Russia and the US rejected offers from one another that would have extended the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). On Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin turned down an offer from the Trump administration to extend the agreement for one year, conditioned upon more limits on Russia’s tactical nuclear warheads, which are not currently restricted by the treaty.

Expanding the Scope of the Treaty

Instead, the Kremlin offered to extend New START for another year without any modifications. This proposal was not the first time Moscow has made it an easy deal for the Americans — it previously offered to extend the deal for another five years. Either way, minimal work would have been required to usher the extensions through both governments if the Trump administration had desired to do so. In fact, as it stands now, an extension of the deal wouldn’t even require approval from the US Senate.

However, the American delegation wants more, as is often the case when negotiating foreign policy with Trump’s White House. To earn President Donald Trump’s signature, a New START extension must cap all types of nuclear warheads, the Associated Press reported. The immediate need for that kind of limitation is unclear because Russia hasn’t been building up its stockpile to the extent that a new cap would be needed.

“I see no real significance to it. I can’t see any rationale for it,” said William J. Perry, former defense secretary for President Bill Clinton. From Perry’s perspective, the administration’s demand that more limitations be imposed on a potential extension is a “domestic political gambit” during the crucial last weeks of the 2020 US presidential election. 

The US Defense Intelligence Agency disagreed, however, and anticipates a massive surge in nuclear warhead production by Moscow over the next decade. These weapons are not prohibited by the New START treaty, suggesting that a new provision in an extension of the deal would be a solution to limiting them.

Moscow Balks First Calling US Deal ‘Nonsense’

The Kremlin called the America proposal  “nonsense,” however, and insisted the agreement be extended as it stands now, the New York Times reported. Russia has invested heavily in building out a new range of weaponry under Putin’s direction. 

“All those years, the New START has worked, playing its fundamental role of limiting and containing an arms race,” Putin said. In making his counteroffer in which he was adamant that the terms remain the same, Putin lamented that it would be “extremely sad if the treaty ceased to exist.” 

Blame Goes Both Ways

Even so, it would not be unusual and could even be considered normal for the Trump administration. It already withdrew from three major treaties, two of which Russia was a party to — the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty. At this point, Trump seems more focused on ending pacts rather than forming them. 

“President Putin’s response today to extend New START without freezing nuclear warheads is a non-starter,” said US National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien. “The United States is serious about arms control that will keep the entire world safe. We hope that Russia will reevaluate its position before a costly arms race ensues.”

Marshall Billingslea, the US arms control envoy, went further and blamed the Moscow delegation for reneging on a verbal agreement to the Trump administration’s proposal, a claim the Kremlin denied. O’Brien was also under the impression that Russia found the terms of the new agreement amicable during a meeting in Geneva on Oct. 2. Whether there was a translation error or Moscow changed its mind, it is clear now that it was never willing to give in to Washington’s demands, nor will it any any point in the future.

The China Non-Factor

Another far-fetched dream of Washington is to bring China into the agreement. Beijing has already refused to even consider the notion so Russia is also to having any discussions of the sort. Still, that hasn’t stopped the Trump administration from pitching the idea again.

The nuclear arsenals of Russia and the US dwarf China’s stockpile and it has no incentive to become a party to the New START agreement. Is Beijing a growing nuclear threat? Almost certainly, but shoehorning It onto a treaty between Moscow and Washington isn’t the solution.

Biden Deja Vu

While the Trump administration is scrambling to secure an extension before the election, or before Trump leaves office if he loses, Putin is not pressured by looming deadlines. Truthfully, he would gain more by waiting for a possible Joe Biden presidency. Biden, Trump’s Democratic challenger, has made it a part of his foreign policy plan to sign a New START extension and negotiate further arms control agreements with Russia.

Meanwhile, until April, the current administration wasn’t even working to renew the deal. As such, its audacious demand that Putin get rid of weapons he has invested heavily in, tactical nuclear warheads in particular, will accomplish nothing. While Putin certainly wants an extension for the treaty, it doesn’t need it immediately like Trump.

A line of broken treaties and torn-up agreements will lie in the wake of the Trump presidency. If Nov. 3 doesn’t bode well for him, Biden will come in to pick up the pieces, and he has experience with it. In 2010, Biden helped write the original New START treaty. 

