The Pronk Pops Show — Week in Review — November 6 -13, 2017 — Videos

Posted on November 15, 2017. Filed under: American History, Articles, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Congress, conservatives, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, government, government spending, Heroes, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, Missiles, Monetary Policy, Money, Music, Non-Fiction, Nuclear, People, Philosophy, Photos, Police, Political Correctness, Politics, Psychology, Radio, Rants, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulations, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Trade Policiy, Unemployment, Video, War, Weapons, Welfare, Wisdom, Work, World War II, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1000, November 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 999, November 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 998, November 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 997, November 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 996, November 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 995, November 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 994, November 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 992, October 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 991, October 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 990, October 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 989, October 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 987, October 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 986, October 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Image result for trump speech in vietnam APEC 2017U.S. President Donald Trump delivers a speech at the National Assembly in Seoul, South Korea, Nov. 8, 2017.

Image result for cartoons two party tyranny

Image result for branco cartoons new political party
Image result for branco cartoons roy moore and mitchel mcconnell

The Pronk Pops Show 1000

November 13, 2017

Story 1: The People of Alabama Will Decide Who Will Represent Them As Their Senator — Not Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell — Videos —

Story 2: Follow The Money — The Bought and Paid For Political Elitist Establishment of The Two Party Tyranny — Video —

Story 3: Independents United — Independence Party Time — Videos

For additional information and videos:

https://pronkpops.wordpress.com/2017/11/14/the-pronk-pops-show-1000-november-13-20017-story-1-the-people-of-alabama-will-decide-who-will-represent-them-in-the-senator-not-kentucky-senator-mitch-mcconnell-videos-story-2-follow-the/

November 14, 2017 07:24 PM PST

The Pronk Pops Show 999

November 10, 2017

Story 1: President Trump Delivers America First Address With Bilateral Trade Agreements With Nations That Want Free But Fair Trade At The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in Da Nang, Vietnam — Videos —

Story 2: From Crying To Screaming — Big Lie Media Joins Lying Lunatic Left Losers —   Sky Screaming — Trump Still President — Videos —

Story 3: Let Voters of Alabama Decide Who They Want For Their Senator — Alabama Republican Senate Candidate, Roy Moore, Denies Accusations Made in Washington Post Attack Article  vs. Democratic Senate Candidate, Doug Jones, Supporter for Pro Abortion Planned Parenthood and Women Should Have The Right To Choose Killing Their Babies in The Womb — Denies Civil Rights Protection of Life To Babies Before Birth — Videos

Story 4: Remembering The Veterans in Music — Lili Marleen — We’ll Meet Again — Sky Pilot — We Gotta Get Out Of This Place — Paint it Black  – – War — Where Have All the Flowers Gone? — Blowing In The Wind –Videos

For additional information and videos:

https://pronkpops.wordpress.com/2017/11/10/the-pronk-pops-show-999-november-10-2017-story-1-president-trump-delivers-america-first-address-at-asia-pacific-economic-cooperation-apec-summit-in-da-nang-vietnam-videos-story-2-from-c/

November 11, 2017 02:07 PM PST

The Pronk Pops Show 998

November 9, 2017

Story 1: President Trump’s Address to South Korea’s National Assembly — Great Speech — Americans and Koreans Loved It — Every Breath You Take — Videos —

Story 2: President Trump Tells It Like It Is — Does Not Blame China For Hugh Trade Deficits But Past Administrations — Videos —

Story 3: Republican Party Senate Bill Wants To Delay Tax Cuts To 2019 Instead of Cutting Spending Now — Need New Political Party Advocating Balanced Budgets, Broad Based Consumption Tax,and Term Limits — Voters Will Stay Home Election Day, November 6, 2018 If Congress Does Not Completely Repeal Obamacare and Enact Fundamental Reform of Tax System — Videos —

Story 4: Alabama Republican Candidate for Senator, Roy Moore, Accused of Sexual Misconduct in 1979 — Desperate Democratic Dirt — Let The Voters of Alabama Decide — Accusations Are Not Evidence — Videos

For additional information and videos

https://pronkpops.wordpress.com/2017/11/09/the-pronk-pops-show-998-november-9-2017-story-1-president-trumps-address-to-south-koreas-national-assembly-great-speech-americans-and-koreans-loved-it-every-breath-you-take-videos/

November 08, 2017 08:32 PM PST

The Pronk Pops Show 997

November 8, 20017

Story 1: Communist Chinese Connection To Trade — Nuclear Proliferation — and — Terrorism (TNT) — Peace or War — China Must Destroy North Korea Nuclear Weapons and Missiles or Face The Consequences of Overthrow of Communist Party — U.S.Complete Embargo on All Chinese Trade and Investment —
Story 2: President Trump Meets With Japanese Prime Minster Shinzo Abe and President Moon Jai-in As U.S. Navy Flexes Air Power — All Options Are On The Table — Video —

Story 3: Saudi Arab On The Brink of War With Lebanon Controlled By Iran-backed Lebanese Shi‘ite group Hezbollah — Saudi Arab Blames Iran For Yemen Missile Attack — Purge and Roundup of Royal Prince Continues — Videos —

For additional information and videos:

https://pronkpops.wordpress.com/2017/11/08/the-pronk-pops-show-997-november-7-2017-story-1-communist-chinese-connection-to-trade-nuclear-proliferation-and-terrorism-tnt-peace-or-war-china-must-destroy-north-korea-nuclear-w/

November 07, 2017 11:23 AM PST

The Pronk Pops Show 996

November 6, 2017

Story 1: Atheist Security Guard Dressed In Black and Wearing Body Armor, Devin Patrick Kelley, 26, Entered The First Baptist Church and Shoot and Killed 26, Including 8 Members of A Single Family with Pregnant Mother, Victim Range in Age From 18 Months to 77 Years and Wounded 20, in The Texas Small Town of Sutherland Springs, Population 400,  A Nearby Neighbor, Stephen Willeford, 55, Shot Killer With His Rifle,Three Times, Twice in The Neck and Once in The Side, Killer Died of Wounds, After Brief High Speed Car Chase — The Times They Are A Changin — Blowing In The Wind — Videos

For additional information and videos:

https://pronkpops.wordpress.com/2017/11/07/the-pronk-pops-show-996-story-1-atheist-security-guard-dressed-in-black-and-wearing-body-armor-devin-patrick-kelley-26-entered-the-first-baptist-church-and-shoot-and-killed-26-including-8-member/

November 04, 2017 02:25 PM PDT

The Pronk Pops Show 995

November 3, 2017

Story 1: Democrats (Liberal, Progressive & Socialist Wing) and Republicans (Liberal & Progressive Wing) of The Two Party Tyranny Are All Marxist Now — Big Government Bubble Tax Surcharge of 6% Increases Rate From 39.6% to 45.6% — Class Warfare — Eat The Rich — Videos — Part 2 of 2 —

Story 2: Republican Tax Cut Will Not Make America Great Again — Missing Is Real Government Spending Cuts That Results in A Balanced Budget By 2020 or 2024 — Spending Addiction Disorder (SAD) or Government Spending Obesity — Alive and Well — Videos —

Story 3: A Broad Based Consumption Tax Replacing The Current U.S. Income Tax System Along The Lines of The FairTax or Fair Tax Less With Generous Monthly Tax Prebates and Limiting Federal Government Expenditures to 90% of Taxes Collected Will Make America Great Again — Videos

For additional information and videos:

https://pronkpops.wordpress.com/2017/11/03/the-pronk-pops-show-995-november-3-2017-story-1-democrats-liberal-progressive-socialist-wing-and-republicans-liberal-progressive-wing-of-the-two-party-tyranny-are-all-marxist-now/

November 03, 2017 06:44 PM PDT

The Pronk Pops Show 994

November 2, 2017

Story 1: President Trump Nominates Fed Governor Jerome Powell To Chair Federal Reserve Board of Governors — Expect Continuation of Interventionist Easy Monetary Policy — More Money Creation or Quantitative Easing When Economy Enters Next Recession in 2018-2019 — Videos —

Part 1 of 2 — Story 2: No Tax Reform By Changing From Income Tax System to Broad Based Consumption Tax — The FairTax or Fair Tax Less — No Middle Class Tax Relief From Payroll Taxes — No Real Cuts in Federal Spending As Budget Deficits Rise with Rising National Debt and Unfunded Liabilities — Spending Addiction Disorder — Government Obesity — Crash Diet of Balanced Budgets Required — Videos

For additional information and videos:

https://pronkpops.wordpress.com/2017/11/02/the-pronk-pops-show-994-part-1-of-2-story-1-president-trump-nominates-fed-governor-jerome-powell-to-chair-federal-reserve-board-of-governors-expect-continuation-of-interventionist-easy-monetar/

November 02, 2017 07:06 PM PDT

The Pronk Pops Show 993

November 1, 2017

Story 1: Update of Radical Islamic Terrorist Jihadist Attack in New York City — President Trump “Send Him To Gitmo” as Enemy Combatant and Get Rid of Chain Migration and Diversity Lottery Immigration Program and Replace With Merit Based System of Immigration — Videos — Breaking —

Story 2: Trump Expected To Name Jerome Powell As Next Federal Reserve Chairman Replacing Chair Janet Yellen — A Dove or Continuation of Interventionist Easy Monetary Policy — Better Choice Was John Taylor — Taylor For Fed Chair and Powell for Vice Chair — Videos

For additional information and videos:

https://pronkpops.wordpress.com/2017/11/01/the-pronk-pops-show-993-november-2-2017-story-1-update-of-radical-islamic-terrorist-jihadist-attack-in-new-york-city-president-trump-send-him-to-gitmo-as-enemy-combatant-and-get-rid-of-chai/

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

United States Nuclear Deal is Another Obama Disaster — Just Walk Away Kerry — Back To Punishing Economic Sanctions — Iranian Regime Change — Videos

Posted on April 3, 2015. Filed under: Articles, Blogroll, Bomb, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), College, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Corruption, Culture, Data, Demographics, Dirty Bomb, Documentary, Drones, Economics, Education, Entertainment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, Genocide, government, government spending, Illegal, Immigration, Investments, Islam, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Missiles, Music, National Security Agency (NSA_, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Nuclear Proliferation, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Physics, Politics, Press, Programming, Psychology, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Science, Security, Shite, Strategy, Sunni, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Terrorism, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Weather | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 437: March 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 436: March 27, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 435: March 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 434: March 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 433: March 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 432: March 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 431: March 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 430: March 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 429: March 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 428: March 17, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 427: March 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 426: March 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 425: March 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 424: March 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 423: February 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 422: February 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 421: February 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 420: February 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 419: February 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 418: February 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 417: February 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 416: February 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 415: February 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 414: February 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 413: February 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 412: February 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 411: February 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 410: February 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Story 2: United States Nuclear Deal is Another Obama Disaster — Just Walk Away Kerry — Back To Punishing Economic Sanctions — Iranian Regime Change — Videos

Treaty Clause

“The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2

What to know about the U.S.-Iran nuclear negotations

Iran Nuclear Negotiations: What’s at Stake? | The New York Times

Iran Nuclear Talks Approaching Deadline

Iran nuclear talks intensify as deadline for deal looms

Kerry defends US policy to continue nuclear talks with Iran

Iran Nuclear Negotiations: Deal or No Deal? / Ted Cruz, Election 2016

Former WH aide Dan Pfeiffer on potential collapse of Iran nuclear talks

Iranium – The Islamic Republic’s Race to Obtain Nuclear Weapons

Saudi nuclear weapons ‘on order’ from Pakistan (BBC Newsnight 7 Nov 2013)

Saudi Nuclear Deal Raises Arms Race Fears

Iran – Nuclear negotiations waste of time says Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia reportedly able to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan to counter Iran threat

Why do the Saudis Want the US to Attack Iran? (4/5)

Saudi Arabia Showcases Ballistic Missiles in Military Parade

Shocking Histry of saudi Arabia

Walk Away Renee – The left Banke

Walk Away Renee

  1. And when I see the sign that points one way
    The lot we used to pass by every day
    Just walk away, Renee
    You won’t see me follow you back home
    The empty sidewalks on my block are not the same
    You’re not to blame
    From deep inside the tears that I’m forced to cry
    From deep inside the pain that I chose to hide
    Just walk away, Renee
    You won’t see me follow you back home
    Now, as the rain beats down upon my weary eyes
    For me, it cries
    Just walk away, Renee
    You won’t see me follow you back home
    Now, as the rain beats down upon my weary eyes
    For me, it cries
    Your name and mine inside a heart upon a wall
    Still finds a way to haunt me though they’re so small
    Just walk away, Renee
    You won’t see me follow you back home
    The empty sidewalks on my block are not the same
    You’re… Full lyrics on Google Play

    Herman’s Hermits – Walk Away Renee (1968)

    The Four Tops – Walk Away Renee (with lyrics on screen)

Pro-Hassan Rouhani Iranian editor defects while covering nuclear talks in Lausanne

Amir Hossein Motaghi says he no longer sees any “sense” in his profession as he could only write as he was told

A close media aide to Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president, has sought political asylum in Switzerland after travelling to Lausanne to cover the nuclear talks between Tehran and the West.

