Tags: Barack Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu, Binyamin Netanyahu, Iran, Israel, Middle East, Nuclear weapon, Oval Office
Isrrael’s prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu notched up positive result for him in getting President Obama set a time limit to US efforts to persuade Iran to stop in its nuclear track towards making an Iran Bomb.
“We’re not going to have talks forever,” Mr Obama said on Monday, after a private meeting with Mr Netanyahu. “We’re not going to create a situation in which talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing and deploying a nuclear weapon… If we can begin discussions soon, shortly after the Iranian elections, we should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction”.
However, Obama was carefully vague about what would happen if the deadline passed and the country’s nuclear program continued.
The president, in fact, pointedly refrained from rehearsing that formula in his comments in the Oval Office. He said:
“We are not foreclosing a range of steps, including much stronger international sanctions, in assuring that Iran understands that we are serious.” At his briefing Mr Netanyahu added his own oracular line: “Israel reserves the right to act in self-defense.”
He contended that these veiled references to military action contributed to the potential efficacy of diplomatic and economic measures designed to persuade Iran to forgo the bomb.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Bibi Defends Israel, Obama Defends Appeasement (barbarany_9.blogspot.com)
- Netanyahu’s Bluff (mydd.com)
- Is a Nuclear Iran Obama’s legacy? (warintel.blogspot.com)
- Robert Gates: bombing Iran would not stop nuclear threat (telegraph.co.uk)
- US to Israel: Hands Off Iran (powerlineblog.com)
- Obama’s support for Palestinian state (guardian.co.uk)
- Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran – Or I Will (warintel.blogspot.com)
- Obama outreach to Muslims worries Israelis (ctv.ca)
Tags: Intercontinental ballistic missile, North Korea, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Nuclear weapon, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United Nations, United States
There’s a lot of made up concern about the imminent North Korean missile test. But no one can quite bring themselves to get in a stew over it. Hence the bored and anti-climactic utterances by US government spokespersons tha it is “unhelpfull”.
The Japanese argue that the rocket will pass over Japan’s “territotial sky” and therefor violate Japanese sovereignty. The height of territorial sky has not yet been internationally defined. The only general standard is that the height of the territorial sky should be extended only to a height appropriate to guarantee the security of each country. So, over the past 100 years, the height of the territorial sky has been internationally recognized between 40 to 50 km. Recently, however, some argued that the height of the territorial sky should be about 100 km, on the grounds that the flight altitude of ballistic missiles launched by many countries nowadays is generally within 100 km and that some of the satellites orbit more or less 100 km from the earth. As a result, nowadays, about 100 km is regarded as the height of territorial sky. No nation claims higher territorial sky, nor is it recognized.
But suppose the North was to launch a straightforward, unembarrassed, honest to goodness ICBM? – would that be so wrong? The “security” of the “West” has been guaranteed by such weapons for the past 60 years,… or so they say.
It violates United Nations sanctions perhaps – but then disregarding the opinion of the UN is not novel. West may not feel comfortable with it, but it seems to me that in answer to the North Korean question, ‘Why shouldn’t we possess and test missiles for our own defence?’, the rest of the missile-possessing, missile-testing world has no more persuasive answer than: “Because we don’t like you.”
The original five signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty — the United States, the United Kingdom, China, France, and the Soviet Union, now Russia – signed the NPT with the understanding under Article 6 that they would work in good faith towards general and complete nuclear disarmament. What we’ve seen in the intervening years is that they have retained and reaffirmed the role of nuclear weapons in their security policies. In some cases they have given new roles and missions to nuclear weapons and they seem to be committed to retaining nuclear weapons for the indefinite future. So there’s clearly a double standard here.
However,the concern is expressed that North Korea which claimed to have detonated a nuclear device on October 9th 2006 will supply nuclear and missile-relevant technology to countries elsewhere in the world, but also that it might supply weapons-usable fissile material to terrorist groups. The North Koreans deny that they would ever consider doing this and they dismiss it out of hand. But it’s something the world has to take very seriously given the fact that Pyongyang is well-known already for supplying ballistic missile technology to a number of states, and it’s also known North Korea has been involved in nuclear commerce as well with a number of states, in particular Pakistan through the [Pakistani nuclear scientist] A. Q. Khan [smuggling] network, so clearly this has to be taken seriously.