L'articolo Russia Won’t Agree to US Terms for New START Extension Potentially Leaving It for Biden to Fix proviene da InsideOver.

US Cities Within North Korean Striking Range

The report, which cited claims from anonymous nations, was penned by “an independent panel of experts” tasked with overseeing states sanctioned by the UN, as Reuters reported. If it is true that North Korea has developed nuclear weapons that can be launched within ballistic missiles, the dynamic of the US–North Korea relationship may be forever altered.

“The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is continuing its nuclear program, including the production of highly enriched uranium and construction of an experimental light water reactor. A Member State assessed that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is continuing production of nuclear weapons,” according to the report, which was forwarded to the UN Security Council North Korea sanctions committee.

The report has not yet been made public, though Reuters reviewed a copy of it.

Pyongyang’s miniaturized arsenal could put American cities within striking distance according to Newsweek. Combined with its armament of intercontinental ballistic missiles, North Korea “achieved a plausible enough ability—even if it was not perfectly reliable—to be able to hold the U.S. homeland at risk,” said Vipin Narang, an associate professor of political science at MIT and a non-resident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 

‘This is Not a Theory, it’s Almost Certainly a Fact’

That development should not come as a shock, however, as experts monitoring the situation have long-suspected Pyongyang possesses the capabilities. 

“To be quite honest, I am shocked this is even news at this point,” said Harry Kazianis, the senior director of Korean studies at the Center for the National Interest.

“The only question now is how accurate would the delivery of a nuclear device be and how many hundreds of thousands of people—if not millions—would die in such an attack. This is not a theory, it’s almost certainly a fact,” Kazianis added.

Creating a Deterrence

The Kim dynasty has dreamed of nuclear weapons since the state’s founding, but Kim and his father, Kim Jong Il significantly quickened the development pace. The late leader’s ambitions resulted in UN sanctions in 2006, but that only increased the state’s push for nuclear armament. However, the last known nuclear test by Pyongyang was in September 2017, suggesting either that the state has abandoned its nuclear program or achieved its goal.

The UN report gives credence to the latter. In fact, although North Korea demolished tunnels at a nuclear test site in May 2018, the report states that one observer nation found the installation can be rebuilt within three months. The tunnel demolition was only for show—Pyongyang had no earnest intention to shutter its nuclear program.

In July, Kim declared his state had achieved its nuclear goal, NBC News reported.

“Thanks to our reliable and effective self-defense nuclear deterrence, the word war would no longer exist on this land, and the security and future of our state will be guaranteed forever,” Kim said. 

At the time, some observers may have misconstrued his words to be more of the same: propaganda with no real substance behind it, like when Kim promised the US a “Christmas gift” last year. The new UN report, however, means that Kim wasn’t bluffing when he celebrated the nuclear achievement.

A History of Relationship Failures

Given that North Korea now possesses miniaturized nuclear weapons capable of hitting the US mainland, Washington must change its approach to Pyongyang. Previous American administrations tried an array of strategies from preparing for war to pursuing normalization.

After Kim ascended to office, relations became more dicey as he shed notions of diplomacy in pursuit of nuclear weapons. American President Donald Trump brought a fresh approach to handling Kim by reaching out in an almost friend-like manner. The two exchanged correspondence, with Trump bragging about letters on several occasions. Trump and Kim thrice met in what had appeared to be hopeful negotiations. 

All of that was for not, however as talks broke down without a signed agreement. North Korean officials have since blamed the US for being unwilling to offer enough concessions to stop pursuing nuclear weapons. More recently, Pyongyang has said it refuses to hold further talks because Trump is only engaging in them for political theater, not to actually resolve the dispute between the two powers.

Since the June 2019 meeting between Trump, Kim, and South Korean President Moon Jae In at the DMZ, Washington has effectively turned a blind eye to North Korea. While the Trump administration has tackled crises and invited trouble with a handful of other states—Iran, China, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Russia, Turkey, and Germany, to name a few—North Korea hasn’t received the attention it once did. 

Time for America to Rethink Its NK Strategy

Washington must rededicate itself to pursuing diplomacy with Pyongyang, however, given the threat it now seems to pose.

“US strategy towards North Korea’s nuclear program needs to be radically re-imagined, as we operate today as if North Korea can’t build, won’t build or hasn’t built nuclear weapons—a type of nuclear denialism that quite frankly is dangerous,” Kazianis told Newsweek. He went on to suggest that since the US coexists with a nuclearized Russia, China, and Pakistan, North Korea should receive the same treatment. 

