http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/52701 From: University of Victoria September 29, 2017, For the first time since 2011, peak contamination levels in Pacific Canadian waters from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster are known, says a University of Victoria scientist who has been monitoring levels since the meltdown of three reactors at the plant.
Releases of radioactive elements from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in 2011 were the largest unplanned discharges of radioactivity into the ocean. The disaster, triggered by a 15-metre tsunami caused by a magnitude-9 earthquake, created widespread concern over the potential impact on marine life and human health.
“Contamination from Fukushima never reached a level where it was a significant threat to either marine or human life in our neighborhood of the North Pacific,” says UVic chemical oceanographer Jay Cullen.
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.
Poll: Far more trust generals than Trump on N. Korea, while two-thirds oppose preemptive strike, WP, By Scott Clement and Philip RuckerSeptember 24, 17, Two-thirds of Americans oppose launching a preemptive military strike against North Korea, with a majority trusting the U.S. military to handle the escalating nuclear crisis responsibly but not President Trump, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.
Roughly three-quarters of the public supports tougher economic sanctions on North Korea in an attempt to persuade it to give up its nuclear weapons, while just about one-third think the United States should offer the isolated country foreign aid or other incentives.
The Post-ABC poll finds 37 percent of adults trust Trump either “a great deal” or “a good amount” to responsibly handle the situation with North Korea, while 42 percent trust the commander in chief “not at all.” By comparison, 72 percent trust U.S. military leaders, including 43 percent saying they trust them “a great deal.”
A scant 8 percent of Americans surveyed think North Korean leader Kim Jong Un can act responsibly.
The large gap in confidence between Trump and the U.S. military, as measured in the new poll, comes as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and other national security officials have emphasized a diplomatic approach to North Korea. Although Mattis has made clear that the United States is prepared and willing to retaliate to any attack with overwhelming force, he also has shied away from the rhetorical bombast employed by his boss……The large gap in confidence between Trump and the U.S. military, as measured in the new poll, comes as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and other national security officials have emphasized a diplomatic approach to North Korea. Although Mattis has made clear that the United States is prepared and willing to retaliate to any attack with overwhelming force, he also has shied away from the rhetorical bombast employed by his boss………https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-far-more-trust-generals-than-trump-on-n-korea-while-two-thirds-oppose-preemptive-strike/2017/09/23/5cc4377c-9fbb-11e7-8ea1-ed975285475e_story.html?utm_term=.3996af118419
Hidden Costs of Climate Change Running Hundreds of Billions a Year, A new report warns of a high price tag on the impacts of global warming, from storm damage to health costs. But solutions can provide better value, the authors say. National Geographic Stephen Leahy
Extreme weather, made worse by climate change, along with the health impacts of burning fossil fuels, has cost the U.S. economy at least $240 billion a year over the past ten years, a new report has found.
And yet this does not include this past month’s three major hurricanes or 76 wildfires in nine Western states. Those economic losses alone are estimated to top $300 billion, the report notes. Putting it in perspective, $300 billion is enough money to provide free tuition for the 13.5 million U.S. students enrolled in public colleges and universities for four years.
In the coming decade, economic losses from extreme weather combined with the health costs of air pollution spiral upward to at least $360 billion annually, potentially crippling U.S. economic growth, according to this new report, The Economic Case for Climate Action in the United States, published online Thursday by the Universal Ecological Fund.
“To put it bluntly,” said Anthony O’Donnell, chair of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, “the state and local governments have the federal government’s waste, and the federal government has our money.”
San Onofre’s unique and dangerous status – as a shuttered reactor with 3.6 million pounds of “stranded” waste, stored between the ocean and a highway, in a densely populated area, atop earthquake faults – was repeatedly raised as an impetus for action.
“People see the site being dismantled, but the waste remaining,” Victor said. “They think, ‘We paid the government to remove it, and it’s not being removed.’ That’s a palpable anger.”
Victor urged Congress to move swiftly toward licensing temporary storage sites and developing transportation plans and infrastructure for moving the waste, even as it gears up to revive Nevada’s Yucca Mountain as a permanent site.
“It’s really important not to put all our eggs in one basket,” Victor said, conjuring Nevada’s staunch opposition to becoming America’s nuclear waste dump. The state has no nuclear power plants.
Americans have spent billions with nothing to show for it, O’Donnell and others said.
Electricity ratepayers have poured that $46 billion into the Nuclear Waste Fund, and gotten nothing.
Taxpayers have paid out another $6 billion to utilities that have sued the federal government — and won — over the fed’s failure to haul away the waste as promised.
The Department of Energy says the legal bills for breach-of-contract could total $25 billion, but the nuclear industry estimates it could cost as much as $50 billion.