Obviously there’s great alarm in Japan and elsewhere in the region over North Korea’s scientific advancement of missile technology. What about a possible knock-on effect? Could this spur an arms race in the region?
What’s more likely in the case of Japan is that it will continue to reevaluate its current defense posture. It’s moving towards having a more robust conventional military capability, including long-range strike capabilities. It’s also very likely to move now even more closely into cooperation with the United States on a regional defense system.
Of the nuclear weapons states, four are outside the NPT: India, Pakistan, and North Korea, plus Israel, which has never declared as much but is widely believed to have a nuclear arsenal. They either never signed up or withdrew from the treaty. Doesn’t this show up a pretty major problem with the NPT: if you want to comply you’re in, if you don’t, you remain outside or withdraw and no one can do anything about it?
This serves North Korea exactly right. One of the problems with the NPT now is that we have almost as many nuclear weapons states outside the treaty as are legally recognized under the terms of the treaty. And in the case of North Korea it was a nonnuclear weapons state party to the treaty, it then withdrew in 2003 and declared itself to be a nuclear weapons state, and of course it used its status under the NPT to acquire all the nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure needed to manufacture nuclear weapons. Basically it cheated — a clear-cut case of noncompliance with the treaty — and yet when it pulled out of the treaty nothing happened, the international community failed to take robust action against Pyongyang. It’s something that gravely undermines the legitimacy of the treaty regime, when states can be seen to flout its rules, exploit the rules, and — frankly — cheat and then get away with it.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Feb. 6, 1959: Titan Launches; Cold War Heats Up (wired.com)
- Hillary Clinton warns North Korea on missile testing (telegraph.co.uk)
- North Korea announces missile test sat launch (theregister.co.uk)
- Stephen Schlesinger: Obama — It’s Time to Visit the UN (huffingtonpost.com)
- Kim Jongil raises stakes with missile threat (telegraph.co.uk)
- North Korean Space Launch a ‘Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing’ (space.com)
- Iran’s Satellite Launch a Signal of Missile Progress, Analysts Say (space.com)
- S Korea nuclear envoy to N Korea (news.bbc.co.uk)
- Global Zero: A World Without Nuclear Weapons (takepart.com)
- Gary Hart: What a Year It Might Be (huffingtonpost.com)
Tags: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Madeleine Albright, Nuclear weapon, Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, United States, United States Secretary of State
Pakistan is the Most Dangerous Country in the World, Pakistan have everything from Nuclear weapons, Poverty, Corruption,Extremism and a very fragile system, says the Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
“i have said that Pakistan- you know, every day, some of us are asked, what is the most dangerous country in the world? and for me, Pakistan has won the lottery,” Albright Said.
She appreciated Paksitan president Zardari to have a better relationship with US, when the issue is related to Afghanistan.
Albright have served under the clinton administration, welcomed the move of new President Barack Obama to appoint Ambassador Richard Holbrooke as the special US Represntative for Pakistan and Afghanitan.
Tags: Electricity generation, Energy, Energy development, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Nuclear fission, Nuclear weapon, Technology, US
More and more from less and less seems to be the watchword of the energy hunters among scientists. They literally try to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Discarding voluminous steam and turbines US and Russian researchers adopted thermoelectric materials that convert heat into electricity through nuclear fission to power spacecrafts. But thermoelectric materials have very low efficiency. Now US researchers say they have developed highly efficient materials that can convert the radiation, not heat, from nuclear materials and reactions directly into electricity.
Liviu Popa-Simil, former Los Alamos National Laboratory nuclear engineer and founder of private research and development company LAVM and Claudiu Muntele, of Alabama A&M University, US, say transforming the energy of radioactive particles into electricity is more effective.The materials they are testing would extract up to 20 times more power from radioactive decay than thermoelectric materials, they calculate. Layered tiles of carbon nanotubes packed with gold and surrounded by lithium hydride are the materials they test which suggest such promise. Devices based on these materials could be small enough to power anything from interplanetary probes to aircraft and land vehicles
Related articles by Zemanta
Tags: Energy, Environment, Nuclear, Nuclear fission, Nuclear power, Nuclear reactor technology, Nuclear weapon, South Asia
Image via Wikipedia