Ignorance of the situation, denial of North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, and bullying disguised as negotiating are all tactics that simply will not improve the US–North Korea relationship. Moreover, Washington’s treatment of Pyongyang will only further serve to reinforce its resolve that nuclear weapons are the only way to engender respect from America.

The problem, however, is that now that it has nuclear capabilities, if the US doesn’t honor that reality, North Korea could be compelled to make a show of force. Nuclear weapons for the Kim dynasty have always been about becoming equal to China, Russia, and the US. It wants a seat at that same table and has viewed nuclear armament as a means to that end.

The time to start listening to North Korea is now, before it’s too late. A renewed approach that respects Pyongyang rather than patronizes it could return diplomatic dividends.

L'articolo North Korea’s Miniaturized Nuclear Weapons Demand a New Approach from Washington proviene da InsideOver.

Kim Yo Jong is the younger sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Her father was Kim Jong Il, the country’s former Supreme Leader, while her grandfather was Kim Il Sung, the “eternal president” and founder of the nation.

Miss Kim’s face appeared on televisions around the world at the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea. Below the 38th parallel, the woman met South Korean President Moon Jae In and was photographed together with American Vice President Mike Pence. On this occasion, Yo Jong took the place of her brother, who is believed to be the architect of the Hermit Kingdom’s communications strategy, both at home and abroad.

Over the years Kim’s sister has climbed up several positions within the North Korean political system, becoming a senior Central Committee official (March 2014), director of the Party’s Agitation and Propaganda Department (July 2015) and an alternate member of the Politburo (2017). According to rumors, Kim Yo Jong also holds an unspecified vice-ministerial position.

L'articolo Who is Kim Yo Jong? proviene da InsideOver.

As the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, the world has rightfully kept a close eye on Iran’s nuclear program. It is thus no surprise that all eyes were on Teheran when news broke several days ago that an incident had occurred in an Iranian nuclear facility. The details, however, are nebulous at this point, even though Iran has confirmed the incident.

Damage to Above-Ground Building

At the center of the incident is an above-ground building. According to the Iranian Atomic Energy Agency (AEOI), it was a shed under construction that was still empty. The agency’s spokesman, Behrouz Kamalvandi, was filmed by state television in front of the building, that he called “damaged”.  There were no injuries and no interruption in uranium enrichment. Radioactive substances were also not released. A team of experts from the Iranian Atomic Energy Agency was currently investigating the cause of the fire.

Natanz’s nuclear facility is located about 250 kilometres south of the capital, Tehran. Here, uranium is enriched using centrifuges. According to the IAEA, Iran is currently enriching uranium to 4.5 per cent fissile material, which is more than is permitted in the nuclear agreement. However, a purity of 90 percent is required for nuclear weapons.

Evidence Suggests Explosion at Facility

Photos and video recordings of the charred building suggest an explosion. The brick walls have bulged in several places. Metal doors are torn off their hinges, parts of the tin roof hangover the facade, sooty beams protrude. All of this can only be explained plausibly with a pressure wave that must have started inside the building.

Nevertheless, a technical defect cannot be ruled out as the cause, but the building may not have been empty, as the Iranians claim. It shows striking similarities to the building that the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) identified as a facility on satellite images in 2016, in which Iran assembles and balances new centrifuges. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspected the building before machines were installed.

It is thus not a surprise that Iran’s version of the event has been disputed already. According to the New York Times, for instance, a Middle East intelligence officer who spoke on condition of anonymity told the paper that the explosion was caused by an explosive device installed in the facility. The explosion had thus destroyed a large part of the above-ground parts of the plant, in which new centrifuges —  sensitive devices that rotate at supersonic speeds —  were destroyed far before they were put into operation.

‘Homeland Cheetahs’

Moreover, an e-mail sent a letter of confession from a previously unknown group, “Homeland Cheetahs”, who described themselves as dissidents from the security apparatus. It contained information about the alleged attack —  such as the plant affected. The letter was received by the BBC‘s Persian service hours before the Iranian incident became public.

