was time to take down as many as they could find on public school buildings. The goal, according to officials who briefed Reuters, is to get them all down by January 1st, 2018. Signs that are still on private buildings will likely remain………
Back in the 1960s, there were serious debates about whether the government had any responsibility to protect the public with shelters meant for large numbers of people. These days, Americans seem resigned to the fact that if nuclear war comes, everyone is on their own.
The reason the Mesothelioma Compensation Center frequently mentions nuclear power plant workers and US Navy Veterans with mesothelioma in the same sentence is because many nuclear power plant workers received their initial training about reactors in the US Navy. The US Navy literally has a school where navy sailors learn about nuclear reactors and it is called ‘Nuke School.’ http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=79643.
According to the Mesothelioma Compensation Center, “The mesothelioma lawyers we suggest work their mesothelioma compensation claims extremely hard and they typically get the best financial compensation results for their clients on a nationwide basis.
A case work up typically involves every single place or instance where a diagnosed person could have been exposed to asbestos. Further there is no charge for their services if there is not a financial settlement.
“When it comes to receiving the best possible mesothelioma financial compensation it is absolutely vital you hire the most qualified mesothelioma attorneys, as we would like to discuss anytime at 800-714-0303 – especially if you are a nuclear power plant worker or US Navy Veteran. The potential compensation for a nuclear power worker or Navy Veteran with mesothelioma could easily exceed a million dollars provided they have the best legal representation.” http://MesotheliomaCompensationCenter.Com
The Mesothelioma Compensation Center is especially focused on assisting nuclear power workers or Navy Veterans with mesothelioma in the following states:
California
New York
Texas
Florida
Washington
Connecticut
Arizona
Georgia
South Carolina
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Ohio
Tennessee
Maine
For more information, a nuclear power worker or a US Navy Veteran with confirmed mesothelioma, or their family members, are encouraged to call the Mesothelioma Compensation Center anytime at 800-714-0303 for their unsurpassed free services, or they can contact the group via its web site at http://MesotheliomaCompensationCenter.Com
The Mesothelioma Compensation Center specializes in assisting US Navy Veterans, power plant workers, shipyard workers, oil refinery workers, public utility workers, hydro-electric workers, chemical plant workers, nuclear power plant workers, manufacturing workers, oil and gas field production workers, plumbers, electricians, millwrights, pipefitters and welders who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma. In most instances these people were exposed to asbestos during the1950’s, 1960’s, 1970’s, or 1980’s.
US Navy Veterans account for a significant portion of all diagnosed victims of mesothelioma each year. The average age for a diagnosed victim of mesothelioma is about 70 years old. Each year between 2,500 and 3,000 US citizens will be diagnosed with mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is attributable to exposure to asbestos.
According to the CDC, the states indicated with the highest incidence of mesothelioma include Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Louisiana, Washington, and Oregon. However, a nuclear power plant worker or Navy Veteran who worked on nuclear reactors with mesothelioma could live in any state including California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, or Alaska.
For more information about mesothelioma please refer to the National Institutes of Health’s web site related to this rare form of cancer: https://www.cancer.gov/types/mesothelioma.
“……..Weekly or daily weather patterns tell you nothing about longer-term climate change (and that goes for the warm days too). Climate is defined as the statistical properties of the atmosphere: averages, extremes, frequency of occurrence, deviations from normal, and so forth. The clothes that you have on today do not describe what you have in your closet but rather how you dressed for today’s weather. ……
The other thing to point out is that because one part of the world is cold (in that valley), there is likely another part of the world experiencing abnormally warm conditions (in the hill part of the wave pattern). In the temperature map tweeted by long-time weather observer Joe Stepansky, it is clear that on December 28th the United States and parts of Canada are experiencing the anomalously cold weather. …..
