Posts

Russia: NATO is Our Number One Military Threat

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

Russia identified NATO as the nation’s number one military threat and raised the possibility of a broader use of precision conventional weapons to deter foreign aggression under a new military doctrine signed by President Vladimir Putin on Friday.

NATO flatly denied it is a threat to Russia, and accused Moscow of undermining European security.

The new doctrine, which comes amid tensions over Ukraine, reflected the Kremlin’s readiness to take a stronger posture in response to what it sees as U.S.-led efforts to isolate and weaken Russia.

The paper maintains the provisions of the previous, 2010 edition of the military doctrine regarding the use of nuclear weapons.

It says Russia could employ nuclear weapons in retaliation for the use of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction against the country or its allies, and also in the case of aggression involving conventional weapons that “threatens the very existence” of the Russian state. (Read more from this story HERE)

5 Problems with the Nuclear Talks with Iran

kerry_johnThe Obama administration was forced to punt once again at the talks on Iran’s nuclear program when the Iranians refused to budge on their maximal demands on uranium enrichment and sanctions relief.

When they failed to strike a deal by Monday’s deadline, Iran and the P5 +1 (five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) extended the negotiations for another seven months, until June 30, 2015.
There are five major problems with the negotiations, as currently structured:

1. Iran has been able to legitimize its once-covert nuclear program.

Tehran has won the acceptance of the P5 + 1 for illicit uranium enrichment activities at Natanz and the heavy water reactor at Arak, capable of functioning as a plutonium bomb factory, that Iran sought to hide from International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors before they were exposed in 2002. Other nuclear proliferators will demand the same lax treatment if they are caught red-handed in the future.

2. Iran has won sanctions relief disproportionate to its relatively minor concessions.

Tehran has pocketed significant economic benefits from sanctions relief, about $700 million per month, as part of the interim Joint Plan of Action. As the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., has noted: “The Obama administration’s Iran nuclear negotiations have done little to advance the security of the United States and our allies, but they have benefited Iran. As these negotiations drag on, Iran continues to enrich uranium, is free to pursue some nuclear-related R&D, and has been handed access to previously frozen assets and an easing of sanctions. At the same time, the United States has received little in return but a promise to keep talking.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Study: ‘Small’ Nuclear War Would Destroy The World

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Photo Credit: Getty Images

With an estimated 17,000 nuclear weapons in the world, we have the power to exterminate humanity many times over.

But it wouldn’t take a full-scale nuclear war to make Earth uninhabitable, reports Live Science.

Even a relatively small regional nuclear war, like a conflict between India and Pakistan, could spark a global environmental catastrophe, says a new study.

“Most people would be surprised to know that even a very small regional nuclear war on the other side of the planet could disrupt global climate for at least a decade and wipe out the ozone layer for a decade,” said lead author Michael Mills, an atmospheric scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

Researchers developed a computer model of the Earth’s atmosphere and ran simulations to find out what would happen if there was a nuclear war with just a fraction of the world’s arsenal.

Read more from this story HERE.

Iranian Official Confirms Country Sought to Build Nuclear Weapons

Photo Credit: REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth

Photo Credit: REUTERS/Stefan Wermuth

A founder of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards now admits that the Islamic Republic was seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. This is the first time any regime official has made such an admission, even as another report claims that one of Iran’s most radical clerics was the spiritual overseer of the nuclear weapons program.

“We pursued ways in order to gain nuclear arms,” Gen. Mohsen Rafiqdoost told the regime’s Mehr News on Saturday. “I asked Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini] what his opinion was. He said do not pursue atoms, and we stopped.”

But that claim falls short of the truth. In the late 1980s, a letter by Mohsen Rezaei, then the chief commander of the Guards, asking Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Revolution, for approval of the nuclear bomb program was revealed. It showed the leader had approved of seeking nuclear weapons.

Rafiqdoost became the first minister of the Guards and was in charge of purchasing arms on the black market.

Iranian officials have for a long time denied that there ever was a nuclear bomb program and have consistently insisted that the country’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes to help feed its only existing nuclear power plant and ones the country plans to build.

Read more from this story HERE.

Iranian Official on Nuke Deal: ‘We Did Not Agree to Dismantle Anything’ (+video)

Photo Credit: CNN

Photo Credit: CNN

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif insisted Wednesday that the Obama administration mischaracterizes concessions by his side in the six-month nuclear deal with Iran, telling CNN in an exclusive interview that “we did not agree to dismantle anything.”

Zarif told CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto that terminology used by the White House to describe the agreement differed from the text agreed to by Iran and the other countries in the talks — the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.

“The White House version both underplays the concessions and overplays Iranian commitments” under the agreement that took effect Monday, Zarif said in Davos, Switzerland, where he was attending the World Economic Forum.

As part of the accord, Iran was required to dilute its stockpile of uranium that had been enriched to 20%, well above the 5% level needed for power generation but still below the level for developing a nuclear weapon.

In addition, the deal mandated that Iran halt all enrichment above 5% and “dismantle the technical connections required to enrich above 5%,” according to a White House fact sheet issued in November after the initial agreement was reached.

Read more from this story HERE.

Poll: Two Thirds of Israelis Think Obama Will Let Iran Go Nuclear

Photo Credit: Truth Revolt

Photo Credit: Truth Revolt

According to new poll, a huge majority of Israelis do not trust President Obama with regard to Iran, and believe Obama will allow Iran to go nuclear. Only 22 percent of Israeli voters believed that Obama would “ensure that Iran does not achieve a nuclear weapon.”

Almost two-thirds of Israelis thought that statement was untrue, and 15 percent gave no answer. President Obama has just a 33 percent favorable rating in Israel, as opposed to a 50 percent disapproval rating. Even those who favor Obama are split evenly on whether or not he will prevent Iran from going nuclear.