Amir Hossein Motaghi, who managed public relations for Mr Rouhani during his 2013 election campaign, was said by Iranian news agencies to have quit his job at the Iran Student Correspondents Association (ISCA).

He then appeared on an opposition television channel based in London to say he no longer saw any “sense” in his profession as a journalist as he could only write what he was told.

“There are a number of people attending on the Iranian side at the negotiations who are said to be journalists reporting on the negotiations,” he told Irane Farda television. “But they are not journalists and their main job is to make sure that all the news fed back to Iran goes through their channels.

“My conscience would not allow me to carry out my profession in this manner any more.” Mr Mottaghi was a journalist and commentator who went on to use social media successfully to promote Mr Rouhani to a youthful audience that overwhelmingly elected him to power.

But he was also subject to the bitter internal arguments within the Iranian regime. One news website claimed he had been forced in to report to the ministry of intelligence weekly, and that he had been tipped off that he might be subject to arrest had he returned to Tehran.


Jason Rezalan

He is said to have been a friend of Jason Rezaian, the Iranian-American reporter for the Washington Post who has been detained in Tehran, and to have campaigned privately for his release.

ISCA, which has come under fire from regime hardliners critical of Mr Rouhani, issued a statement denying that Mr Motaghi was in Lausanne to report for it.

“Amir Hossein Motaghi had terminated his contribution to ISCA and this news agency has not had any reporter at the nuclear talks, except for a photojournalist”, it said.

However, critics said Mr Mottaghi was “prey of the exiled counter-revolutionaries” and had gone to Lausanne with the sole purpose of seeking refugee status in Switzerland.

In his television interview, Mr Mottaghi also gave succour to western critics of the proposed nuclear deal, which has seen the White House pursue a more conciliatory line with Tehran than some of America’s European allies in the negotiating team, comprising the five permanent members of the UN security council and Germany.

“The US negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal,” he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11500145/Pro-Hassan-Rouhani-Iranian-editor-defects-while-covering-nuclear-talks-in-Lausanne.html

NETANYAHU: NUKE DEAL A ‘REWARD FOR IRAN’S AGGRESSION’

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has blasted the impending nuclear deal between the P5+1 world powers and the Iranian regime, calling the accord a historically bad agreement that lets Iran race towards nuclear weapons development.

“The deal emerging in Lausanne [Switzerland] sends a message that there is no cost for aggression, and in turn, that there is a reward for Iran’s aggression,” Netanyahu said.

The Israeli Prime Minister vowed to continue fighting against vital threats to the national security of his country.

He added: “We will never close our eyes and we will continue to operate against every threat in every generation, and of course in this generation.”

Netanyahu predicted that many countries in the region would be immediately affected by a bad deal.

“Moderate, responsible countries in the region, primarily Israel but other countries as well, will be the first to be harmed by this agreement,” he said.

On Sunday, the Israeli Prime Minister expressed concern with the Iranian regime’s growing sphere of influence and control.

“After the Beirut-Damascus- Baghdad axis, Iran is carrying out a pincer movement from the south to take over and occupy the entire Middle East. The Iran-Lausanne-Yemen axis is very dangerous to humanity and it must be stopped,” Netanyahu said on Sunday at his weekly cabinet meeting.

Netanyahu suggested in the meeting that the impending nuclear deal likely “paves Iran’s way to the [nuclear] bomb.”

The foreign ministers of Iran and the entire P5+1 world powers met in Switzerland on Monday in hopes to secure a basic framework for a nuclear deal by Tuesday’s March 31 deadline. This marked the first time that all of the negotiating foreign minister’s gathered together at the same event.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the media, “I think it is possible to reach a deal by [Tuesday] night. The gaps are narrowing. I am always optimistic.”

“Our deadline is tomorrow night so obviously we are working very hard,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters.

Treaty Clause

The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2

Teacher’s Companion Lesson (PDF)

The Treaty Clause has a number of striking features. It gives the Senate, in James Madison’s terms, a “partial agency” in the President’s foreign-relations power. The clause requires a supermajority (two-thirds) of the Senate for approval of a treaty, but it gives the House of Representatives, representing the “people,” no role in the process.

Midway through the Constitutional Convention, a working draft had assigned the treaty-making power to the Senate, but the Framers, apparently considering the traditional role of a nation-state’s executive in making treaties, changed direction and gave the power to the President, but with the proviso of the Senate’s “Advice and Consent.” In a formal sense, then, treaty-making became a mixture of executive and legislative power. Most people of the time recognized the actual conduct of diplomacy as an executive function, but under Article VI treaties were, like statutes, part of the “supreme Law of the Land.” Thus, as Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist No. 75, the two branches were appropriately combined:

The qualities elsewhere detailed as indispensable in the management of foreign relations point out the executive as the most fit in those transactions; while the vast importance of the trust and the operation of treaties as laws plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.

Another reason for involving both President and Senate was that the Framers thought American interests might be undermined by treaties entered into without proper reflection. The Framers believed that treaties should be strictly honored, both as a matter of the law of nations and as a practical matter, because the United States could not afford to give the great powers any cause for war. But this meant that the nation should be doubly cautious in accepting treaty obligations. As James Wilson said, “Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people.”

The fear of disadvantageous treaties also underlay the Framers’ insistence on approval by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. In particular, the Framers worried that one region or interest within the nation, constituting a bare majority, would make a treaty advantageous to it but prejudicial to other parts of the country and to the national interest. An episode just a year before the start of the Convention had highlighted the problem. The United States desired a trade treaty with Spain, and sought free access to the Mississippi River through Spanish-controlled New Orleans. Spain offered favorable trade terms, but only if the United States would give up its demands on the Mississippi. The Northern states, which would have benefited most from the trade treaty and cared little about New Orleans, had a majority, but not a supermajority, in the Continental Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, treaties required assent of a supermajority (nine out of thirteen) of the states, and the South was able to block the treaty. It was undoubtedly that experience that impelled the Framers to carry over the supermajority principle from the Articles of Confederation.

At the Convention, several prominent Framers argued unsuccessfully to have the House of Representatives included. But most delegates thought that the House had substantial disadvantages when it came to treaty-making. For example, as a large body, the House would have difficulty keeping secrets or acting quickly. The small states, wary of being disadvantaged, also preferred to keep the treaty-making power in the Senate, where they had proportionally greater power.

The ultimate purpose, then, of the Treaty Clause was to ensure that treaties would not be adopted unless most of the country stood to gain. True, treaties would be more difficult to adopt than statutes, but the Framers realized that an unwise statute could simply be repealed, but an unwise treaty remained a binding international commitment, which would not be so easy to unwind.

Other questions, however, remained. First, are the provisions of the clause exclusive—that is, does it provide the only way that the United States may enter into international obligations?

While the clause does not say, in so many words, that it is exclusive, its very purpose—not to have any treaty disadvantage one part of the nation—suggests that no other route was possible, whether it be the President acting alone, or the popularly elected House having a role. On the other hand, while the Treaty Clause was, in the original understanding, the exclusive way to make treaties, the Framers also apparently recognized a class of less-important international agreements, not rising to the level of “treaties,” which could be approved in some other way. Article I, Section 10, in describing restrictions upon the states, speaks of “Treat[ies]” and “Agreement[s]…with a foreign Power” as two distinct categories. Some scholars believe this shows that not all international agreements are treaties, and that these other agreements would not need to go through the procedures of the Treaty Clause. Instead, the President, in the exercise of his executive power, could conclude such agreements on his own. Still, this exception for lesser agreements would have to be limited to “agreements” of minor importance, or else it would provide too great an avenue for evasion of the protections the Framers placed in the Treaty Clause.

A second question is how the President and Senate should interact in their joint exercise of the treaty power. Many Framers apparently thought that the President would oversee the actual conduct of diplomacy, but that the Senate would be involved from the outset as a sort of executive council advising the President. This was likely a reason that the Framers thought the smaller Senate was more suited than the House to play a key role in treaty-making. In the first effort at treaty-making under the Constitution, President George Washington attempted to operate in just this fashion. He went to the Senate in person to discuss a proposed treaty before he began negotiations. What is less clear, however, is whether the Constitution actually requires this process, or whether it is only what the Framers assumed would happen. The Senate, of course, is constitutionally authorized to offer “advice” to the President at any stage of the treaty-making process, but the President is not directed (in so many words) as to when advice must be solicited. As we shall see, this uncertainty has led, in modern practice, to a very different procedure than some Framers envisioned. It seems clear, however, that the Framers expected that the Senate’s “advice and consent” would be a close review and not a mere formality, as they thought of it as an important check upon presidential power.

A third difficult question is whether the Treaty Clause implies a Senate power or role in treaty termination. Scholarly opinion is divided, and few Framers appear to have discussed the question directly. One view sees the power to make a treaty as distinct from the power of termination, with the latter being more akin to a power of implementation. Since the Constitution does not directly address the termination power, this view would give it to the President as part of the President’s executive powers to conduct foreign affairs and to execute the laws. When the termination question first arose in 1793, Washington and his Cabinet, which included Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, embraced this view. All of them thought Washington could, on his own authority, terminate the treaty with France if necessary to keep the United States neutral.

A second view holds that, as a matter of the general eighteenth-century understanding of the legal process, the power to take an action (such as passing a statute or making a treaty) implies the power to undo the action. This view would require the consent of the President and a supermajority of the Senate to undo a treaty. There is, however, not much historical evidence that many Framers actually held this view of treaty termination, and it is inconsistent with the common interpretation of the Appointments Clause (under which Senate approval is required to appoint but not to remove executive officers).

The third view is that the Congress as a whole has the power to terminate treaties, based on an analogy between treaties and federal laws. When the United States first terminated a treaty in 1798 under John Adams, this procedure was adopted, but there was little discussion of the constitutional ramifications.

Finally, there is a question of the limits of the treaty power. A treaty presumably cannot alter the constitutional structure of government, and the Supreme Court has said that executive agreements—and so apparently treaties—are subject to the limits of the Bill of Rights just as ordinary laws are. Reid v. Covert (1957). InGeofroy v. Riggs (1890), the Supreme Court also declared that the treaty power extends only to topics that are “properly the subject of negotiation with a foreign country.” However, at least in the modern world, one would think that few topics are so local that they could not, under some circumstances, be reached as part of the foreign-affairs interests of the nation. Some have argued that treaties are limited by the federalism interests of the states. The Supreme Court rejected a version of that argument in State of Missouri v. Holland (1920), holding that the subject matter of treaties is not limited to the enumerated powers of Congress. The revival of interest in federalism limits on Congress in such areas as state sovereign immunity, see Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996), and the Tenth Amendment, see Printz v. United States (1997), raises the question whether these limits also apply to the treaty power, but the Court has not yet taken up these matters.

Turning to modern practice, the Framers’ vision of treaty-making has in some ways prevailed and in some ways been altered. First, it is not true—and has not been true since George Washington’s administration—that the Senate serves as an executive council to advise the President in all stages of treaty-making. Rather, the usual modern course is that the President negotiates and signs treaties independently and then presents the proposed treaty to the Senate for its approval or disapproval. Washington himself found personal consultation with the Senate to be so awkward and unproductive that he abandoned it, and subsequent Presidents have followed his example.

Moreover, the Senate frequently approves treaties with conditions and has done so since the Washington administration. If the President makes clear to foreign nations that his signature on a treaty is only a preliminary commitment subject to serious Senate scrutiny, and if the Senate takes seriously its constitutional role of reviewing treaties (rather than merely deferring to the President), the check that the Framers sought to create remains in place. By going beyond a simple “up-or-down” vote, the Senate retains some of its power of “advice”: the Senate not only disapproves the treaty proposed by the President but suggests how the President might craft a better treaty. As a practical matter, there is often much consultation between the executive and members of the Senate before treaties are crafted and signed. Thus modern practice captures the essence of the Framers’ vision that the Senate would have some form of a participatory role in treaty-making.