“The cost of inaction is high,” warned Chuck Smith, Aiken County councilmember and chair of the Energy Communities Alliance from South Carolina
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, stressed the need for swift action, as did Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-St. Louis. San Onofre is not alone in its peril, Clay said: In his district, radioactive waste is buried close to an active underground fire.
“This is a moral imperative,” Clay said. “The U.S. government created a nuclear waste problem 75 years ago. It has a clear and unavoidable responsibility to finally clean it up.”
After the hearing, Victor said that the stars were aligning to advance a nuclear waste disposal bill in the House over the coming weeks. Next, he said, will come the Senate.
Read Victor’s testimony, and that of the other witnesses, here.
The nuclear threat can be contained by diplomacy, These issues are manageable if they are given the right degree of priority, John Sawers Ft.com 25 Sep 17 “……… North Korea is the issue of the day. The objective of a denuclearised Korean peninsula, pursued by the previous US administrations, is no longer an achievable goal.
The best that can be hoped for is the suspension of nuclear and missile testing in return for security assurances and practical aid. Sanctions are designed to draw Kim Jong Un into a negotiation with that aim, and to pressure China to take a more active part. But it is very hard to see President Kim pulling back now. And China is more concerned about a new US-led war in Korea or the north collapsing and sending millions of refugees into China, than it is about living with a nuclear armed Pyongyang.
The US only really has two strategic options: contain and deter the threat; or destroy it, which would require regime change. There are always military options. But all who have studied the secret Pentagon plans are sobered by the scale of loss of life in South Korea these would entail. There is also a risk of China reluctantly coming to the aid of the north as it did in the 1950s.
Realistically, it seems the only practical option is containment. That requires missile defence systems to create uncertainty that nuclear-tipped missiles would ever get through to their target, and to deter any use of such weapons by being clear that North Korea would be destroyed if it ever tried to use them.
Mr Kim may be hard for us to comprehend, but he is a rational actor and he is certainly not suicidal. US concern about this isn’t exaggerated by the Trump administration: it has a serious problem on its hands.
However much we may view containment as the only sensible answer, there are still dangers of miscalculation. Mr Kim may be tempted to use his nuclear arsenal to hold others to ransom. There is also a proliferation threat. We have seen how Pyongyang has used its nuclear technology as an export earner. In 2007, the Israelis destroyed a secret nuclear reactor in the Syrian desert that had been designed and built by the North Koreans. Is it conceivable that a future terrorist organisation might be able to obtain such a device? Unlikely. But if they had the means, then Pyongyang would be the first place to go to get it. Pakistan’s ambivalent relationship with terrorist organisations adds to the dangers.
One country where our nuclear weapons concerns had eased is Iran. The nuclear agreement has its weaknesses, especially that it only applies for 10 years. But it is worth having, and Tehran is complying by its technical requirements. If Donald Trump walks from the nuclear deal — as he threatened at the UN last week — then before long he could find he has another North Korea to deal with, this one in the Gulf.
The outlook on nuclear weapons might look grim. But as we showed in the cold war, these issues are manageable with skilful diplomacy and the right investments in defence. We just have to give it the right degree of priority. When I was at MI6, and before that our negotiator with Iran on its nuclear programme, I was always mindful of the nuclear threat. The only issue that can seriously threaten our way of life must be among our top international security priorities. The writer is chairman of Macro Advisory Partners and a former chief of MI6, the British Secret Intelligence Service https://www.ft.com/content/02c58f70-9c80-11e7-8b50-0b9f565a23e1
The US President warned Pyongyang’s foreign minister that if he if ‘he echoes thoughts’ of the country’s leader Kim Jong Un they both ‘won’t be around much longer’.
He was responding after Ri Yong Ho told the United Nations General Assembly on Saturday that targeting the US mainland with its rockets was inevitable after ‘Mr Evil President’ made an ‘irreversible mistake’ by calling Mr Kim ‘rocket man’.
Describing Mr Trump as a ‘mentally deranged person full of megalomania,’ Mr Ri went on to tell the annual gathering of world leaders that the country was now ‘only a few steps away from the final gate of completion of the state’s nuclear force’.
Hitting back on Twitter, Mr Trump wrote: ‘Just heard Foreign Minister of North Korea speak at UN If he echoes thoughts of Little Rocket Man, they won’t be around much longer!’
Shortly before Mr Ri was scheduled to speak at the assembly, the Pentagon announced a fleet of US bombers and fighter jets had flown off North Korea’s coast, in what it called a ‘clear message’ to Pyongyang.
Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said it underlined the range of military options available to the US.