Accordingly, there are said to have been further attacks that the regime is trying to hide. It may thus not be a coincidence, that the Parchin military site, 30 kilometres from Tehran, was shaken one week ago by a severe explosion also. According to official information, a gas tank had exploded. However, satellite images show that the explosion occurred in an area that is part of a ballistic missile production facility owned by the EU and US sanctioned Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group. Here too the cause is unclear, as is the extent of the damage that has occurred.

Israeli Involvement?

However, a Kuwaiti newspaper reported on Friday that an Israeli cyberattack was responsible for the explosion, that, according to the paper’s source, is expected to set back Iran’s nuclear enrichment program by two months.

In the past, Iran’s nuclear and missile programs have repeatedly been the target of American and Israeli intelligence agencies, including the Stuxnet virus, and also targeted by some Arab and Western countries. An inside job or an attack conducted by foreign adversaries are thus both conceivable.

L'articolo The Iran Incident: Accident or Sabotage? proviene da InsideOver.

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a new nuclear deterrent policy on Tuesday. While it retains some existing features that have been standard nuclear policy for decades, it adds two new provisions that are unique due to their first strike nature. 

Nuclear First

The use of nuclear weapons by any state has largely been governed by rules written and unwritten that they should only be launched in the event of a nuclear attack. That is to say, nuclear weapons have mostly been relegated to a defensive manoeuvre. Putin changed that with Moscow’s new nuclear policy, The New York Times reported. 

The policy document details two instances that would permit Russia to respond with nuclear force. The first is an attack from “conventional weapons that threatens the country’s existence.” The second is if Moscow receives “reliable information” of a ballistic missile attack on Russia or its allies, or if such an attack would damage government or military institutions to the point they could no longer respond with nuclear weapons.

In these cases, Putin has authorised Russia to strike first with nuclear weapons, a dramatic shift from decades of nuclear deterrence policy. The changes were prompted by a perceived threat from the US, according to the policy document.

US forces are stationed along Russia’s borders including missile launchers. Moreover, Moscow is concerned with space-based weapons. American President Donald Trump created a new Space Force designed to aggressively pursue the militarisation of space-based technology.

Back to the Cold War

Under Trump, the Washington–Moscow relationship has fallen to Cold War era lows. Not only has Trump deployed more military to states bordering Russia, but he has also reduced the trust the post-USSR world was predicated upon. By removing the US from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, then the Open Skies Treaty, and now possibly the New Strategic Arms Reduction  Treaty (START), Trump has at every turn given Putin reason to distrust America.

Combined with the fact that Putin is ex-KGB and has pursued aggressive authoritarian measures to maintain a grip on power, the situation has reversed into a Cold War-like tone.

Washington’s answer to this has been to call for a multi-lateral agreement by bringing China on-board, an idea Beijing is vehemently opposed to. China has roughly 300 nuclear weapons compared to 1.550 in both Russia and the US. By signing onto a new treaty, presumably to replace the INF, it would at worst case need to cap itself at 300 and at best case be limited to 1.550.

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Zhao Lijian commended Putin for signing a new nuclear policy, TASS reported.

“We noted this event. China respects and supports efforts that Russia is making to ensure security,” Zhao said. He indicated further cooperation between Moscow and Beijing could be in-store for the future and added, “We are ready to facilitate maintenance of peace and security in the world together with Russia.”

America Rethinks Nuclear, Too

America’s own nuclear policy is “ambiguous,” Newsweek reported. In 2018, the Nuclear Posture Review called for the use of nuclear weapons “only in extreme cases when it is forced to defend the U.S. or its allies or partners.”

Last year, however, the Joint Chiefs of Staff published an unclassified document that alluded to potentially lowering the bar for scenarios that demand a nuclear response. The document was quickly deleted by preserved by the Federation of American Scientists.

“Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability. Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict,” the report entitled “Nuclear Weapons: Planning and Targeting” read.

Battle of Strongmen

Both Trump and Putin have governed with a ‘strongman’ mentality, using force or the threat of force to have their way. It should come as no surprise then that nuclear weapons, the ultimate weapon, are on both of their agendas. While the Trump administration has erased most of Washington’s nuclear treaties with Moscow, that is by design. Doing so frees the US from restrictions as much as it does Russia.