A more substantial departure from the Framers’ vision may arise from the practice of “executive agreements.” According to the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, the President may validly conclude executive agreements that (1) cover matters that are solely within his executive power, or (2) are made pursuant to a treaty, or (3) are made pursuant to a legitimate act of Congress. Examples of important executive agreements include the Potsdam and Yalta agreements of World War II, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which regulated international trade for decades, and the numerous status-of-forces agreements the United States has concluded with foreign governments.

Where the President acts pursuant to a prior treaty, there seems little tension with the Framers’ vision, as Senate approval has, in effect, been secured in advance. Somewhat more troublesome is the modern practice of so-called congressional–executive agreements, by which some international agreements have been made by the President and approved (either in advance or after the fact) by a simple majority of both houses of Congress, rather than two-thirds of the Senate. Many of these agreements deal particularly with trade-related matters, which Congress has clear constitutional authority to regulate. Congressional–executive agreements, at least with respect to trade matters, are now well established, and recent court challenges have been unsuccessful. Made in the USA Foundation v. United States (2001). On the other hand, arguments for “complete interchangeability”—that is, claims that anything that can be done by treaty can be done by congressional–executive agreement—seem counter to the Framers’ intent. The Framers carefully considered the supermajority rule for treaties and adopted it in response to specific threats to the Union; finding a complete alternative to the Treaty Clause would in effect eliminate the supermajority rule and make important international agreements easier to adopt than the Framers wished.

The third type of executive agreement is one adopted by the President without explicit approval of either the Senate or the Congress as a whole. The Supreme Court and modern practice embrace the idea that the President may under some circumstances make these so-called sole executive agreements. United States v. Belmont (1937); United States v. Pink (1942). But the scope of this independent presidential power remains a serious question. The Pink and Belmont cases involved agreements relating to the recognition of a foreign government, a power closely tied to the President’s textual power to receive ambassadors (Article II, Section 3). The courts have consistently permitted the President to settle foreign claims by sole executive agreement, but at the same time have emphasized that the Congress has acquiesced in the practice. Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981);American Insurance Ass’n v. Garamendi (2003). Beyond this, the modern limits of the President’s ability to act independently in making international agreements have not been explored. With respect to treaty termination, modern practice allows the President to terminate treaties on his own. In recent times, President James Earl Carter terminated the U.S.–Taiwan Mutual Defense Treaty in 1977, and President George W. Bush terminated the ABM Treaty with Russia in 2001. The Senate objected sharply to President Carter’s actions, but the Supreme Court rebuffed the Senate in Goldwater v. Carter (1979). President Bush’s action was criticized in some academic quarters but received general acquiescence. In light of the consensus early in Washington’s administration, it is probably fair to say that presidential termination does not obviously depart from the original understanding, inasmuch as the Framers were much more concerned about checks upon entering into treaties than they were about checks upon terminating them.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/2/essays/90/treaty-clause

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-437

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Director General Yukiya Amano of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — Videos

Posted on March 24, 2015. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, British History, College, Communications, Documentary, Education, European History, Foreign Policy, Genocide, government spending, history, Islam, Islam, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Nuclear, People, Philosophy, Photos, Physics, Politics, Press, Raves, Religion, Science, Shite, Strategy, Sunni, Technology, Terrorism, Video, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

A Conversation with Director General Yukiya Amano – 2015 NPC

Yukiya Amano is Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Mr. Amano served as Chair of the Agency’s Board of Governors from September 2005 to September 2006 and was Japan’s Resident Representative to the Agency from 2005 until his election as Director General in July 2009. At the Japanese Foreign Ministry, Mr. Amano was Director-General for the Disarmament, Non-Proliferation and Science Department from 2002 until 2005. He previously served as a governmental expert on the U.N. Panel on Missiles and on the U.N. Expert Group on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education. A graduate of the Tokyo University Faculty of Law, Mr. Amano joined the Japanese Foreign Ministry in April 1972, when he began a series of international postings in Belgium, France, Laos, Switzerland, and the United States.

IAEA Chief Urges Iran to Keep Its Promises on Nuclear Program

Director of the IAEA: We have never said that Iran has a nuclear weapon program, or nuclear weapons

Iran isn’t providing needed access or information, nuclear watchdog says

By Steven Mufson

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Iran has failed to provide the information or access needed to allay the agency’s concerns about the weapons potential of the country’s nuclear program.

With the deadline nearing for international talks on constraining Iran’s nuclear program, Yukiya Amano, director general of the IAEA, said in an interview that Iran has replied to just one of a dozen queries about “possible military dimensions” of past nuclear activities.

Amano said that Iran has provided only “very limited” information about two other issues, while the rest have not been addressed at all.

“Recently, the progress is very limited,” he said.

The IAEA is the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, and its inspections are considered a key safeguard against countries using civilian nuclear energy technology to produce weapons. Failure by Iran to comply with IAEA demands would undermine the country’s efforts to win the lifting of U.N. sanctions.

Amano said that the six global powers negotiating with Iran should insist that the country implement the additional protocol that would allow IAEA inspectors to go anywhere at any time to examine sites suspected of harboring secret nuclear weapons development.

He said that he spoke to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Feb. 7 in Munich but noted that Iran has not yet provided the information the agency needs.

Amano met early Tuesday with U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry. He was scheduled to meet later with President Obama’s national security adviser, Susan E. Rice.

That additional protocol, Amano said, will be “very much needed. It will give us more powerful tools to look at activities not declared to us.” He said that in the past the agency has had two to four inspectors in Iran, but that recently there have been as many as 10.

Iran signed the protocol in December 2003 and initially implemented it, Amano said, but the country ended its compliance in 2006.

Amano said that near the top of his list of unanswered questions about possible military dimensions of Iranian nuclear activities was the Parchin military complex. He said that the IAEA has information that Iran conducted experiments in a high-explosive chamber there.

“We would like to have access, and we would like to clarify,” Amano said. He said Iran had twice given IAEA inspectors access to the base, but he added that Parchin “is a huge area with many buildings.” Now, he said, the IAEA thinks it has identified “the right place to visit,” but its access has been blocked.

After the agency requested admittance to that area in late 2011, it observed by satellite extensive landscaping, demolition and new construction there.

Amano said that looking at sites with military nuclear potential was “like a jigsaw puzzle.” He said, “As we have a better understanding of one issue, we have better understanding of another issue.”

Amano said that the IAEA’s failure to detect Iraq’s nuclear weapons program in the 1980s had forced the agency to demand unfettered access to countries suspected of building weapons in secret.

In openly declared sites, he said, the agency places cameras and seals in strategic places so that it can “detect abnormalities in a timely manner,” ranging from a day to a week.

Amano’s comments come after a Feb. 19 report the agency sent to member governments that complained about Iran’s lack of responsiveness. The report said: “The Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

Although Iran has declared to the IAEA 18 nuclear facilities and nine other locations where nuclear material is used, the agency said in its report that it “is not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Become A Hardliner and Stand Against Iranian Regime and With The Iranian People — Oppose Obama’s Agreement With The Iranian Terrorist Mullahs — Islamic Republic of Iran — Stop Nuclear Proliferation in The Middle East — Raise The Economic Sanctions To Overthrow Iranian Regime — Videos

Posted on March 22, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, Bomb, Books, British History, Business, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), College, Communications, Computers, Computers, Constitution, Corruption, Documentary, Drones, Education, Energy, Ethic Cleansing, European History, Faith, Family, Farming, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, Genocide, Geology, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Islam, Islam, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Missiles, Money, Narcissism, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Non-Fiction, Nuclear, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Psychology, Radio, Rants, Raves, Religion, Resources, Science, Security, Shite, Strategy, Sunni, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Terrorism, Video, War, Water, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 431: March 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 430: March 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 429: March 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 428: March 17, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 427: March 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 426: March 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 425: March 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 424: March 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 423: February 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 422: February 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 421: February 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 420: February 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 419: February 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 418: February 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 417: February 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 416: February 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 415: February 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 414: February 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 413: February 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 412: February 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 411: February 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 410: February 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Story 1: Become A Hardliner and Stand Against Iranian Regime and With The Iranian People — Oppose Obama’s Agreement With The Iranian Terrorist Mullahs — Islamic Republic of Iran — Stop Nuclear Proliferation in The Middle East — Raise The Economic Sanctions To Overthrow Iranian Regime — Videos

Nuclear_weaponsIran_nuclear_program_map-en

nuclear enrichment sitesiran-nuclear-facilitiesiran incidencesiranarsenal_missilesUS-preventative-strike-against-Iranian-nuclear-facilities-and-ballistic-missile-basesShia-Sunni percentagesmid_east_shias2_map416mapMEethnicmuslim-distributionreligious-minorities-chart2iran_ethnic_groupsLegalSystemsberglee-fig08_055menapopulationtablepoplChangeturkey-map

Iran Nuclear Site: Natanz Uranium Enrichment Site

natanz

The Day After (Attack Segment)

The Frightening Reality of EMP: A Fox News Primer

JEANINE PIRRO: “Lights Out: The Danger to US Power Grid” – The EMP Threat

Gaffney: EMP Attack on US Means 9 Out of 10 Dead Within 12 Months

Could EMP attack Send America Back to ‘Dark Ages’? [PART 1]

Could EMP attack Send America Back to ‘Dark Ages’? [PART 2]

Petraeus: ISIS Isn’t Our Biggest Problem in Iraq…Iran Is

What are Iran’s True Intentions: Walid Phares

As the Obama Administration continues to move forward negotiating with Iran, there has been little attention paid to the underlying motivations of the Islamic Republic of Iran. What is the Iranian end game? What are the ideological motivators of the Islamic regime in its conflict with the United States of America and Israel? Are the genocidal threats issued by Iranian leaders to”wipe Israel off the map” and achieve a “world without America” only posturing? Or are these goals the Iranian regime is committed to achieving?

EMET and the Center for Security Policy have put together a great panel of experts to address these questions and answer, what are Iran’s true intentions?

Dr. Walid Phares serves as an Advisor to the Anti-Terrorism Caucus in the US House of Representatives and is a Co-Secretary General of the Transatlantic Legislative Group on Counter Terrorism, a Euro-American Caucus, since 2009. Dr Phares briefs and testify to the US Congress, the European Parliament and the United Nations Security Council on matters related to international security and Middle East conflict. He has served on the Advisory Board of the Task Force on Future Terrorism of the Department of Homeland Security and the Advisory Task force on Nuclear Terrorism. Dr Phares teaches Global Strategies at the National Defense University. He has published several books in English, Arabic and French including the latest three post-9/11 volumes: Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West; The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy and The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.

Dr. Walid Phares on Hannity on Fox News

Iranium – The Islamic Republic’s Race to Obtain Nuclear Weapons

John Bolton: Reasons to thwart Kerry’s deal on Iran (& N. Korea) nuclear weapons

Inside Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Plan

Iran Nuclear Talks’ Progress Unclear

Iran’s Fight For Nuclear Power

How Powerful Is Iran?

New Tensions Between White House & Israel PM – Benjamin Netanyahu – The Kelly File

Bill O’Reilly: Iraq War ‘Was a Victory Until Obama Mucked It Up’

Obama vs Netanyahu “Negotiating with Mullahs”

Netanyahu’s Address – Mark Levin & Lt Col Ralph Peters Weigh In – Hannity

Ezekiel 38 : Saudi Arabia will allow Israel use of its airspace to strike Iran (Feb 28, 2015)

What Countries Have Nuclear Weapons?

Thomas Reed: A Political History of Nuclear Weapons: 1938 – 2008

Obama’s Message To Iran On Diplomatic Deal

Benjamin Netanyahu on Kelly File – Post Election Interview

Linda Chavez – Iranian Regime, A threat to the World

Obama tells Netanyahu U.S. to “reassess” policy on Israel, Mideast diplomacy

Netanyahu: Deal Paves Iran’s “Path” To Bomb – The Kelly File

Is the far left appeasing the Iranian mullahs?