Oversight panel: Nuclear lab workers violated safety rules
Putting plutonium or other materials too close together could cause a nuclear reaction. Daily Herald, , September 23, 2017 SANTA FE, N.M. — A national laboratory’s workers producing a shell for a triggering device for nuclear weapons violated safety rules in August by storing too much material at one location in a facility for plutonium, a highly radioactive material, a federal oversight panel reported.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board memorandum called the Aug. 18 incident at the Los Alamos National Laboratory a “criticality safety event” and said workers there discovered the placement error made by a casting crew three days later when they moved the grapefruit-sized shell again.
The workers at that point failed to follow proper procedures for reporting the Aug. 21 action, the safety board said in a one-page memorandum dated Sept. 1. The report doesn’t specify whether the shell itself contained plutonium.
The Albuquerque Journal and Santa Fe New Mexican reported Saturday on the safety board’s memorandum.
Michael Golay, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has served on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s research review committee, told the New Mexican there are strict controls on the use of nuclear materials because putting plutonium or other materials too close together could cause a nuclear reaction.
Golay said he could not comment on the specific conditions at Los Alamos……..
Los Alamos — the birthplace of the atomic bomb and still a premier nuclear research facility — is resuming production of the plutonium triggering devices, which are called cores and which haven’t been made since 2011. The Energy Department wants to ramp up production.
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.
Pilgrim operators reduced the reactor’s power to 70 percent of its maximum Thursday due to rising ocean water temperatures. The temperature of the seawater used to cool the reactor cannot exceed 75 degrees under standards set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
“We took action when it reached 71 degrees to ensure we did not challenge the limit,” said Patrick O’Brien, spokesman for Entergy, Pilgrim’s owner and operator.
Pilgrim draws up to 500 million gallons daily from Cape Cod Bay. The water cools the reactor and the turbine, passing through a network of thousands of tubes.
The seawater being discharged by the nuclear reactor is considerably hotter than the water drawn in — as much as 30 degrees hotter. The locations of the water intake structure and discharge structure at Pilgrim are separated by a jetty to help prevent the warm discharge water from migrating to the intake area and boosting the water temperature there.
“Previously, during storm monitoring, operations identified the potential for ocean conditions that would require preemptive actions and a power reduction as salt service water temperatures rose,” O’Brien said in his email. “Once predetermined criteria were met, operators commenced power reduction.”
Nuclear plants are about one-third efficient, explained David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Program for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“Of the three units of energy produced by the reactor core, one third goes out onto the transmission lines as electricity, and two thirds gets rejected to the nearby body of water,” Lochbaum said. “Reducing the reactor power level reduces the amount of heat energy carried away by the discharge flow, thus also reducing the amount of warm water sneaking around the jetty to re-enter the plant.”
The reactor will remain at reduced power until ocean temperatures allow for its return to full power operation, O’Brien said. — Follow Christine Legere on Twitter: @ChrisLegereCCT.
The presidents of Japan and South Korea welcomed Trump’s announcement of new sanctions against North Korea but privately questioned whether his threat to “totally destroy” the country would lead to the diplomacy they prefer.
Arab and Iranian leaders sat stone-faced during Trump’s bellicose address on Tuesday — while several other world leaders reacted with bemusement, chagrin and confusion to his often-contradictory comments.
Netanyahu could be observed laughing and grinning as Trump described the hard-fought international nuclear accord with Iran as the “worst deal ever” and an “embarrassment” to the United States.
Far from taming his enemies, Trump seems to have inflamed tensions further as the world faces a nuclear-armed North Korea and worries about a deal designed to prevent Iran from building a bomb.
South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency reported Thursday night that North Korea’s foreign minister, Ri Yong Ho, said in New York that his country may test a hydrogen bomb in the Pacific Ocean to fulfill leader Kim Jong Un’s vow to take the “highest level” action.
The Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which the United States and the Soviet Union signed in 1963, forbade atmospheric and underwater testing of nuclear weapons. No confirmed ocean tests have occurred since then, but North Korea is not a signatory.
North Korea conducted an underground test of what it called a hydrogen bomb on Sept. 3. An ocean test could severely damage the environment as well as expand the security crisis…….
During the weeklong General Assembly, Trump, invoking his reality-TV flair for drama, said he had made a decision on whether to walk away from the Iranian deal, but he would not yet reveal it.
His administration recently continued lifting sanctions against Iran, which was part of the agreement. But next month, Trump must issue a separate certification to Congress on whether Iran is complying with the deal, an every-90-day requirement under U.S. law.