Putin’s approval of a new policy featuring nuclear-first strike scenarios is an extreme step in reverse for a world that once decided they should never be used except as a deterrent. However, actions by the Trump administration haven’t been so peaceful either, and with Space Force, Putin is feeling surpassed in power. Russia is not a state to be complacent when it is outmatched. Consequently, more policy changes designed to counter an aggressive US military will likely come from Moscow with the singular goal of advancing the Russian state.

L'articolo Putin Signs New Nuclear Policy Authorising First Strike Scenarios proviene da InsideOver.

North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong Un has rarely been seen in public as of late. His most recent appearance reportedly occurred during a military meeting – during which the country’s nuclear deterrence strategy was in focus. At a meeting of the military commission in North Korea, Kim — who has been submerged in the media spotlight for several weeks — reportedly discussed putting the strategic armed forces on high alert.

Heightening of North Korea’s Military Readiness

North Korean state media reported on Sunday that Kim chaired an extended meeting of the Labor Party’s military commission that outlined a new policy for further expanding the country’s nuclear power and its deterrence.

The reports also stated that the meeting discussed the options of putting the strategic armed forces “on high alert” effective immediately. How and when the new policies are to be implemented was not reported. However, South Korean intelligence assumed the meeting took place on Saturday, May 23, as North Korea often only reports on important meetings or events a day later.

The internationally isolated leadership of North Korea reportedly held the meeting after analyses had shown “a series of deficits in the military and political activities of the general armed forces” in the country. Accordingly, the main agenda for North Korea was now to improve the capabilities to militarily deter the threatening foreign forces such as South Korea and the United States. Significant measures were reportedly taken during the meeting to increase the firepower of the people’s artillery effective immediately.

North Korea’s Current Status

North Korea remains subject to severe United Nations Security Council sanctions for its nuclear weapons program. In its Punggye-ri nuclear test site, which was destroyed two years ago, the country had carried out its six nuclear tests, the last and most significant so far in September 2017.

Negotiations with the United States about nuclear disarmament have led nowhere since the failed summit between Kim and President Trump in Singapore in 2018 and Vietnam in February 2019. Neither side could agree on an agreeable roadmap for Pyongyang’s nuclear disarmament.

Kim, who, according to South Korean intelligence, is 36-years-old, has rarely been seen in public in the past two months. His appearance at the inauguration of a fertilizer factory on May 1 had put an end to speculation abroad about his demise. After these reports had transpired, however, Kim disappeared from North Korea’s stage again. It is speculated that he will significantly limit his appearances and otherwise typical inspection trips through the country due to the coronavirus pandemic in the coming weeks and months. North Korea has so far, reportedly has had no confirmed infections.

Trump Considering First US Nuclear Test in Almost Three Decades

The reports about North Korea’s military meeting occurs after a Washington Post reported that the United States considered its first nuclear test since 1992 as a warning to Russia and China. According to the paper, President Trump’s administration discussed this possibility at a meeting on May 15, which quoted a senior government official and two former US officials.

Arms Control Association non-governmental leader Daryl Kimball told the Washington Post that such a decision would likely disrupt negotiations with Kim, “who may not be forced to adhere to his nuclear test moratorium.”

Korea was divided by the United States and the Soviet Union — similar to Germany after the Second World War — and a division followed soon after by the Korean War from 1950 to 1953. The war — which is technically still ongoing — cemented the status quo of North and South Korea to the present day. The United States has historically been an ally of South Korea, while China has been an ally of the authoritarian Communist North. According to international law, the state of war continues to exist as the 1953 ceasefire between the North and the South was never followed up with a signed peace treaty.

L'articolo North Korea Seeks Increased Nuclear Deterrence proviene da InsideOver.

Reportage / Society 30.04.2020

We, Survivors of the Atomic Bomb

Hiroshima is a name no one can forget. A name that has entered history as a result of one of the most tragic events humanity has ever experienced: the unleashing of a nuclear device against a civilian population. On 6…

Alessandro Tesei

Pierpaolo Mittica

My father immediately pushed me under a desk and covered me with his body. At that moment the thunder of an explosion enveloped us followed by a strong blast. The house shook, the windows and door were destroyed. All the furniture collapsed and the roof was blown away. When the dust settled, my father got up and pulled me out from under the objects covering the desk. I could see my father’s back bleeding profusely and turning red.