Israeli PM Netanyahu Addresses U.S. Congress | FULL SPEECH – March 3, 2015

President Obama: Benjamin Netanyahu and I Have Difference on Iran Sanctions

John Bolton: Obama giving Iran “an open path to nuclear weapons”

Making Iranian mullahs fear, the MEK, come true – Speech by General Hugh Shelton

Iran ,Islamic Republic ,Tehran , Green Revolution !

Will Israel Bomb Iran BBC This World Documentary – YouTube

outstanding Explanation: Why Israel can’t withdraw to its pre ’67 borders line – Please Share

Bolton: Middle East Nuclear Arms Race Is Already Underway

MIR: Israel vs. Iran: The Writing Is on the Wall

Barack Obama Speech on North Korea Nuclear Weapons

New Documentaries 2015 Nuclear Nightmare Understanding North Korea (Full Documentary)

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Thomas C. Reed and Danny B. Stillman — The Nuclear Express: A Political History of The Bomb and Its Proliferation — Videos

Posted on March 7, 2015. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Bomb, Books, College, Communications, Diasters, Documentary, Economics, Education, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Genocide, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Money, Non-Fiction, Nuclear, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Rants, Raves, Technology, Terrorism, War, Wealth, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

2 thomas c reed3 thomas c reednuclear-express-political-history-bomb-its-proliferation-danny-b-stillman-hardcover-cover-artthomas c reed

 

Book TV: Thomas Reed, “Nuclear Express”

Thomas Reed: A Political History of Nuclear Weapons: 1938 – 2008

Thomas C. Reed, former Secretary of the Air Force and nuclear weapons designer at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories talks about the book “The Nuclear Express”, which he co-authored with Danny B. Stillman. At a luncheon seminar at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, he talks about the political history of nuclear weapons: where they came from, the surprising ways in which the technology spread, who is likely to acquire them next and why.

Cold Warriors: US Presidents after the Second World War – Thomas C. Reed

Synopsis | The Nuclear Express By Thomas C. Reed

Background Information and Videos

Printnuclear-figures

countries-with-nuclear-weapons-powerpoint-slideCountries-with-Nuclear-WeaponsNuclear-weapons2012-01-06-US_nuclear_warheads NWFZ_Map_small

Nuclear Power and Bomb Testing Documentary Film

Nuclear Weapons (The History)

The BBC Film That Exposed Israel’s Secret Illegal Nuclear Weapons (FULL Documentary)

The Untold Story Of Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions

Iranium – The Islamic Republic’s Race to Obtain Nuclear Weapons

A timely and powerful documentary presenting the danger posed to the free world by a nuclear Iran. The film exposes the radical Islamic ideology guiding Iran’s leaders, and the destruction it causes.

Thomas C. Reed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thomas C. Reed
Thomas C. Reed.jpg
Sixth Director of the National Reconnaissance Office
In office
August 9, 1976[1] – April 7, 1977[2]
President Gerald R. Ford/Jimmy Carter
Preceded by James W. Plummer
Succeeded by Hans Mark
Personal details
Born March 1, 1934 (age 81)
New York City

Thomas Care Reed (born March 1, 1934)[3] was the 11th Secretary of the Air Force from January 2, 1976 – April 6, 1977 under Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

§Early life

He was born in New York City, N.Y., in 1934. He attended Deerfield Academy, and then received a bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering from Cornell University, graduating first in his class in 1956. As an undergraduate, he was enrolled in Cornell’s Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps program and was the highest-ranking officer, cadet colonel, during his senior year. He was designated a distinguished military graduate and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Air Force upon graduation. Reed was elected into the Sphinx Head Society during his senior year.

§Military career

Reed began active duty with the Air Force in November 1956, and served until 1959 as technical project officer for the Minuteman Re-Entry Vehicle System with the Air Force’s Ballistic Missile Division. While on this assignment, he attended the University of Southern California during off-duty hours and earned a master of science degree in electrical engineering.

In 1959, he was assigned to the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory of the University of California, engaged in thermonuclear weapons physics. He was released from active duty with the Air Force in May 1961, but he rejoined the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory as a civilian for the 1962 test series, continuing there as a consultant until 1967.

In 1962, Reed organized Supercon Ltd. of Houston, Texas, as its managing partner. Supercon developed and produced alloys superconducting at cryogenic temperatures.

While maintaining an interest in Supercon Ltd., Reed organized the Quaker Hill Development Corporation at San Rafael, California, in 1965, and served as its treasurer, president and chairman. Quaker Hill has agricultural, recreational and construction projects in California and Colorado.

Reed joined the Department of Defense as an assistant to the secretary and deputy secretary of defense in 1973, and was appointed director of Telecommunications and Command and Control Systems in February 1974.

§Political career

Reed was also active in the political world. He was an organizer for Ronald Reagan‘s first campaign for governor of California in 1966. He helped finance Governor Reagan’s first unsuccessful run for the presidency in 1968. Reed established a national network of political operatives and hired F. Clifton White, the noted political strategist, to guide the effort. Reagan lost to Richard Nixon. Reed managed Reagan’s successful gubernatorial re-election campaign in 1970. In 1972, Reed performed as a national operative for theNixon presidential re-election drive. Reagan also ran unsuccessfully for the White House in 1976 and finally succeeded in 1980. Reed was not actively involved in either effort.

§Writing career

On March 9, 2004, At the Abyss: An Insider’s History of the Cold War, an autobiographical book about his experience at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory through his time as an advisor to President Ronald Reagan. It reveals new details about the 1962Cuban Missile Crisis, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Farewell Dossier, and other facets of the Cold War.

Reed’s second book, co-authored with Danny B. Stillman, was titled The Nuclear Express: A Political History of the Bomb and Its Proliferation and was published in January 2009. One of the authors’ most notable contentions is that in 1982 China made a policy decision to flood the developing world with atomic know-how. In February 2012 Reed published a spy novel The Tehran Triangle,(Black Garnet Press 2012). The book is about Iran’s attempt to build and ignite an A bomb in the USA

§References

  1. Jump up^ Laurie, Clayton. Leaders of the National Reconnaissance Office 1961–2001. Office of the Historian, National Reconnaissance Office. May 1, 2002.
  2. Jump up^ Ibid
  3. Jump up^ Marquis Who’s Who on the Web

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_C._Reed

 

Nuclear proliferation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

World map with nuclear weapons development status represented by color.

  Five “nuclear weapons states” from the NPT
  Other states known to possess nuclear weapons
  States formerly possessing nuclear weapons
  States suspected of being in the process of developing nuclear weapons and/or nuclear programs
  States which at one point had nuclear weapons and/or nuclear weapons research programs
  States that possess nuclear weapons, but have not widely adopted them

Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear weapons, fissionable material, and weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information to nations not recognized as “Nuclear Weapon States” by the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also known as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or NPT. Leading experts on nuclear proliferation, such as Etel Solingen of the University of California, Irvine, suggest that states’ decisions to build nuclear weapons is largely determined by the interests of their governing domestic coalitions.

Proliferation has been opposed by many nations with and without nuclear weapons, the governments of which fear that more countries with nuclear weapons may increase the possibility of nuclear warfare (up to and including the so-called “countervalue” targeting of civilians with nuclear weapons), de-stabilize international or regional relations, or infringe upon the national sovereignty of states.

Four countries besides the five recognized Nuclear Weapons States have acquired, or are presumed to have acquired, nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. None of these four is a party to the NPT, although North Korea acceded to the NPT in 1985, then withdrew in 2003 and conducted announced nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, and 2013. One critique of the NPT is that it is discriminatory in recognizing as nuclear weapon states only those countries that tested nuclear weapons before 1968 and requiring all other states joining the treaty to forswear nuclear weapons.[citation needed]

Research into the development of nuclear weapons was undertaken during World War II by the United States (in cooperation with the United Kingdom and Canada) Germany, Japan, and the USSR. The United States was the first and is the only country to have used a nuclear weapon in war, when it used two bombs against Japan in August 1945. With their loss during the war, Germany and Japan ceased to be involved in any nuclear weapon research. In August 1949, the USSR tested a nuclear weapon.[1] The United Kingdom tested a nuclear weapon in October 1952. France developed a nuclear weapon in 1960. The People’s Republic of China detonated a nuclear weapon in 1964. India exploded a nuclear device in 1974, and Pakistan tested a weapon in 1998. In 2006, North Korea conducted a nuclear test.

§Non-proliferation efforts

Early efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation involved intense government secrecy, the wartime acquisition of known uranium stores (the Combined Development Trust), and at times even outright sabotage—such as the bombing of a heavy-water facility thought to be used for a German nuclear program. None of these efforts were explicitly public, because the weapon developments themselves were kept secret until the bombing of Hiroshima.

Earnest international efforts to promote nuclear non-proliferation began soon after World War II, when the Truman Administration proposed the Baruch Plan[2] of 1946, named after Bernard Baruch, America’s first representative to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission. The Baruch Plan, which drew heavily from the Acheson–Lilienthal Report of 1946, proposed the verifiable dismantlement and destruction of the U.S. nuclear arsenal (which, at that time, was the only nuclear arsenal in the world) after all governments had cooperated successfully to accomplish two things: (1) the establishment of an “international atomic development authority,” which would actually own and control all military-applicable nuclear materials and activities, and (2) the creation of a system of automatic sanctions, which not even the U.N. Security Council could veto, and which would proportionately punish states attempting to acquire the capability to make nuclear weapons or fissile material.

Baruch’s plea for the destruction of nuclear weapons invoked basic moral and religious intuitions. In one part of his address to the UN, Baruch said, “Behind the black portent of the new atomic age lies a hope which, seized upon with faith, can work out our salvation. If we fail, then we have damned every man to be the slave of Fear. Let us not deceive ourselves. We must elect World Peace or World Destruction…. We must answer the world’s longing for peace and security.”[3] With this remark, Baruch helped launch the field ofnuclear ethics, to which many policy experts and scholars have contributed.

Although the Baruch Plan enjoyed wide international support, it failed to emerge from the UNAEC because the Soviet Union planned to veto it in the Security Council. Still, it remained official American policy until 1953, when President Eisenhower made his “Atoms for Peace” proposal before the U.N. General Assembly. Eisenhower’s proposal led eventually to the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1957. Under the “Atoms for Peace” program thousands of scientists from around the world were educated in nuclear science and then dispatched home, where many later pursued secret weapons programs in their home country.[4]

Efforts to conclude an international agreement to limit the spread of nuclear weapons did not begin until the early 1960s, after four nations (the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and France) had acquired nuclear weapons (see List of states with nuclear weapons for more information). Although these efforts stalled in the early 1960s, they renewed once again in 1964, after China detonated a nuclear weapon. In 1968, governments represented at the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee (ENDC) finished negotiations on the text of the NPT. In June 1968, the U.N. General Assembly endorsed the NPT with General Assembly Resolution 2373 (XXII), and in July 1968, the NPT opened for signature in Washington, DC, London and Moscow. The NPT entered into force in March 1970.

Since the mid-1970s, the primary focus of non-proliferation efforts has been to maintain, and even increase, international control over the fissile material and specialized technologies necessary to build such devices because these are the most difficult and expensive parts of a nuclear weapons program. The main materials whose generation and distribution is controlled are highly enriched uranium and plutonium. Other than the acquisition of these special materials, the scientific and technical means for weapons construction to develop rudimentary, but working, nuclear explosive devices are considered to be within the reach of industrialized nations.