Read more from this story HERE.

Obama Acting Like Weak Power in Iran Negotiations

Photo Credit: Wikipedia Commons

Photo Credit: Wikipedia Commons

Here’s a thought: If we’re starting negotiations to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program cowering in fear that Iran will walk away from the table, we’re probably not negotiating from a position of strength.

America’s interim deal with Iran went into effect over the weekend, giving the U.S. and other so-called world powers six months to negotiate a deal to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program. There is good reason to be skeptical that Iran would ever negotiate away its nuclear weapons program — which it denies even having — but given the Obama administration’s claim that sanctions brought Iran to the table, wouldn’t the prospect of more sanctions if a deal does not materialize provide even greater incentive for Iran to capitulate?

You would think so, but President Barack Obama is adamantly opposed to a Senate bill co-sponsored by Republican Sen. Mark Kirk and Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez that would impose further sanctions on Iran if the Islamic Republic doesn’t come to an acceptable agreement with the U.S. on its nuclear program. The bill, so far backed by 59 Senate Republicans and Democrats, has sent the Obama administration into a tizzy. The president has pledged to veto it. Administration officials say those who support it are essentially warmongers — in contrast, of course, to the president, who says he only wants to “give peace a chance.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Syria Weapons Inspectors Miss Deadline for Visiting All Declared Sites

Photo Credit: AP Photo/Dusan VranicInternational inspectors overseeing the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile have missed an early deadline in a brutally tight schedule after security concerns prevented them from visiting two sites linked to Damascus’ chemical program.

The chief of the global chemical weapons watchdog disclosed for the first time in a report obtained by The Associated Press that Syria has declared 41 facilities at 23 chemical sites where it stored approximately 1,300 tons of precursors and agents, and over 1,200 unfilled munitions to deliver them.

Ahmet Uzumcu said in his first report to the U.N. Security Council that inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons had corroborated the information provided by Syria at 37 of the 41 facilities.

But the OPCW said inspectors were only able to visit 21 of the 23 sites because of security risks — which means the tight timeline for visiting all declared sites by Oct. 27 was missed.

While there are no consequences for missing the deadline, the group’s failure to meet it underscores the ambitious timeline as well as the risks its inspectors face in carrying out their mission in the middle of Syria’s civil war.

Read more from this story HERE.

Neglecting Our Nukes – Now Vulnerable to Hackers?

picture_nuclear_bomb_reutersOn Oct. 23, 2010, at about 1:30 in the morning, the underground launch control centers at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming lost communication with 50 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles. Instead of showing the status of the missiles, the computer screens in the control centers displayed the acronym LFDN — Launch Facility Down.

Briefly losing contact with a few missiles wasn’t unusual. But having an entire squadron go down, simultaneously, was extraordinary. Closed-circuit television images of the missile silos, which sit miles away from their control centers, revealed that none of the Minuteman IIIs had lifted off. Almost an hour after the problem suddenly appeared, communication was re-established between the missiles and their launch crews. Nevertheless, heavily armed Air Force security officers spent the next few hours visiting all 50 silos, in the early morning darkness, to ensure that no security breach had occurred.

The Air Force dismissed the possibility that the computer network controlling its Minuteman IIIs had been hacked. The idea that a hacker could somehow disable 50 ballistic missiles — each of them armed with a nuclear warhead about seven times more powerful than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima — seemed like the improbable plot of a Hollywood thriller.

An Air Force operations review board later found that the communications breakdown at F.E. Warren had been caused by a combination of equipment failure and human error: a circuit card, improperly installed in a weapons-system processor, had been dislodged by routine vibration and heat. But the incident privately raised concerns among high-level Air Force officials that America’s nuclear command-and-control system might not be secure against a cyberattack.

In fact, in January 2013, a Pentagon advisory group, the Defense Science Board, warned that the system’s vulnerability to such an attack had never been fully assessed. While testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee this past March, Gen. C. Robert Kehler, head of the U.S. Strategic Command, expressed confidence that America’s nuclear arsenal was well-protected against a cyberattack, and yet he acknowledged, “we don’t know what we don’t know.”

A world without nuclear weapons would, of course, eliminate the risk of accidental nuclear detonations. But that is an elusive goal, and until it’s achieved, America’s nuclear arsenal must be managed with the sort of ruthless efficiency and intolerance for error once championed by Curtis LeMay.

A world with many fewer weapons in fewer hands — carefully maintained, with no expense spared- – offers the best hope of avoiding mistakes whose consequences would be almost unimaginable. During his recent Senate testimony on command and control issues and the threat of cyberattacks, Kehler, the head of the U.S. Strategic Command, was asked whether Russia and China had the ability to prevent hackers from launching one of their nuclear missiles. Kehler paused for a moment and then replied, “Senator, I don’t know.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Russia Warns Of Nuclear Disaster If Syria Is Attacked

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman warned any military intervention in Syria would create a nuclear disaster.

“If a warhead, by design or by chance, were to hit the Miniature Neutron Source Reactor (MSNR) near Damascus, the consequences could be catastrophic,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich stated, according to Russia Today.

Lukashevich said if a military strike were launched without seeking approval from the United Nations Security Council that new suffering for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa would occur. He added that the region could be at risk of “contamination by highly enriched uranium and it would no longer be possible to account for nuclear material, its safety and control.”

He urged the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to complete a risk evaluation carrying out “an analysis of the risks linked to possible American strikes on the MNSR and other facilities in Syria.”

Rueters quoted an IAEA spokesperson stating the agency was aware of the statement, but is waiting for a formal request asking the agency to complete risk evaluation and that the group would consider the questions raised if a request is received.

Read more from this story HERE.