The next morning Kunihiko Bonkohara’s father went searching for his wife and daughter amid the debris of the city swept away by the blast. He turned over the charred corpses he saw in the streets. He never found them. Unfortunately Kunihiko Bonkohara’s sister and mother were among the 80,000 people that the bomb carried away instantly. Kunihiko Bonkohara survived the Hiroshima atomic bomb and is one of the few hibakusha, literally “those struck by the bomb”, who are still alive and can recount those tragic moments.

Rsaybaev Koksubai Umurtaevich has seen and heard hundreds of explosions. “Wherever I looked, wherever I turned my eyes I could see the mushrooms generated by the detonations,” recounts Rsaybaev Koksubai Umurtaevich, sprawling on his sofa. “People began to blame these terrifying devices for what was happening to them. They were getting sick, waking up every day with reddened eyes like after sleepless nights…

They were explosions of different types, almost waves of them. Sometimes, they would start when we were on the streets and we were forced to look for shelter somewhere maybe on the other side of the river, until they told us it was safe to come out. The windows of many houses were shattered, people were exasperated and the streets were permeated with a terrible smell. The contamination affected everyone. Just take a look at the cemetery and you will see. When I moved here there wasn’t even a single grave, and the nearest graveyard, was 14 kilometers away, it was very small.

L'articolo We, Survivors of the Atomic Bomb proviene da InsideOver.

The atomic age officially began on 6 August 1945 with the explosion of the first nuclear device for military purposes: the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Of course, everything had begun long before, with the discovery of nuclear fission in 1938 and the development of the first atomic bomb in the United States’ Los Alamos laboratories which was secretly detonated in the 16 July 1945 “Trinity test” at the Alamogordo bombing range in New Mexico. Since then, nuclear power, rather than a resource, has become a nightmare for humanity, what with the development of nuclear armaments and the construction of nuclear plants.

By dropping two atomic bombs on Japan, on Hiroshima on 6 August and on the city of Nagasaki on 9 August 1945, the United States besides causing some 250,00 deaths, put an end to the Second World War and marked the start of two historical events: the atomic age and the Cold War.

The Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States began immediately following the end of the Second World, around 1947, and ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall, when Mikhail Gorbačëv and George H. W. Bush declared the end of a period of tensions at the Malta summit on 3 December 1989. The Cold War years left an indelible mark on the entire world.

During this period the two super powers developed nuclear weapons in order to gain an advantage over the other. The Cold War was waged on the development of nuclear weapons: both parties hoped that their mere existence would be a strong enough deterrent to avoid an outright war.

However, the advancement of nuclear weapons brought with it another horrendous legacy in both countries: the Semipalatinsk bombing range in Kazakhstan, and the Nevada Test Site in the United States where 456 and 1021 nuclear warheads were tested respectively.

As well as contamination caused by the nuclear experiments, another type of contamination evolved at the same time: contamination caused by accidents at civil nuclear power stations. Building atomic warheads required fissionable materials like plutonium, and such materials could only be produced in nuclear plants. On 8 December 1953 the United States president delivered a speech at the United Nations General Assembly by the title “Atoms for peace”. The speech aimed to convince humanity of the need for nuclear plants, presenting them as “civilian nuclear stations” for the production of energy to be used by mankind. Disregarding the risks and issues that these would quickly cause as well as the nuclear accidents and their consequences, of which Chernobyl was a prime example.

The atomic era had begun, and with it all its terrible consequences.

L'articolo Tales of the Atomic Age proviene da InsideOver.

French President Emmanuel Macron recenly urged his European partners to discuss the role of strategic nuclear deterrence for defending the continent.

Macron’s Priority: Boost European Partners’ Defense Spending

A prerequisite for Macron remains getting other European countries to increase their defense budgets. As Macron said in a keynote speech on his country’s defense strategy and nuclear weapons doctrine in Paris, France also offers partners more involvement with France’s nuclear deterrence. European partner countries could also take part in French military exercises on nuclear deterrence. Now that the UK left the European Union, France remains the only EU country with its own nuclear weapons arsenal.

Given the current political developments in the United States, Macron considers it imperative that Europe becomes less reliant of Washington and more self-dependent. At the same time, Macron emphasized that this would not put any future cooperation with the US in question. In fact, Macron stated that France was convinced that Europe’s long-term security remains based on a strong alliance with the United States. Nonetheless, however, Macron is convinced that a greater ability for Europeans to act independently is a necessity for the future.