Since its founding by the United Nations in 1957, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has promoted two, sometimes contradictory, missions: on the one hand, the Agency seeks to promote and spread internationally the use of civilian nuclear energy; on the other hand, it seeks to prevent, or at least detect, the diversion of civilian nuclear energy to nuclear weapons, nuclear explosive devices or purposes unknown. The IAEA now operates a safeguards system as specified under Article III of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968, which aims to ensure that civil stocks of uranium, plutonium, as well as facilities and technologies associated with these nuclear materials, are used only for peaceful purposes and do not contribute in any way to proliferation or nuclear weapons programs. It is often argued that proliferation of nuclear weapons to many other states has been prevented by the extension of assurances and mutual defence treaties to these states by nuclear powers, but other factors, such as national prestige, or specific historical experiences, also play a part in hastening or stopping nuclear proliferation.[5]

§Dual use technology

Dual-use technology refers to the possibility of military use of civilian nuclear power technology. Many technologies and materials associated with the creation of a nuclear power program have a dual-use capability, in that several stages of the nuclear fuel cycle allow diversion of nuclear materials for nuclear weapons. When this happens a nuclear power program can become a route leading to the atomic bomb or a public annex to a secret bomb program. The crisis over Iran’s nuclear activities is a case in point.[6]

Many UN and US agencies warn that building more nuclear reactors unavoidably increases nuclear proliferation risks.[7] A fundamental goal for American and global security is to minimize the proliferation risks associated with the expansion of nuclear power. If this development is “poorly managed or efforts to contain risks are unsuccessful, the nuclear future will be dangerous”.[6] For nuclear power programs to be developed and managed safely and securely, it is important that countries have domestic “good governance” characteristics that will encourage proper nuclear operations and management:[6]

These characteristics include low degrees of corruption (to avoid officials selling materials and technology for their own personal gain as occurred with the A.Q. Khan smuggling network in Pakistan), high degrees of political stability (defined by the World Bank as “likelihood that the government will be destabilized or overthrown by unconstitutional or violent means, including politically-motivated violence and terrorism”), high governmental effectiveness scores (a World Bank aggregate measure of “the quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures [and] the quality of policy formulation and implementation”), and a strong degree of regulatory competence.[6]

§International cooperation

§Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

At present, 189 countries are States Parties to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, more commonly known as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or NPT. These include the five Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) recognized by the NPT: thePeople’s Republic of China, France, Russian Federation, the UK, and the United States.

Notable non-signatories to the NPT are Israel, Pakistan, and India (the latter two have since tested nuclear weapons, while Israel is considered by most to be an unacknowledged nuclear weapons state). North Korea was once a signatory but withdrew in January 2003. The legality of North Korea’s withdrawal is debatable but as of 9 October 2006, North Korea clearly possesses the capability to make a nuclear explosive device.

§International Atomic Energy Agency

The IAEA was established on 29 July 1957 to help nations develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Allied to this role is the administration of safeguards arrangements to provide assurance to the international community that individual countries are honoring their commitments under the treaty. Though established under its own international treaty, the IAEA reports to both the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council.

The IAEA regularly inspects civil nuclear facilities to verify the accuracy of documentation supplied to it. The agency checks inventories, and samples and analyzes materials. Safeguards are designed to deter diversion of nuclear material by increasing the risk of early detection. They are complemented by controls on the export of sensitive technology from countries such as UK and United States through voluntary bodies such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The main concern of the IAEA is that uranium not be enriched beyond what is necessary for commercial civil plants, and that plutonium which is produced by nuclear reactors not be refined into a form that would be suitable for bomb production.

§Scope of safeguard

Traditional safeguards are arrangements to account for and control the use of nuclear materials. This verification is a key element in the international system which ensures that uranium in particular is used only for peaceful purposes.

Parties to the NPT agree to accept technical safeguard measures applied by the IAEA. These require that operators of nuclear facilities maintain and declare detailed accounting records of all movements and transactions involving nuclear material. Over 550 facilities and several hundred other locations are subject to regular inspection, and their records and the nuclear material being audited. Inspections by the IAEA are complemented by other measures such as surveillance cameras and instrumentation.

The inspections act as an alert system providing a warning of the possible diversion of nuclear material from peaceful activities. The system relies on;

  1. Material Accountancy – tracking all inward and outward transfers and the flow of materials in any nuclear facility. This includes sampling and analysis of nuclear material, on-site inspections, and review and verification of operating records.
  2. Physical Security – restricting access to nuclear materials at the site.
  3. Containment and Surveillance – use of seals, automatic cameras and other instruments to detect unreported movement or tampering with nuclear materials, as well as spot checks on-site.

All NPT non-weapons states must accept these full-scope safeguards. In the five weapons states plus the non-NPT states (India, Pakistan and Israel), facility-specific safeguards apply. IAEA inspectors regularly visit these facilities to verify completeness and accuracy of records.

The terms of the NPT cannot be enforced by the IAEA itself, nor can nations be forced to sign the treaty. In reality, as shown in Iraq and North Korea, safeguards can be backed up by diplomatic, political and economic measures.

While traditional safeguards easily verified the correctness of formal declarations by suspect states, in the 1990s attention turned to what might not have been declared. While accepting safeguards at declared facilities, Iraq had set up elaborate equipment elsewhere in an attempt to enrich uranium to weapons grade. North Korea attempted to use research reactors (not commercial electricity-generating reactors) and a reprocessing plant to produce some weapons-grade plutonium.

The weakness of the NPT regime lay in the fact that no obvious diversion of material was involved. The uranium used as fuel probably came from indigenous sources, and the nuclear facilities were built by the countries themselves without being declared or placed under safeguards. Iraq, as an NPT party, was obliged to declare all facilities but did not do so. Nevertheless, the activities were detected and brought under control using international diplomacy. In Iraq, a military defeat assisted this process.

In North Korea, the activities concerned took place before the conclusion of its NPT safeguards agreement. With North Korea, the promised provision of commercial power reactors appeared to resolve the situation for a time, but it later withdrew from the NPT and declared it had nuclear weapons.

§Additional Protocol

In 1993 a program was initiated to strengthen and extend the classical safeguards system, and a model protocol was agreed by the IAEA Board of Governors 1997. The measures boosted the IAEA’s ability to detect undeclared nuclear activities, including those with no connection to the civil fuel cycle.

Innovations were of two kinds. Some could be implemented on the basis of IAEA’s existing legal authority through safeguards agreements and inspections. Others required further legal authority to be conferred through an Additional Protocol. This must be agreed by each non-weapons state with IAEA, as a supplement to any existing comprehensive safeguards agreement. Weapons states have agreed to accept the principles of the model additional protocol.

Key elements of the model Additional Protocol:

  • The IAEA is to be given considerably more information on nuclear and nuclear-related activities, including R & D, production of uranium and thorium (regardless of whether it is traded), and nuclear-related imports and exports.
  • IAEA inspectors will have greater rights of access. This will include any suspect location, it can be at short notice (e.g., two hours), and the IAEA can deploy environmental sampling and remote monitoring techniques to detect illicit activities.
  • States must streamline administrative procedures so that IAEA inspectors get automatic visa renewal and can communicate more readily with IAEA headquarters.
  • Further evolution of safeguards is towards evaluation of each state, taking account of its particular situation and the kind of nuclear materials it has. This will involve greater judgement on the part of IAEA and the development of effective methodologies which reassure NPT States.

As of 20 December 2010, 139 countries have signed Additional Protocols, 104 have brought them into force, and one (Iraq) is implementing its protocol provisionally.[8] The IAEA is also applying the measures of the Additional Protocol in Taiwan.[9] Among the leading countries that have not signed the Additional Protocol are Egypt, which says it will not sign until Israel accepts comprehensive IAEA safeguards,[10] and Brazil, which opposes making the protocol a requirement for international cooperation on enrichment and reprocessing,[11] but has not ruled out signing.[12]

§Limitations of Safeguards

The greatest risk from nuclear weapons proliferation comes from countries which have not joined the NPT and which have significant unsafeguarded nuclear activities; India, Pakistan, and Israel fall within this category. While safeguards apply to some of their activities, others remain beyond scrutiny.

A further concern is that countries may develop various sensitive nuclear fuel cycle facilities and research reactors under full safeguards and then subsequently opt out of the NPT. Bilateral agreements, such as insisted upon by Australia and Canada for sale ofuranium, address this by including fallback provisions, but many countries are outside the scope of these agreements. If a nuclear-capable country does leave the NPT, it is likely to be reported by the IAEA to the UN Security Council, just as if it were in breach of its safeguards agreement. Trade sanctions would then be likely.

IAEA safeguards can help ensure that uranium supplied as nuclear fuel and other nuclear supplies do not contribute to nuclear weapons proliferation. In fact, the worldwide application of those safeguards and the substantial world trade in uranium for nuclearelectricity make the proliferation of nuclear weapons much less likely.

The Additional Protocol, once it is widely in force, will provide credible assurance that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in the states concerned. This will be a major step forward in preventing nuclear proliferation.

§Other developments

The Nuclear Suppliers Group communicated its guidelines, essentially a set of export rules, to the IAEA in 1978. These were to ensure that transfers of nuclear material or equipment would not be diverted to unsafeguarded nuclear fuel cycle or nuclear explosive activities, and formal government assurances to this effect were required from recipients. The Guidelines also recognised the need for physical protection measures in the transfer of sensitive facilities, technology and weapons-usable materials, and strengthened retransfer provisions. The group began with seven members – the United States, the former USSR, the UK, France, Germany, Canada and Japan – but now includes 46 countries including all five nuclear weapons states.

The International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation is an international project involving 25 partner countries, 28 observer and candidate partner countries, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Generation IV International Forum, and the European Commission. It´s goal is to “[..] provide competitive, commercially-based services as an alternative to a state’s development of costly, proliferation-sensitive facilities, and address other issues associated with the safe and secure management of used fuel and radioactive waste.”[13]

According to Kenneth D. Bergeron’s Tritium on Ice: The Dangerous New Alliance of Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Power, tritium is not classified as a ‘special nuclear material’ but rather as a ‘by-product’. It is seen as an important litmus test on the seriousness of the United States’ intention to nuclear disarm. This radioactive super-heavy hydrogen isotope is used to boost the efficiency of fissile materials in nuclear weapons. The United States resumed tritium production in 2003 for the first time in 15 years. This could indicate that there is a potential nuclear arm stockpile replacement since the isotope naturally decays.

In May 1995, NPT parties reaffirmed their commitment to a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty to prohibit the production of any further fissile material for weapons. This aims to complement the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of 1996 (not entered into force as of 2011) and to codify commitments made by the United States, the UK, France and Russia to cease production of weapons material, as well as putting a similar ban on China. This treaty will also put more pressure on Israel, India and Pakistan to agree to international verification.[citation needed]

On 9 August 2005, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. Khamenei’s official statement was made at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.[14] As of February 2006Iran formally announced that uranium enrichment within their borders has continued. Iran claims it is for peaceful purposes but the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States claim the purpose is for nuclear weapons research and construction.[15]

§Unsanctioned nuclear activity

§NPT Non Signatories

India, Pakistan and Israel have been “threshold” countries in terms of the international non-proliferation regime. They possess or are quickly capable of assembling one or more nuclear weapons. They have remained outside the 1970 NPT. They are thus largely excluded from trade in nuclear plant or materials, except for safety-related devices for a few safeguarded facilities.

In May 1998 India and Pakistan each exploded several nuclear devices underground. This heightened concerns regarding an arms race between them, with Pakistan involving the People’s Republic of China, an acknowledged nuclear weapons state. Both countries are opposed to the NPT as it stands, and India has consistently attacked the Treaty since its inception in 1970 labeling it as a lopsided treaty in favor of the nuclear powers.

Relations between the two countries are tense and hostile, and the risks of nuclear conflict between them have long been considered quite high. Kashmir is a prime cause of bilateral tension, its sovereignty being in dispute since 1948. There is persistent low level military conflict due to Pakistan backing an insurgency there and the disputed status of Kashmir.

Both engaged in a conventional arms race in the 1980s, including sophisticated technology and equipment capable of delivering nuclear weapons. In the 1990s the arms race quickened. In 1994 India reversed a four-year trend of reduced allocations for defence, and despite its much smaller economy, Pakistan was expected to push its own expenditures yet higher. Both have lost their patrons: India, the former USSR, and Pakistan, the United States.

But it is the growth and modernization of China’s nuclear arsenal and its assistance with Pakistan’s nuclear power programme and, reportedly, with missile technology, which exacerbate Indian concerns. In particular, Pakistan is aided by China’s People’s Liberation Army, which operates somewhat autonomously within that country as an exporter of military material.

§India

Nuclear power for civil use is well established in India. Its civil nuclear strategy has been directed towards complete independence in the nuclear fuel cycle, necessary because of its outspoken rejection of the NPT. This self-sufficiency extends from uranium exploration and mining through fuel fabrication, heavy water production, reactor design and construction, to reprocessing and waste management. It has a small fast breeder reactor and is planning a much larger one. It is also developing technology to utilise its abundant resources of thorium as a nuclear fuel.