Exposing the misinformation of Michael Shellenberger and ‘Environmental Progress’ Jim Green,Nuclear Monitor Issue: #853 4689 30/10/2017
“…….Attacking environment groups
Shellenberger reduces the complexities of environmental opposition to nuclear power to the claim that in the 1960s, an “influential group of conservationists within Sierra Club feared that cheap, abundant electricity from nuclear would result in overpopulation and resource depletion” and therefore decided to campaign against nuclear power.4
If such views had any currency in the 1960s, they certainly don’t now. Yet EP asserts that Greenpeace and FOE “oppose cheap and abundant energy”3 and Shellenberger asserts that “the FOE-Greenpeace agenda has never been to protect humankind but rather to punish us for our supposed transgressions.”4 And Shellenberger suggests that such views are still current by asserting that the anti-nuclear movement has a “long history of Malthusian anti-humanism aimed at preventing “overpopulation” and “overconsumption” by keeping poor countries poor.”8 Again we see Shellenberger’s M.O. of relentless repetition of falsehoods in the hope that mud will stick.
In an ‘investigative piece’ ‒ titled ‘Enemies of the Earth: Unmasking the Dirty War Against Clean Energy in South Korea by Friends of the Earth (FOE) and Greenpeace’ ‒ Shellenberger lists three groups which he claims have accepted donations “from fossil fuel and renewable energy investors, as well as others who stand to benefit from killing nuclear plants”.4 FOE and Greenpeace don’t feature among the three groups even though the ‘investigative piece’ is aimed squarely at them.
Undeterred by his failure to present any evidence of FOE and Greenpeace accepting fossil fuel funding (they don’t), Shellenberger asserts that the donors and board members of FOE and Greenpeace “are the ones who win the government contracts to build solar and wind farms, burn dirty “renewable” biomass, and import natural gas from the United States and Russia.”4 Really? Where’s the evidence? There’s none in Shellenberger’s ‘investigative piece’.
In an article for a South Korean newspaper, Shellenberger states: “Should we be surprised that natural gas companies fund many of the anti-nuclear groups that spread misinformation about nuclear? The anti-nuclear group Friends of the Earth ‒ which has representatives in South Korea ‒ received its initial funding from a wealthy oil man …”45He fails to note that the donation was in 1969! And he fails to substantiate his false insinuation that FOE accepts funding from natural gas companies, or his false claim that natural gas companies fund “many of the anti-nuclear groups”.
Shellenberger’s ‘investigative piece’ falsely claims4 that FOE keeps its donors secret, and in support of that falsehood he cites an article8 (written by Shellenberger) that doesn’t even mention FOE. EP falsely claims that FOE has hundreds of millions of dollars in its bank and stock accounts.3
EP has an annual budget of US$1.5 million, Shellenberger claims, and he asks how EP “can possibly succeed against the anti-nuclear Goliath with 500 times the resources.”8
An anti-nuclear Goliath with 500 times EP’s budget of US$1.5 million, or US$750 million in annual expenditure on anti-nuclear campaigns? Shellenberger claims that Greenpeace has annual income of US$400 million to finance its work in 55 nations8 ‒ but he doesn’t note that only a small fraction of that funding is directed to anti-nuclear campaigns. FOE’s worldwide budget is US$12 million according to EP3 ‒ but only a small fraction is directed to anti-nuclear campaigns.
Timeline of Trump’s Path to Nuclear War https://www.globalresearch.ca/timeline-of-trumps-path-to-nuclear-war/5623937 By Walt Gelles Global Research, December 26, 2017 Donald Trump’s reckless policies, belligerence, volatile personality, and rejection of diplomacy have brought the world to the brink of war in Korea. Such a war could rapidly turn nuclear, killing hundreds of thousands or millions of people, spreading deadly radiation across the planet, and likely involving China and Russia. North Korea will never give up its nuclear and ballistic missile program under pressure, as it views the program as an indispensable bulwark against U.S. aggression.
The following timeline reveals how dangerous the situation is—a situation artificially ratcheted up by U.S. President Trump and his fellow warmongers. The world needs to unite against Trump and his war plans, which pose an imminent threat to humanity—just as the world united against Trump’s illegal and counterproductive declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
August 8
Trump threatens apocalypse—
“North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States,” Trump told reporters….“They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. He [North Korean leader Kim Jong Un] has been very threatening … and as I said they will be met with fire, fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.”