Macron: European States Need To Work Together To Counter Threats

To facilitate the latter, Europe will have to increase its defense spending in the future. States should no longer get involved in complicated debates about funding their military budgets but act decisively instead. Continuously dodging the question and conducting defense procrastination—in view of the current political situation—is incomprehensible to Macron. After all, Europe and France had “a historical role” to play and would have to react to the threats of today and tomorrow. Moreover, Europeans needed to work together to determine what their security interests are and to decide what is necessary to defend the continent.

At the core of Macron’s message was an invitation to the European allies to participate in a “strategic dialogue” and exchange on the role of French nuclear deterrence. Participation in exercises by the French armed forces is also on the table. However, Macron’s offer does not mean that France is inclined to give up control of its nuclear weapons or share responsibility for them. In fact, Paris will remain outside NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group in the future. In fact, France only returned to the integrated command structure of the military alliance in 2009 after a long absence but has yet to participate in the Nuclear Planning Group to date. Macron thus emphasized that his country was committed to its own arsenal of nuclear weapons and it was so not only for its own good but also for the good of the entire continent. According to Macron, nuclear weapons are strengthening Europe’s security solely by their existence and thus have a genuine importance for all the countries of Europe.

Macron: France Still Prefers Global Disarmament

At the same time, Macron also stated that France was continuing to advocate for global disarmament and called on Europeans to advance an “international arms control agenda.” However, Macron emphasized that given a possible nuclear arms race, the EU countries should not become a spectator on the global stage during a time when the US has already exited the INF Treaty it had signed with Russia during the Cold War.

In Berlin a few days ago, a CDU spokesman proposed that Germany—which has pledged to take on a more prominent role other than diplomacy on the world stage until 2030—could indeed participate in France’s nuclear deterrence with its own capabilities and means. However—and contrary to Paris’ intention—the CDU also suggested that in return France should put its nuclear weapons under the joint command of the EU or NATO.

The comments were met with immediate criticism by the opposition. Particularly Greens and The Left have continued their demands for the denuclearization of Europe and stated that no European country should participate in Macron’s plan. Germany’s participation can be considered a sine qua non in this matter, as without Berlin’s participation—which appears highly unlikely under the current German domestic political climate—smaller EU states will be reluctant to accept France’s offer.

L'articolo Macron Calls For Cooperation On European Nuclear Deterrence proviene da InsideOver.

Iran’s complaint over Israel’s recent missile test exposes how the West applies a double standard when it comes to Israel’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile.

According to the i24News report, Israel’s missile propulsion system, known as Jerricho ballistic missile system, has a range of 2,000 kilometers. The Jewish state developed such a weapon with the US assistance, which can be accompanied by a sizeable warhead.

Israel’s Ministry of Defense did not elaborate on the detail of the testing and the information on the location of the missile launch. However, Tehran assumed that the missile launched from the airbase in Pamachim, in the south of Tel Aviv, based on a video and a picture circulating on social media channels.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif denounced the missile testing, adding that such a provocative activity was aimed at destroying Iran.

“Israel today tested a nuke-missile, aimed at Iran. E3 & US never complain about the only nuclear arsenal in West Asia – armed with missiles DESIGNED to be capable of carrying nukes – but has fits of apoplexy over our conventional & defensive ones,” the Iranian diplomat tweeted.

Israel today tested a nuke-missile, aimed at Iran.

E3 & US never complain about the only nuclear arsenal in West Asia—armed with missiles actually DESIGNED to be capable of carrying nukes—but has fits of apoplexy over our conventional & defensive ones. https://t.co/r4EqXkhcCN

— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) December 6, 2019

Germany, France, and the UK responded to Iran’s complain by sending a letter to the UN stating that Iran was “developing nuclear-capable missiles,” which is in breach of the UN Security Resolution on a nuclear deal.

The Security Council Resolution 2231 calls on Iran to refrain from undertaking “any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.”

Iran has been under criticism for reducing its commitment to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or known as the Iran nuclear deal signed in 2015 following Washington’s exit from the treaty. Last year, the U.S. withdrew from the deal, claiming the JCPOA was not adequate in pushing Iran to halt its nuclear weapons despite the compliance report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Iran threatened to enrich its uranium level above 3.67 per cent as allowed in the JCPOA, far from 90 per cent used for developing nuclear weapons. Tehran blamed European countries for failing to save the deal despite the efforts from some of the European nations to help Tehran to bypass the U.S-imposed sanction.