India has 14 small nuclear power reactors in commercial operation, two larger ones under construction, and ten more planned. The 14 operating ones (2548 MWe total) comprise:

  • two 150 MWe BWRs from the United States, which started up in 1969, now use locally enriched uranium and are under safeguards,
  • two small Canadian PHWRs (1972 & 1980), also under safeguards, and
  • ten local PHWRs based on Canadian designs, two of 150 and eight 200 MWe.
  • two new 540 MWe and two 700 MWe plants at Tarapur (known as TAPP: Tarapur Atomic Power Project)

The two under construction and two of the planned ones are 450 MWe versions of these 200 MWe domestic products. Construction has been seriously delayed by financial and technical problems. In 2001 a final agreement was signed with Russia for the country’s first large nuclear power plant, comprising two VVER-1000 reactors, under a Russian-financed US$3 billion contract. The first unit is due to be commissioned in 2007. A further two Russian units are under consideration for the site.

Nuclear power supplied 3.1% of India’s electricity in 2000 and this was expected to reach 10% by 2005. Its industry is largely without IAEA safeguards, though a few plants (see above) are under facility-specific safeguards. As a result India’s nuclear power programme proceeds largely without fuel or technological assistance from other countries.

Its weapons material appears to come from a Canadian-designed 40MW “research” reactor which started up in 1960, well before the NPT, and a 100MW indigenous unit in operation since 1985. Both use local uranium, as India does not import any nuclear fuel. It is estimated that India may have built up enough weapons-grade plutonium for a hundred nuclear warheads.

It is widely believed that the nuclear programs of India and Pakistan used CANDU reactors to produce fissionable materials for their weapons; however, this is not accurate. Both Canada (by supplying the 40 MW research reactor) and the United States (by supplying 21 tons of heavy water) supplied India with the technology necessary to create a nuclear weapons program, dubbed CIRUS (Canada-India Reactor, United States). Canada sold India the reactor on the condition that the reactor and any by-products would be“employed for peaceful purposes only.”. Similarly, the United States sold India heavy water for use in the reactor “only… in connection with research into and the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes”. India, in violation of these agreements, used the Canadian-supplied reactor and American-supplied heavy water to produce plutonium for their first nuclear explosion, Smiling Buddha.[16] The Indian government controversially justified this, however, by claiming that Smiling Buddha was a “peaceful nuclear explosion.”

The country has at least three other research reactors including the tiny one which is exploring the use of thorium as a nuclear fuel, by breeding fissile U-233. In addition, an advanced heavy-water thorium cycle is under development.

India exploded a nuclear device in 1974, the so-called Smiling Buddha test, which it has consistently claimed was for peaceful purposes. Others saw it as a response to China’s nuclear weapons capability. It was then universally perceived, notwithstanding official denials, to possess, or to be able to quickly assemble, nuclear weapons. In 1999 it deployed its own medium-range missile and has developed an intermediate-range missile capable of reaching targets in China’s industrial heartland.

In 1995 the United States quietly intervened to head off a proposed nuclear test. However, in 1998 there were five more tests in Operation Shakti. These were unambiguously military, including one claimed to be of a sophisticated thermonuclear device, and their declared purpose was “to help in the design of nuclear weapons of different yields and different delivery systems”.

Indian security policies are driven by:

  • its determination to be recognized as a dominant power in the region
  • its increasing concern with China’s expanding nuclear weapons and missile delivery programmes
  • its concern with Pakistan’s capability to deliver nuclear weapons deep into India

It perceives nuclear weapons as a cost-effective political counter to China’s nuclear and conventional weaponry, and the effects of its nuclear weapons policy in provoking Pakistan is, by some accounts, considered incidental. India has had an unhappy relationship with China. After an uneasy ceasefire ended the 1962 war, relations between the two nations were frozen until 1998. Since then a degree of high-level contact has been established and a few elementary confidence-building measures put in place. China still occupies some territory which it captured during the aforementioned war, claimed by India, and India still occupies some territory claimed by China. Its nuclear weapon and missile support for Pakistan is a major bone of contention.

American President George W. Bush met with India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to discuss India’s involvement with nuclear weapons. The two countries agreed that the United States would give nuclear power assistance to India.[citation needed]

§Pakistan

In 2003, Libya admitted that the nuclear weapons-related material including these centrifuges, known asPak-1, were acquired from Pakistan

Over the several years, the Nuclear power infrastructure has been well established by Pakistan which is dedicated for the industrial and economic development of the country.[17] Its current nuclear policy is directed and aimed to promote the socio-economic development of the people as a “foremost priority”;[18] and to fulfill the energy, economic, and industrial needs from the nuclear sources.[18] Currently, there are three operational mega-commercial nuclear power plants while three larger ones are under construction.[17] The nuclear power supplies 787MW (roughly ~3.6%) of electricity as of 2012, and the country has projected to produce 8800MW electricity by 2030.[19] Infrastructure established by the IAEA and the U.S. in the 1950s–1960s were based on peaceful research and development and economic prosperity of the country.[20]

Although the civil-sector nuclear power was established in the 1950s, the country has an active nuclear weapons program which was started in the 1970s.[20] The bomb program has its roots after East-Pakistan gained itsindependence as Bangladesh after India‘s successful intervention led to a decisive victory on Pakistan in 1971.[20] This large-scale but clandestine atomic bomb project was directed towards the development of ingenious development of reactor and military-grade plutonium.[citation needed] In 1974, when India surprised the outer world with its successful detonation of its own bomb, codename Smiling Buddha, it became “imperative for Pakistan” to pursue the weapons research.[21] According to leading scientist in the program, it became clear once India detonated the bomb, “Newton’s third law” came into “operation”, from then on it was a classic case of “action and reaction“.[21] Earlier efforts were directed towards mastering the plutonium technology from France, but plutonium route was partially slowed down when the plan was failed after the U.S. intervention to cancel the project.[citation needed] Contrary to popular perception, Pakistan did not forego the “plutonium” route and covertly continued its indegenious research under Munir Khan and it succeeded with plutonium route in the early 1980s.[citation needed] Reacting on India’s nuclear test (Smiling Buddha), Bhutto and the country’s elite political and military science circle sensed this test as final and dangerous anticipation to Pakistan’s “moral and physical existence.”[22] With Aziz Ahmed on his side, Bhutto launched a serious diplomatic offense and aggressively maintained at the session of the United Nations Security Council:

Pakistan was exposed to a kind of “nuclear threat and blackmail” unparalleled elsewhere….. (…)… If the world’s community failed to provide political insurance to Pakistan and other countries against the nuclear blackmail, these countries would be constraint to launch atomic bomb programs of their own!… [A]ssurances provided by the United Nations were not “Enough!”…

—Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, statement written in “Eating Grasssource[23]

After 1974, Bhutto’s government redoubled its effort, this time equally focused on uranium and plutonium.[24] Pakistan had established science directorates in almost all of her embassies in the important countries of the world, with theoretical physicist S.A. Butt being the director.[24] Abdul Qadeer Khan then established a network through Dubai to smuggle URENCO technology to Engineering Research Laboratories.[25][26][27][28][29][30] Earlier, he worked with Physics Dynamics Research Laboratories (FDO), a subsidiary of the Dutch firm VMF-Stork based in Amsterdam. Later after joining, the Urenco, he had access through photographs and documents of the technology.[4] Against the popular perception, the technology that A.Q. Khan had brought from Urenco was based on first generation civil rector technology, filled with many serious technical errors, though it was authentic and vital link for centrifuge project of the country.[citation needed] After the British Government stopped the British subsidiary of the American Emerson Electric Co. from shipping the components to Pakistan, he describes his frustration with a supplier from Germany as: “That man from the German team was unethical.[4] When he did not get the order from us, he wrote a letter to a Labour Party member and questions were asked in[British] Parliament.”[4] By 1978, his efforts were paid off and made him into a national hero.[4] In 1981, as a tribute, President General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, renamed the research institute after his name.[4]

In early 1996, Prime minister Benazir Bhutto made it clear that “if India conducts a nuclear test, Pakistan could be forced to “follow suit”.[31][32] In 1997, her statement was echoed by Prime minister Nawaz Sharif who maintained to the fact that: “Since 1972, [P]akistan had progressed significantly, and we have left that stage (developmental) far behind. Pakistan will not be made a “hostage” to India by signing the CTBT, before (India).!”[33] In May 1998, within weeks of India’s nuclear tests, Pakistan announced that it had conducted six underground tests in the Chagai Hills, five on the 28th and one on the 30th of that month. Seismic events consistent with these claims were recorded.

In 2004, the revelation of A.Q. Khan’s efforts led the exposure of many defunct European consortium who defied export restrictions in the 1970s, and many of defunct Dutch companies exported thousands of centrifuges to Pakistan as early as 1976.[34] Many centrifuge components were apparently manufactured in Malaysian Scomi Precision Engineering with the assistance of South Asian and German companies, and used a UAE-based computer company as a false front.[35]

It was widely believed to have direct involvement of the government of Pakistan.[36] This claim could not be verified due to the refusal of the government of Pakistan to allow IAEA to interview the alleged head of the nuclear black market, who happened to be no other than A.Q. Khan. Confessing his crimes later a month on national television, he bailed out the government by taking full responsibility.[36] Independent investigation conducted by IISS confirmed that he had control over the import-export deals, and his acquisition activities were largely unsupervised by Pakistan governmental authorities.[36] All of his activities went undetected for several years. He duly confessed of running the atomic proliferation ring from Pakistan to Iran and North Korea. He was immediately given presidential immunity.[36] Exact nature of the involvement at the governmental level is still unclear, but the manner in which the government acted cast doubt on the sincerity of Pakistan.[36]

§North Korea

The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (or better known as North Korea), joined the NPT in 1985 and had subsequently signed a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. However, it was believed that North Korea was diverting plutonium extracted from the fuel of its reactor at Yongbyon, for use in nuclear weapons. The subsequent confrontation with IAEA on the issue of inspections and suspected violations, resulted in North Korea threatening to withdraw from the NPT in 1993. This eventually led to negotiations with theUnited States resulting in the Agreed Framework of 1994, which provided for IAEA safeguards being applied to its reactors and spent fuel rods. These spent fuel rods were sealed in canisters by the United States to prevent North Korea from extracting plutonium from them. North Korea had to therefore freeze its plutonium programme.

During this period, Pakistan-North Korea cooperation in missile technology transfer was being established. A high level delegation of Pakistan military visited North Korea in August–September 1992, reportedly to discuss the supply of missile technology to Pakistan. In 1993, PM Benazir Bhutto repeatedly traveled to China, and the paid state visit to North Korea. The visits are believed to be related to the subsequent acquisition technology to developed its Ghauri system by Pakistan. During the period 1992–1994, A.Q. Khan was reported to have visited North Korea thirteen times. The missile cooperation program with North Korea was under Dr. A. Q. Khan Research Laboratories. At this time China was under U.S. pressure not to supply the M Dongfeng series of missiles to Pakistan. It is believed by experts that possibly with Chinese connivance and facilitation, the latter was forced to approach North Korea for missile transfers. Reports indicate that North Korea was willing to supply missile sub-systems including rocket motors, inertial guidance systems, control and testing equipment for US$ 50 million.

It is not clear what North Korea got in return. Joseph S. Bermudez Jr. in Jane’s Defence Weekly (27 November 2002) reports that Western analysts had begun to question what North Korea received in payment for the missiles; many suspected it was the nuclear technology. The KRL was in charge of both uranium program and also of the missile program with North Korea. It is therefore likely during this period that cooperation in nuclear technology between Pakistan and North Korea was initiated. Western intelligence agencies began to notice exchange of personnel, technology and components between KRL and entities of the North Korean 2nd Economic Committee (responsible for weapons production).

A New York Times report on 18 October 2002 quoted U.S. intelligence officials having stated that Pakistan was a major supplier of critical equipment to North Korea. The report added that equipment such as gas centrifuges appeared to have been “part of a barter deal” in which North Korea supplied Pakistan with missiles. Separate reports indicate (The Washington Times, 22 November 2002) that U.S. intelligence had as early as 1999 picked up signs that North Korea was continuing to develop nuclear arms. Other reports also indicate that North Korea had been working covertly to develop an enrichment capability for nuclear weapons for at least five years and had used technology obtained from Pakistan (Washington Times, 18 October 2002).