(Emphasis added throughout)
—“Trump warns North Korea threats ‘will be met with fire and fury’ “. CNBC, Jacob Pramuk.
Trump’s remarks were widely criticized by both Republicans and Democrats as well as the corporate media.
September 27
“On September 26, four days after the Pentagon sent a flight of B-1 bombers and fighter escorts off North Korea in a display of military force, Pyongyang “moved a small number of fighter jets, external fuel tanks and air-to-air missiles to a base on its eastern coast,” according to reports. Trump threatened Pyongyang once again, saying he was prepared for “a military option” to solve the crisis, which would be “devastating.”
…Nobody knows how [Trump] will feel when he wakes up to find that Kim has tested another H-bomb, flung a missile over Japan or needled him with another insult. All we know is that when he wanders out in his bathrobe and opens the nuclear football, he’s got the keys to Armageddon in his hands.”
“Senator Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, charged in an interview that President Trump was treating his office like “a reality show,” with reckless threats toward other countries that could set the nation “on the path to World War III.” In an extraordinary rebuke of a president of his own party, Mr. Corker said he was alarmed about a president who acts “like he’s doing ‘The Apprentice’ or something.” “He concerns me,” Mr. Corker added. “He would have to concern anyone who cares about our nation.”
…When Mr. Trump, posting on Twitter, accused Mr. Corker of deciding not to run for re-election because he “didn’t have the guts.” Mr. Corker shot back in his own tweet: “It’s a shame the White House has become an adult day care center….” Mr. Trump poses such an acute risk, the senator said, that a coterie of senior administration officials must protect him from his own instincts. “I know for a fact that every single day at the White House, it’s a situation of trying to contain him.” ….Mr. Corker said his concerns about Mr. Trump were shared by nearly every Senate Republican.” ”
—“Bob Corker Says Trump’s Recklessness Threatens ‘World War III’”. Jonathan Martin and Mark Landler. New York Times, Oct. 8, 2017
October 13, 2017
Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor—
“Corker’s interview [see above] was followed by a report from Gabriel Sherman of Vanity Fair, who wrote that the situation has gotten so out of control that Trump’s chief of staff, John Kelly, and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis have discussed ways to stop Trump should he order a nuclear attack…. Many of Trump’s advisors believe he is “unstable” and “unravelling” quickly.
“Is Trump really unraveling?….I phoned an old friend, a Republican former member of Congress who keeps up with what’s going on. I scribbled notes as he talked:
Me: So what’s up?….
He: …Others are thinking about doing what Bob did. Sounding the alarm. They think Trump’s nuts. Unfit. Dangerous….[U.S. Secretary of State] Tillerson would leave tomorrow if he wasn’t so worried Trump would go nuclear, literally.
…Me: You think Trump is really thinking nuclear war?
He: Who knows what’s in his head? But I can tell you this. He’s not listening to anyone. Not a soul. He’s got the nuclear codes and, well, it scares the hell out of me. It’s starting to scare all of them.That’s really why Bob [Corker] spoke up.
…Me: So what’s gonna happen?
He: You got me. I’m just glad I’m not there anymore. Trump’s not just a moron. He’s a despicable human being. And he’s getting crazier. Paranoid. Unhinged. Everyone knows it. I mean, we’re in shit up to our eyeballs with this guy.”
“If Trump wants nuclear war, virtually no one can stop him….There is no law that would make a presidential order to launch a preemptive nuclear strike on North Korea illegal…. Congress has the constitutional responsibility for declaring war, but it has not done so since World War II. That has not prevented every president since then from engaging in military conflicts large and small. Even American participation in the Korean War was not authorized by Congress. So, the absence of a formal declaration of war against North Korea is no barrier to a nuclear strike.