Several administration officials have suggested Trump will not certify compliance even though the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has found Iran in compliance eight times since the deal was signed in 2015. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fg-trump-un-assess-20170922-story.html
Moon and Trump agree on South Korea purchase of state-of-the-art US weaponry during summit
Hankyoreh Sep.22,2017The deal is reportedly set to include nuclear powered submarines
South Korean President Moon Jae-in and US President Donald Trump agreed on Sept. 21 on a plan for South Korea to introduce state-of-the-art US weaponry or develop its own to counter North Korea’s recent nuclear and missile provocations. Later the same day, Moon had a luncheon and trilateral summit with Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, where the three agreed that the entire international community “must apply the maximum intensity sanctions and pressure so that North Korea cannot withstand it anymore and must come to the table for dialogue.” ……http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/812155.html
North Korea: Trump and Kim call each other mad, BBC, 22 September 2017
Kim Jong-un has said remarks by “deranged” US President Donald Trump have convinced him he is right to develop weapons for North Korea.
In an unprecedented personal statement, Mr Kim said Mr Trump would “pay dearly” for a UN speech where he threatened to “totally destroy” the North if the US was forced to defend itself.
Mr Trump responded that the “madman… will be tested like never before”.
The two countries have engaged in ever more heated rhetoric in recent months.
Mr Kim ended his statement by saying he would “surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged US dotard with fire”.
China responded to the war of words, warning that the situation was “complicated and sensitive”.
“All relevant parties should exercise restraint instead of provoking each other,” said Foreign Minister spokesman Lu Kang.
Russia also urged restraint, with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov describing the rhetoric between the two leaders as a “kindergarten fight between children”……http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41356836
President Trump at the United Nations: Editorial Board Roundtable, Cleveland,com 22 Sept 17
“…………The reception to Trump’s speech fell along political lines. Nile Gardiner, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told CNN that it was a “groundbreaking speech,” while Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California panned it as “missing an opportunity” to deal with North Korea.
So was Trump on the mark? The edtorial board roundtable offers its opinions and we wait to hear yours in the comments.
If only every international problem could be solved by flicking a red button and unilaterally turning belligerent nations into a pile of radioactive rubble. They can’t be. The world does better when nations work together. The path forward is slow, frustrating, often annoying diplomacy with our allies — and our enemies. Trump’s bluster is dangerous.
Thomas Suddes, editorial writer:
The speech was an embarrassment to our country.
Ted Diadiun, editorial board member:
There’s nothing wrong with a nationalist approach from a U.S. president. Donald Trump was elected at least in part by people who were weary of eight years of Barack Obama’s “Blame America First” posturing. As for the rest of Trump’s speech, the only thing more troubling than believing he is descending to schoolyard belligerence in threatening something he has no intention of carrying out — is that he is not.
Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion, cleveland.com:
“That’s just common sense,” Haley said, responding to a question on what Trump meant by the comment. “We don’t want war. That’s the last thing anyone wants. We don’t want loss of life.”
Trump turned heads during his first address to the United Nations on Tuesday, calling Kim Jong Un “Rocket Man” and saying if pushed to defend itself or our allies the U.S. “will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”
However, the ambassador echoed the president’s remarks during a press briefing Thursday, saying that if the rogue nation were to attack the U.S. or one of its allies, “The U.S. will respond. Period.”
Haley added the new sanctions announced earlier in the day against North Korea were the latest attempt at a diplomatic solution and push for them to come to the negotiating table: “Until then, that’s just the reality. If they were to strike the United States, of course, we would have to respond back.”
The president signed an executive order Thursday placing new sanctions on the Kim Jong Un-led nation. “A new executive order will cut off sources of revenue that fund North Korea’s efforts to develop the deadliest weapons known to humankind,” Trump said while announcing the order.
nuclear-news 
“…………The reception to Trump’s speech fell along political lines. Nile Gardiner, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told CNN that it was a “groundbreaking speech,” while Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California panned it as “missing an opportunity” to deal with North Korea.
So was Trump on the mark? The edtorial board roundtable offers its opinions and we wait to hear yours in the comments.
Sharon Broussard, chief editorial writer, cleveland.com:
If only every international problem could be solved by flicking a red button and unilaterally turning belligerent nations into a pile of radioactive rubble. They can’t be. The world does better when nations work together. The path forward is slow, frustrating, often annoying diplomacy with our allies — and our enemies. Trump’s bluster is dangerous.
Thomas Suddes, editorial writer:
The speech was an embarrassment to our country.
Ted Diadiun, editorial board member:
There’s nothing wrong with a nationalist approach from a U.S. president. Donald Trump was elected at least in part by people who were weary of eight years of Barack Obama’s “Blame America First” posturing. As for the rest of Trump’s speech, the only thing more troubling than believing he is descending to schoolyard belligerence in threatening something he has no intention of carrying out — is that he is not.
Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion, cleveland.com:
President Trump isn’t putting America first when his rhetoric and actions push us toward war with a nuclear-armed state. …….. http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/09/president_trump_at_the_united.html