§Israel

Israel is also thought to possess an arsenal of potentially up to several hundred nuclear warheads based on estimates of the amount of fissile material produced by Israel.[37] This has never been openly confirmed or denied however, due to Israel’s policy of deliberate ambiguity.[38]

An Israeli nuclear installation is located about ten kilometers to the south of Dimona, the Negev Nuclear Research Center. Its construction commenced in 1958, with French assistance. The official reason given by the Israeli and French governments was to build a nuclear reactor to power a “desalination plant“, in order to “green the Negev”. The purpose of the Dimona plant is widely assumed to be the manufacturing of nuclear weapons, and the majority of defense experts have concluded that it does in fact do that.[citation needed] However, the Israeli government refuses to confirm or deny this publicly, a policy it refers to as “ambiguity”.

Norway sold 20 tonnes of heavy water needed for the reactor to Israel in 1959 and 1960 in a secret deal. There were no “safeguards” required in this deal to prevent usage of the heavy water for non-peaceful purposes. The British newspaper Daily Express accused Israel of working on a bomb in 1960.[39] When the United States intelligence community discovered the purpose of the Dimona plant in the early 1960s, it demanded that Israel agree to international inspections. Israel agreed, but on a condition that U.S., rather than IAEA, inspectors were used, and that Israel would receive advanced notice of all inspections.

Some claim that because Israel knew the schedule of the inspectors’ visits, it was able to hide the alleged purpose of the site from the inspectors by installing temporary false walls and other devices before each inspection. The inspectors eventually informed the U.S. government that their inspections were useless due to Israeli restrictions on what areas of the facility they could inspect. In 1969, the United States terminated the inspections.

In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at the Dimona plant, revealed to the media some evidence of Israel’s nuclear program. Israeli agents arrested him from Italy, drugged him and transported him to Israel, and an Israeli court then tried him in secret on charges of treason and espionage,[40] and sentenced him to eighteen years imprisonment. He was freed on 21 April 2004, but was severely limited by the Israeli government. He was arrested again on 11 November 2004, though formal charges were not immediately filed.

Comments on photographs taken by Mordechai Vanunu inside the Negev Nuclear Research Center have been made by prominent scientists. British nuclear weapons scientist Frank Barnaby, who questioned Vanunu over several days, estimated Israel had enough plutonium for about 150 weapons.[41] Ted Taylor, a bomb designer employed by the United States of America has confirmed the several hundred warhead estimate based on Vanunu’s photographs.[citation needed]

According to Lieutenant Colonel Warner D. Farr in a report to the USAF Counterproliferation Center while France was previously a leader in nuclear research “Israel and France were at a similar level of expertise after the war, and Israeli scientists could make significant contributions to the French effort.”[42] In 1986 Francis Perrin, French high-commissioner for atomic energy from 1951 to 1970 stated that in 1949 Israeli scientists were invited to the Saclay nuclear research facility, this cooperation leading to a joint effort including sharing of knowledge between French and Israeli scientists especially those with knowledge from the Manhattan Project.[43][44][45]

§Nuclear arms control in South Asia

Main articles: Lahore Summit and Agra summit

The public stance of the two states on non-proliferation differs markedly. Pakistan has initiated a series of regional security proposals. It has repeatedly proposed a nuclear free zone in South Asia and has proclaimed its willingness to engage in nuclear disarmament and to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty if India would do so. It has endorsed a United States proposal for a regional five power conference to consider non-proliferation in South Asia.

India has taken the view that solutions to regional security issues should be found at the international rather than the regional level, since its chief concern is with China. It therefore rejects Pakistan’s proposals.

Instead, the ‘Gandhi Plan‘, put forward in 1988, proposed the revision of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it regards as inherently discriminatory in favor of the nuclear-weapon States, and a timetable for complete nuclear weapons disarmament. It endorsed early proposals for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and for an international convention to ban the production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons purposes, known as the ‘cut-off’ convention.

The United States for some years, especially under the Clinton administration, pursued a variety of initiatives to persuade India and Pakistan to abandon their nuclear weapons programs and to accept comprehensive international safeguards on all their nuclear activities. To this end, the Clinton administration proposed a conference of the five nuclear-weapon states, Japan, Germany, India and Pakistan.

India refused this and similar previous proposals, and countered with demands that other potential weapons states, such as Iran and North Korea, should be invited, and that regional limitations would only be acceptable if they were accepted equally by China. The United States would not accept the participation of Iran and North Korea and these initiatives have lapsed.

Another, more recent approach, centers on ‘capping’ the production of fissile material for weapons purposes, which would hopefully be followed by ‘roll back’. To this end, India and the United States jointly sponsored a UN General Assembly resolution in 1993 calling for negotiations for a ‘cut-off’ convention. Should India and Pakistan join such a convention, they would have to agree to halt the production of fissile materials for weapons and to accept international verification on their relevant nuclear facilities (enrichment and reprocessing plants). It appears that India is now prepared to join negotiations regarding such a Cut-off Treaty, under the UN Conference on Disarmament.

Bilateral confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan to reduce the prospects of confrontation have been limited. In 1990 each side ratified a treaty not to attack the other’s nuclear installations, and at the end of 1991 they provided one another with a list showing the location of all their nuclear plants, even though the respective lists were regarded as not being wholly accurate. Early in 1994 India proposed a bilateral agreement for a ‘no first use’ of nuclear weapons and an extension of the ‘no attack’ treaty to cover civilian and industrial targets as well as nuclear installations.

Having promoted the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty since 1954, India dropped its support in 1995 and in 1996 attempted to block the Treaty. Following the 1998 tests the question has been reopened and both Pakistan and India have indicated their intention to sign the CTBT. Indian ratification may be conditional upon the five weapons states agreeing to specific reductions in nuclear arsenals. The UN Conference on Disarmament has also called upon both countries “to accede without delay to the Non-Proliferation Treaty”, presumably as non-weapons states.

§NPT signatories

§Egypt

In 2004 and 2005, Egypt disclosed past undeclared nuclear activities and material to the IAEA. In 2007 and 2008, high enriched and low enriched uranium particles were found in environmental samples taken in Egypt.[46] In 2008, the IAEA states Egypt’s statements were consistent with its own findings.[47] In May 2009, Reuters reported that the IAEA was conducting further investigation in Egypt.[48][49]

§Iran

In 2003, the IAEA reported that Iran had been in breach of its obligations to comply with provisions of its safeguard agreement.[50] In 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors voted in a rare non-consensus decision to find Iran in non-compliance with its NPT Safeguards Agreement and to report that non-compliance to the UN Security Council.[51][52] In response, the UN Security Council passed a series of resolutions citing concerns about the program.[53][54][55][56][57] Iran’s representative to the UN argues sanctions compel Iran to abandon its rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to peaceful nuclear technology.[58] Iran says its uranium enrichment program is exclusively for peaceful purposes[59][60] and has enriched uranium to “less than 5 percent,” consistent with fuel for a nuclear power plant and significantly below the purity of WEU (around 90%) typically used in a weapons program.[61][62] The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, said in 2009 he had not seen any evidence in IAEA official documents that Iran was developing nuclear weapons.[63]

§Iraq

Up to the late 1980s it was generally assumed that any undeclared nuclear activities would have to be based on the diversion of nuclear material from safeguards. States acknowledged the possibility of nuclear activities entirely separate from those covered by safeguards, but it was assumed they would be detected by national intelligence activities. There was no particular effort by IAEA to attempt to detect them.

Iraq had been making efforts to secure a nuclear potential since the 1960s. In the late 1970s a specialised plant, Osiraq, was constructed near Baghdad. The plant was attacked during the Iran–Iraq War and was destroyed by Israeli bombers in June 1981.

Not until the 1990 NPT Review Conference did some states raise the possibility of making more use of (for example) provisions for “special inspections” in existing NPT Safeguards Agreements. Special inspections can be undertaken at locations other than those where safeguards routinely apply, if there is reason to believe there may be undeclared material or activities.

After inspections in Iraq following the UN Gulf War cease-fire resolution showed the extent of Iraq’s clandestine nuclear weapons program, it became clear that the IAEA would have to broaden the scope of its activities. Iraq was an NPT Party, and had thus agreed to place all its nuclear material under IAEA safeguards. But the inspections revealed that it had been pursuing an extensive clandestine uranium enrichment programme, as well as a nuclear weapons design programme.

The main thrust of Iraq’s uranium enrichment program was the development of technology for electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS) of indigenous uranium. This uses the same principles as a mass spectrometer (albeit on a much larger scale). Ions of uranium-238 and uranium-235 are separated because they describe arcs of different radii when they move through a magnetic field. This process was used in the Manhattan Project to make the highly enriched uranium used in the Hiroshima bomb, but was abandoned soon afterwards.

The Iraqis did the basic research work at their nuclear research establishment at Tuwaitha, near Baghdad, and were building two full-scale facilities at Tarmiya and Ash Sharqat, north of Baghdad. However, when the war broke out, only a few separators had been installed at Tarmiya, and none at Ash Sharqat.

The Iraqis were also very interested in centrifuge enrichment, and had been able to acquire some components including some carbon-fibre rotors, which they were at an early stage of testing. In May 1998, Newsweek reported that Abdul Qadeer Khan had sent Iraq centrifuge designs, which were apparently confiscated by the UNMOVIC officials. Iraqi officials said “the documents were authentic but that they had not agreed to work with A. Q. Khan, fearing an ISI sting operation, due to strained relations between two countries.[citation needed][64] The Government of Pakistan and A. Q. Khan strongly denied this allegation whilst the government declared the evidence to be “fraudulent”.[65]

They were clearly in violation of their NPT and safeguards obligations, and the IAEA Board of Governors ruled to that effect. The UN Security Council then ordered the IAEA to remove, destroy or render harmless Iraq’s nuclear weapons capability. This was done by mid-1998, but Iraq then ceased all cooperation with the UN, so the IAEA withdrew from this work.

The revelations from Iraq provided the impetus for a very far-reaching reconsideration of what safeguards are intended to achieve.

§Libya

Libya possesses ballistic missiles and previously pursued nuclear weapons under the leadership of Muammar Gaddafi. On 19 December 2003, Gaddafi announced that Libya would voluntarily eliminate all materials, equipment and programs that could lead to internationally proscribed weapons, including weapons of mass destruction and long-range ballistic missiles.[66][67][68] Libya signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1975, and concluded a safeguards agreement with theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1980.[69] In March 2004, the IAEA Board of Governors welcomed Libya’s decision to eliminate its formerly undeclared nuclear program, which it found had violated Libya’s safeguards agreement, and approved Libya’s Additional Protocol.[67][70] The United States and the United Kingdom assisted Libya in removing equipment and material from its nuclear weapons program, with independent verification by the IAEA.[68]

§Myanmar

A report in the Sydney Morning Herald and Searchina, a Japanese newspaper, report that two Myanmarese defectors saying that the Myanmar junta was secretly building a nuclear reactor and plutonium extraction facility with North Korea’s help, with the aim of acquiring its first nuclear bomb in five years. According to the report, “The secret complex, much of it in caves tunnelled into a mountain at Naung Laing in northern Burma, runs parallel to a civilian reactor being built at another site by Russia that both the Russians and Burmese say will be put under international safeguards.”[71] In 2002, Myanmar had notified IAEA of its intention to pursue a civilian nuclear programme. Later, Russia announced that it would build a nuclear reactor in Myanmar. There have also been reports that two Pakistani scientists, from the AQ Khan stable, had been dispatched to Myanmar where they had settled down, to help Myanmar’s project.[citation needed] Recently, the David Albright-led Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) rang alarm bells about Myanmar attempting a nuclear project with North Korean help.[citation needed] If true, the full weight of international pressure will be brought against Myanmar, said officials familiar with developments. But equally, the information that has been peddled by the defectors is also “preliminary” and could be used by the west to turn the screws on Myanmar—on democracy and human rights issues—in the run-up to the elections in the country in 2010.[citation needed] During an ASEAN meeting in Thailand in July 2009, US secretary of stateHillary Clinton highlighted concerns of the North Korean link. “We know there are also growing concerns about military cooperation between North Korea and Burma which we take very seriously,” Clinton said.[72] However, in 2012, after contact with the American president, Barack Obama, the Burmese leader, Thein Sein, renounced military ties with DPRK (North Korea).[73]

§North Korea

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) acceded to the NPT in 1985 as a condition for the supply of a nuclear power station by the USSR. However, it delayed concluding its NPT Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA, a process which should take only 18 months, until April 1992.