….In addition, Trump has taken a step that further removes the possibility of a legal constraint. He has added North Korea once again to the list of state sponsors of terrorism….The list has frequently been used for political purposes that have nothing to do with terrorism. That is demonstrated by the fact that the Bush administration took North Korea off the list in an attempt to salvage a deal regarding its nuclear program….
The bottom line is that a nuclear war won’t be prevented by military officers refusing to obey an order they consider illegal. And such a situation won’t be avoided by congressional action. The legislative branch is paralyzed by partisan politics. Using the bomb is up to the discretion of a president who came to office with no experience in the military, government or foreign affairs beyond real estate deals in other countries. And after ten months of on-the-job training, he seems no better prepared for such a responsibility.”
Senator Lindsey Graham plays golf with Trump and predicts war—
” …Lindsey Graham [Republican, South Carolina] …estimated the odds that the Trump administration deliberately strikes North Korea first, to stop it from acquiring the capability to target the U.S. mainland with a long-range, nuclear-tipped missile. And the senator’s numbers were remarkably high. “I would say there’s a three in 10 chance we use the military option,” Graham predicted….If the North Koreans conduct an additional test of a nuclear bomb—their seventh—“I would say 70 percent.”
Graham said that the issue of North Korea came up during a round of golf he played with the president on Sunday. “It comes up all the time,” he said. “War with North Korea is an all-out war against the regime,” he said. “There is no surgical strike option. Their [nuclear-weapons] program is too redundant, it’s too hardened, and you gotta assume the worst, not the best. So if you ever use the military option, it’s not to just neutralize their nuclear facilities—you gotta be willing to take the regime completely down.”
Earlier, on August 1, “Senator Graham said that President Trump is willing to go to war with North Korea to stop it from being able to hit the American mainland with a nuclear weapon. “There is a military option: to destroy North Korea’s nuclear program and North Korea itself,” Graham told the Today show’s Matt Lauer. “He’s not going to allow—President Trump—the ability of this madman [Kim Jong Un] to have a missile that could hit America. If there’s going to be a war to stop him, it will be over there. If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die over here—and he’s told me that to my face.”
The North Koreans are not stupid: They know they’re militarily outclassed by the United States and South Korea. So their strategy in the event of an out-and-out war, as far as outside analysts can tell, is to inflict overwhelming pain as quickly as possible: to bombard South Korea, US allies in Japan, and any American forces they can find with missiles and artillery to the point where their stronger enemies lose their appetite for a protracted conflict….
A South Korean simulation conducted in 2004, before the North had developed nuclear weapons, estimated that there could be up to 2 million casualties in the first 24 hours of a conflict. Obviously, the death toll would be exponentially higher if North Korea used any of its nuclear weapons. Those could potentially destroy Tokyo (population 9.3 million), Seoul (population 10 million), or other cities in the two countries. It’s not clear how many working nuclear weapons the North has, though estimates suggest around 10 to 16. We do know that its missiles have enough range to reach Tokyo, and that the country has tested a nuclear weapon designed to fit on precisely such a missile.
“This is madness,” Kingston Reif, the director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association, tweeted after seeing Graham’s comments. “Unhinged madness.””
Interviewed by the BBC, US National Security Advisor, General H.R. McMaster said “We have to be prepared, if necessary, to compel the denuclearisation of North Korea without the co-operation of that regime.” His statement was almost tantamount to a unilateral declaration of war. (“HR McMaster: Russian meddling ‘sophisticated subversion’”. BBC News, Dec. 19, 2017 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42409144)
Asked during a PBS interview whether he thought the chance of war was increasing every day, McMaster said: “I think it is still the case. We’re out of time with this problem. Not out of time completely but we have a very short amount of time to be able to address the problem of North Korea.”
McMaster’s reiterating of this ominous warning over the past few months is apparently intended to make a U.S. attack on North Korea sound inevitable.
December 20, 2017
“America is drawing up plans for a ‘bloody nose’ military attack on North Korea to stop its nuclear weapons programme, The [London] Telegraph understands. The White House has ‘dramatically’ stepped up preparation for a military solution in recent months amid fears diplomacy is not working, well-placed sources said.