The UN resolution does not ban Iran’s missile program

In December 2018, the UN Security Council held a meeting to discuss Iran’s missile program at the requests from the UK and France. Despite the failure to produce a consensus, Western diplomats insisted that Iran’s missile program violated the resolution 2231.

Iran’s geopolitical position makes it vulnerable to the attack from the world’s superpower. Therefore, the presence of a missile for the country’s security is vital.

“Iran has always been a country subject to aggression. Various powers have always done their best to use Iran as their play court in a war of interests. We can look back to the Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan’s invasions of Iran centuries ago to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein’s war against the country in the new era. We also remember Iran being the “bridge of victory” for the Allied Powers in WWII despite Tehran’s declaration of neutrality. All these events showed that Iran has a special geopolitical position that necessitates a high-level defense power. This is not peculiar to the post-Revolution Iran. Shah of Iran also tried to equip the navy with warships to secure the country’s superiority in the sea,” Iranian professor Mehdi Motaharnia told Alwaght.

Zarif tweeted that US envoy to Iran Brian Hook had admitted that the resolution does not ban Iran’s missile program.

“Brian Hook has given our E3 JCPOA partners a timely reminder, openly admitting that missile testing is not prohibited in the Security Council’s Resolution 2231,” the veteran diplomat wrote as Tehran Times quoted.

The West’s double standard for Iran

In July 2018, the Germany Security Agency released a report accusing Iran of acquiring goods and technology used for the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and missiles, raising concern over the violation of the 2015 JCPOA.

As Fox News reported, the file stated that Tehran had “made 32 procurement attempts… that definitely or with high likelihood were undertaken for the benefit of proliferation programs.”

However, France and the UK secretly helped Israel to acquire atomic bombs in the 1950s and 1960s. Europeans also voted to block calls for Israel to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which would give access to the IAEA inspectors to each member’s nuclear facility.

Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell revealed that Israel had 200 nuclear bombs aimed at Iran in his leaked email. Powell also praised the JCPOA, saying the treaty benefited both Iran and the US

It’s a pretty good deal,” the former general told NBC.

Marc Finaud, a senior member of Geneva Centre for Security Policy, highlighted the weakness of the international arms control framework on a missile, as it only has the MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime) and The Hague Code of Conduct, which are a voluntary set of procedures.

In April 1987, industrialized nations grouped in G7 (the UK the US, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, and Japan) set up the MTCR. It is a non-formal, voluntary membership involving 35 countries, aimed at containing missile technology proliferation, restricting missile system production, drone, and all technologies related that can carry missile weighing 500 kilograms and with a range of 300 kilometers. Despite being the treaty’s non-signatories, China has expressed its commitment to maintaining principles and rules in the MTCR.

However, the West adopts a double standard when it comes to rules on missile technology. For example, the purchase of China’s Dongfeng-21 missile by Saudi Arabia in 2007. Washington gave the green light after the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had carefully studied that missile, saying that the China-made weapon was not capable of carrying out nuclear warheads as Newsweek reported.

“It is indeed regrettable that the international arms control framework on missiles is very weak: it only consists of the MTCR export control regime and The Hague Code of Conduct, a voluntary set of transparency- and confidence-building measures. In the case of the Middle East, means of delivery of weapons of mass destruction are part of the mandate of a WMD-free Zone, but discussions of this project have not made much progress so far,” the expert argued.

Regional framework is necessary

Iran’s missile program started when Iraq launched missiles as Iran during the  Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, triggered by border issues. While Israel and Egypt were the first nations to develop their ballistic missile.

Several countries in the Middle East possess long-range ballistic due to the threat perceptions fueled by other countries’ arms build-up, said “Indeed, in the Middle East, several countries have wide-ranging missile capabilities that are the result of threat perceptions often fueled by the others’ arms build-ups. This is why the only effective way of dealing with that issue is a regional framework. With other experts, my organization has made proposals for a series of measures (such as limits on range and payload and ban on transfers) that could be adopted by the key regional states as one of the first steps towards the establishment of a WMD-free zone,” Finaud spoke to Javar Heierannia of Mehrnews

L'articolo Israel is Testing a New Mysterious Missile proviene da InsideOver.