One option is destroying a launch site before it is used by the regime for a new missile test. Stockpiles of weapons could also be targeted. The hope is that military force would show Kim Jong-un that America is ‘serious’ about stopping further nuclear development and trigger negotiations. Three sources—two former US officials familiar with current thinking and a third figure in the administration—confirmed military options were being worked up.”
—“Exclusive: US making plans for ‘bloody nose’ military attack on North Korea”. London Telegraph
December 22, 2017
John Bolton beats war drums—
“North Korea could be hit by a pre-emptive military strike from the US as it continues to ramp up its missile fears to the globe. The rogue state has accelerated its nuclear and ballistic missile testing over the past year, sparking World War 3 fears. Former US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, said that the US President Donald Trump is “very close” to making a huge decision on the hermit kingdom. Speaking to Fox Business, Mr Bolton said: “I think the President shouldn’t be waiting around. I think actually we are very close to a binary decision here.
“Either we leave North Korea with this ballistic missile capability and the possibility of putting a nuclear warhead under the nose cone. Or we take military pre-emptive action.” “
In their first and only meeting, Barack Obama told his successor that North Korea ― a volatile nation hellbent on nuclear proliferation ― would pose the biggest foreign challenge his administration would face.
Trump, who has dedicated much of his presidency to erasingObama’slegacy, seemed to heed this advice, briefly. After rarely mentioning North Korea during his election campaign, he swiftly elevated the issue to his primary foreign policy concern (and later declared an end to Obama’s “era of strategic patience” with the rogue state).
But under Trump’s leadership, the past year has seen brewing tensions between Washington and Pyongyang soar to unprecedented levels with a specter of nuclear war. Economic sanctions in response to a series of North Korean missile launches escalated into a direct exchange of heated insults and threats between Trump and Kim Jong Un, the hermit kingdom’s hostile dictator.
Clashes between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un dominated headlines this year.
North Korea’s Nuclear Strides
The Pentagon’s efforts to stave off conflict with North Korea have been marred by a string of “decisive failures” this year, according to new analysis published this month from the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank.
“The United States and [North Korea] have engaged in bellicose rhetorical brinksmanship, making war between the two states seem increasingly likely,” wrote Katy Collin, a post-doctoral fellow at the Brookings Foreign Policy program. “Public acceptance of the possibility of conflict within the United States has ballooned. Mechanisms to head off escalation caused by misunderstandings do not exist.”
North Korea made remarkable technological advances to its internationally condemned nuclear program throughout 2017. It conducted its sixth and most powerful nuclear teston Sept. 3, which the regime claimed was a hydrogen bomb loaded onto an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Subsequent analysis of seismic data revealed the test was approximately 17 times stronger than the blast that decimated the Japanese city of Hiroshima during World War II.
Pyongyang has also expanded the reach of its missiles this year: The entire continental U.S. is now believed to be within ICBM striking range. Experts have expressed concern at North Korea’s alarming progress, and worry that it is on track to outpace America’s abilities to defend itself and its allies in the region.
The regime’s most recent missile launch in late November exceeded 8,100 miles in range. As tested, such a rocket would be able to travel more than enough distance to reach Washington, D.C., or New York City, although it is unclear if it could transport a warhead that far.
“North Korea knows what they’re doing,” David Wright, a physicist and the co-director of the global security program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told HuffPost at the time. “It’s hard to say if it’s six months or two years before they can deliver a nuclear warhead, but it’s heading in that direction.”
Donald Trump’s Fire And Fury
Yet Trump, undermining diplomatic efforts by his own Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, has repeatedly confronted North Korea’s provocations with aggravations of his own. He infamously vowed in August to meet the defiant country with “fire and fury,” prompting Pyongyang’s threat to launch a missile at the U.S. island territory of Guam.
Months later, Trump said the U.S. would “totally destroy” North Korea, which is home to an estimated 25 million people, if provoked. “Rocketman is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime,” Trump said in his first speech before the United Nations General Assembly, referring to Kim.
In an extremely rare personal address, Kim responded by pledging to “tame the mentally deranged U.S. dotard with fire.” Soon after, North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho said the regime might detonate an H-bomb in the Pacific Ocean.
As hostilities boiled over, experts urged the “America First” leader to “stick to the script” and avoid making incendiary comments about North Korea during his 12-day trip through Asia last month. But Trump couldn’t help himself:
The president’s taunts “create an incentive for the North Koreans to stage provocations to show him up,” Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear weapons expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, told HuffPost in November.
If the situation deteriorates into an acute crisis, such remarks from Trump could give North Korea the impression a military strike is imminent, Lewis added. “If that happens, my belief is the North Koreans would use their nuclear weapons first, in order to try to repel an invasion.”
A turbulent 2017 has stirred fears and uncertainty for the year ahead.
“Trump has been impatient with multilateral, diplomatic containment of nuclear proliferation,” Collin said. “While diplomacy, sanctions, and targeted engagement have been successful in preventing conflict on the Korean peninsula for decades, 2017 marks decisive failures in terms of North Korea’s nuclear capacities.”
Executives from Atlanta-based Southern Company defended their long delayed and way over-budget nuclear construction project, the Vogtle plant, before the Georgia Public Service Commission. But this time, Anthony Quinn won. The Georgia PSC commissioners gave Southern the ok to keep building.
The PSC had a choice: recommend cancellation of the huge project or let it proceed. But cancellation would require still another unpleasant discussion and decision: who foots the bill for the incomplete plant? Not the sort of decisions politicians like to make on their watch.
So the PSC ruled that power-generating alternatives to nuclear, such as combined cycle combustion turbines, would cost more than completing the plant (a conclusion that requires judgment about gas prices). And it made some modifications that will supposedly cut $700 million off what the plant will cost Southern’s consumers (that’s $18 million per year over the projected life of the plant, so no big deal.)
Economists warn decision makers to ignore sunk costs. But those sunk costs apparently did weigh on regulators. Explaining to the governor and to voters that the billions of dollars of plant investment made on their watch is now worthless… well, that’s a decision few regulators would choose to make.
The public reasoning behind today’s Georgia PSC decision involved assumptions about future energy costs, the company’s need for a diverse energy mix, and the desirability of adding low carbon emitting generating resources.
For all the attention this decision received, probably didn’t play a significant role. Nobody we’ve ever met could accurately forecast trends in energy consumption, power technology and costs at the same time over any reasonable planning horizon. To accurately forecast these over the 40-60 year projected life of the Vogtle plant turns an impossible task ridiculous. That is the key to the problem regulators faced today, and the reason why a decision to build a large nuclear plant is so risky.
Two Greentech Media journalists saw today’s PSC decision as an “infusion of hope for large-scale nuclear… and the last chance to prove the viability of the industry” in the U.S. The verdict of the financial community was far more muted. The common shares of Southern Company fell 1 percent.
How will an over-budget, late and marginally economic nuclear power generating facility encourage others to dive into the nuclear new-build game?
Georgia regulators cited other reasons to approve this project, including the need to reduce carbon omissions and to maintain America’s nuclear power generating capability. But the big question is why should the electricity consumers of Georgia, alone, bear the burden of meeting relatively high-cost national energy goals?
Given the size and risks inherent in building new nuclear projects, especially with relatively new designs, shouldn’t the risk be spread throughout the nation? There’s something bizarre about the electricity consumers of Georgia and South Carolina (where an identical project was recently canceled) incurring possibly $25-$50 billion of financial risk for the sake of the nation’s nuclear power generating capability.
Given the size and risks inherent in new nuclear projects, shouldn’t the risk be spread throughout the nation, if—as the regulators imply—the entire nation actually benefits? The electricity consumers in Georgia and South Carolina shouldn’t incur significant financial risk for the sake of the nation’s nuclear capability—especially when no other domestic utility management appears ready to follow suit.
As a supposedly patriotic gesture, we can certainly applaud the sentiment. But the economics remain shaky.
nuclear-news 