During that period, it brought into operation a small gas-cooled, graphite-moderated, natural-uranium (metal) fuelled “Experimental Power Reactor” of about 25 MWt (5 MWe), based on the UK Magnox design. While this was a well-suited design to start a wholly indigenous nuclear reactor development, it also exhibited all the features of a small plutonium production reactor for weapons purposes. North Korea also made substantial progress in the construction of two larger reactors designed on the same principles, a prototype of about 200 MWt (50 MWe), and a full-scale version of about 800 MWt (200 MWe). They made only slow progress; construction halted on both in 1994 and has not resumed. Both reactors have degraded considerably since that time and would take significant efforts to refurbish.

In addition it completed and commissioned a reprocessing plant that makes the Magnox spent nuclear fuel safe, recovering uranium and plutonium. That plutonium, if the fuel was only irradiated to a very low burn-up, would have been in a form very suitable for weapons. Although all these facilities at Yongbyon were to be under safeguards, there was always the risk that at some stage, the DPRK would withdraw from the NPT and use the plutonium for weapons.

One of the first steps in applying NPT safeguards is for the IAEA to verify the initial stocks of uranium and plutonium to ensure that all the nuclear materials in the country have been declared for safeguards purposes. While undertaking this work in 1992, IAEA inspectors found discrepancies which indicated that the reprocessing plant had been used more often than the DPRK had declared, which suggested that the DPRK could have weapons-grade plutonium which it had not declared to the IAEA. Information passed to the IAEA by a Member State (as required by the IAEA) supported that suggestion by indicating that the DPRK had two undeclared waste or other storage sites.

In February 1993 the IAEA called on the DPRK to allow special inspections of the two sites so that the initial stocks of nuclear material could be verified. The DPRK refused, and on 12 March announced its intention to withdraw from the NPT (three months’ notice is required). In April 1993 the IAEA Board concluded that the DPRK was in non-compliance with its safeguards obligations and reported the matter to the UN Security Council. In June 1993 the DPRK announced that it had “suspended” its withdrawal from the NPT, but subsequently claimed a “special status” with respect to its safeguards obligations. This was rejected by IAEA.

Once the DPRK’s non-compliance had been reported to the UN Security Council, the essential part of the IAEA’s mission had been completed. Inspections in the DPRK continued, although inspectors were increasingly hampered in what they were permitted to do by the DPRK’s claim of a “special status”. However, some 8,000 corroding fuel rods associated with the experimental reactor have remained under close surveillance.

Following bilateral negotiations between the United States and the DPRK, and the conclusion of the Agreed Framework in October 1994, the IAEA has been given additional responsibilities. The agreement requires a freeze on the operation and construction of the DPRK’s plutonium production reactors and their related facilities, and the IAEA is responsible for monitoring the freeze until the facilities are eventually dismantled. The DPRK remains uncooperative with the IAEA verification work and has yet to comply with its safeguards agreement.

While Iraq was defeated in a war, allowing the UN the opportunity to seek out and destroy its nuclear weapons programme as part of the cease-fire conditions, the DPRK was not defeated, nor was it vulnerable to other measures, such as trade sanctions. It can scarcely afford to import anything, and sanctions on vital commodities, such as oil, would either be ineffective or risk provoking war.[citation needed]

Ultimately, the DPRK was persuaded to stop what appeared to be its nuclear weapons programme in exchange, under the agreed framework, for about US$5 billion in energy-related assistance. This included two 1000 MWe light water nuclear power reactors based on an advanced U.S. System-80 design.

In January 2003 the DPRK withdrew from the NPT. In response, a series of discussions among the DPRK, the United States, and China, a series of six-party talks (the parties being the DPRK, the ROK, China, Japan, the United States and Russia) were held inBeijing; the first beginning in April 2004 concerning North Korea’s weapons program.

On 10 January 2005, North Korea declared that it was in the possession of nuclear weapons. On 19 September 2005, the fourth round of the Six-Party Talks ended with a joint statement in which North Korea agreed to end its nuclear programs and return to the NPT in exchange for diplomatic, energy and economic assistance. However, by the end of 2005 the DPRK had halted all six-party talks because the United States froze certain DPRK international financial assets such as those in a bank in Macau.

On 9 October 2006, North Korea announced that it has performed its first-ever nuclear weapon test. On 18 December 2006, the six-party talks finally resumed. On 13 February 2007, the parties announced “Initial Actions” to implement the 2005 joint statement including shutdown and disablement of North Korean nuclear facilities in exchange for energy assistance. Reacting to UN sanctions imposed after missile tests in April 2009, North Korea withdrew from the six-party talks, restarted its nuclear facilities and conducted asecond nuclear test on 25 May 2009.

On 12 February 2013, North Korea conducted an underground nuclear explosion with an estimated yield of 6 to 7 kilotonnes. The detonation registered a magnitude 4.9 disturbance in the area around the epicenter.

See also: North Korea and weapons of mass destruction and Six-party talks

§Russia

Security of nuclear weapons in Russia remains a matter of concern. According to high-ranking Russian SVR defector Tretyakov, he had a meeting with two Russian businessman representing a state-created C-W corporation in 1991. They came up with a project of destroying large quantities of chemical wastes collected from Western countries at the island of Novaya Zemlya (a test place for Soviet nuclear weapons) using an underground nuclear blast. The project was rejected by Canadian representatives, but one of the businessmen told Tretyakov that he keeps his own nuclear bomb at his dacha outside Moscow. Tretyakov thought that man was insane, but the “businessmen” (Vladimir K. Dmitriev) replied: “Do not be so naive. With economic conditions the way they are in Russia today, anyone with enough money can buy a nuclear bomb. It’s no big deal really”.[74]

§South Africa

In 1991, South Africa acceded to the NPT, concluded a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA, and submitted a report on its nuclear material subject to safeguards. At the time, the state had a nuclear power programme producing nearly 10% of the country’s electricity, whereas Iraq and North Korea only had research reactors.

The IAEA’s initial verification task was complicated by South Africa’s announcement that between 1979 and 1989 it built and then dismantled a number of nuclear weapons. South Africa asked the IAEA to verify the conclusion of its weapons programme. In 1995 the IAEA declared that it was satisfied all materials were accounted for and the weapons programme had been terminated and dismantled.

South Africa has signed the NPT, and now holds the distinction of being the only known state to have indigenously produced nuclear weapons, and then verifiably dismantled them.[75]

§Syria

On 6 September 2007, Israel bombed an officially unidentified site in Syria which it later asserted was a nuclear reactor under construction (see Operation Orchard).[76] The alleged reactor was not asserted to be operational and it was not asserted that nuclear material had been introduced into it.[46] Syria said the site was a military site and was not involved in any nuclear activities.[46] The IAEA requested Syria to provide further access to the site and any other locations where the debris and equipment from the building had been stored.[46] Syria denounced what it called the Western “fabrication and forging of facts” in regards to the incident.[77] IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei criticized the strikes and deplored that information regarding the matter had not been shared with his agency earlier.[78]

§United States cooperation on nuclear weapons with the United Kingdom[edit]

The United States has given the UK considerable assistance with nuclear weapon design and construction since the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement. In 1974 a CIA proliferation assessment noted that “In many cases [the UK’s sensitive technology in nuclear and missile fields] is based on technology received from the United States and could not legitimately be passed on without U.S. permission.”[79]

The U.S. President authorized the transfer of “nuclear weapon parts” to the UK between at least the years 1975 to 1996.[80][81] The UK National Audit Office noted that most of the UK Trident warhead development and production expenditure was incurred in the United States, which would supply “certain warhead-related components”.[82][83] Some of the fissile materials for the UK Trident warhead were purchased from the United States.[83] Declassified U.S. Department of Energy documents indicate the UK Trident warhead system was involved in non-nuclear design activities alongside the U.S. W76 nuclear warhead fitted in some U.S. Navy Trident missiles,[84] leading the Federation of American Scientists to speculate that the UK warhead may share design information from the W76.[85]

Under the Mutual Defence Agreement 5.37 tonnes of UK-produced plutonium was sent to the United States in return for 6.7 kg of tritium and 7.5 tonnes of highly enriched uranium over the period 1960–1979. A further 0.47 tonne of plutonium was swapped between the UK and United States for reasons that remain classified.[86] Some of the UK produced plutonium was used in 1962 by the United States for a nuclear weapon test of reactor-grade plutonium.[87]

The United States has supplied nuclear weapon delivery systems to support the UK nuclear forces since before the signing of the NPT. The renewal of this agreement is due to take place through the second decade of the 21st century.[88][89]

§Breakout capability

For a state that does not possess nuclear weapons, the capability to produce one or more weapons quickly and with little warning is called a breakout capability.[90]

  •  Japan, with its civil nuclear infrastructure and experience, has a stockpile of separated plutonium that could be fabricated into weapons relatively quickly.[91]
  •  Iran, according to some observers, may be seeking (or have already achieved) a breakout capability, with its stockpile of low-enriched uranium and its capability to enrich further to weapons grade.[92][93]

§Arguments for and against proliferation

Main article: Nuclear peace

There has been much debate in the academic study of International Security as to the advisability of proliferation. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Gen. Pierre Marie Gallois of France, an adviser to Charles DeGaulle, argued in books like The Balance of Terror: Strategy for the Nuclear Age (1961) that mere possession of a nuclear arsenal, what the French called the force de frappe, was enough to ensure deterrence, and thus concluded that the spread of nuclear weapons could increase international stability.

Some very prominent neo-realist scholars, such as Kenneth Waltz, Emeritus Professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley and Adjunct Senior Research Scholar at Columbia University, and John Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, continue to argue along the lines of Gallois (though these scholars rarely acknowledge their intellectual debt to Gallois and his contemporaries). Specifically, these scholars advocate some forms of nuclear proliferation, arguing that it will decrease the likelihood of war, especially in troubled regions of the world. Aside from the majority opinion which opposes proliferation in any form, there are two schools of thought on the matter: those, like Mearsheimer, who favor selective proliferation,[94] and those such as Waltz, who advocate a laissez-faire attitude to programs like North Korea’s.

§Total proliferation

In embryo, Waltz argues that the logic of mutually assured destruction (MAD) should work in all security environments, regardless of historical tensions or recent hostility. He sees the Cold War as the ultimate proof of MAD logic – the only occasion when enmity between two Great Powers did not result in military conflict. This was, he argues, because nuclear weapons promote caution in decision-makers. Neither Washington nor Moscow would risk a nuclear apocalypse to advance territorial or power goals, hence a peaceful stalemate ensued (Waltz and Sagan (2003), p. 24). Waltz believes there to be no reason why this effect would not occur in all circumstances.

§Selective proliferation

John Mearsheimer would not support Waltz’s optimism in the majority of potential instances; however, he has argued for nuclear proliferation as policy in certain places, such as post–Cold War Europe. In two famous articles, Professor Mearsheimer opines that Europe is bound to return to its pre–Cold War environment of regular conflagration and suspicion at some point in the future. He advocates arming both Germany and Ukraine with nuclear weaponry in order to achieve a balance of power between these states in the east and France/UK in the west. If this does not occur, he is certain that war will eventually break out on the European continent (Mearsheimer (1990), pp. 5–56 and (1993), pp. 50–66).

Another separate argument against Waltz’s open proliferation and in favor of Mearsheimer’s selective distribution is the possibility of nuclear terrorism. Some countries included in the aforementioned laissez-faire distribution could predispose the transfer of nuclear materials or a bomb falling into the hands of groups not affiliated with any governments. Such countries would not have the political will or ability to safeguard attempts at devices being transferred to a third party. Not being deterred by self-annihilation, terrorism groups could push forth their own nuclear agendas or be used as shadow fronts to carry out the attack plans by mentioned unstable governments.

§Arguments against both positions

There are numerous arguments presented against both selective and total proliferation, generally targeting the very neorealist assumptions (such as the primacy of military security in state agendas, the weakness of international institutions, and the long-run unimportance of economic integration and globalization to state strategy) its proponents tend to make. With respect to Mearsheimer’s specific example of Europe, many economists and neoliberals argue that the economic integration of Europe through the development of the European Union has made war in most of the European continent so disastrous economically so as to serve as an effective deterrent. Constructivists take this one step further, frequently arguing that the development of EU political institutions has led or will lead to the development of a nascent European identity, which most states on the European continent wish to partake in to some degree or another, and which makes all states within or aspiring to be within the EU regard war between them as unthinkable.

As for Waltz, the general opinion is that most states are not in a position to safely guard against nuclear use, that he underestimates the long-standing antipathy in many regions, and that weak states will be unable to prevent – or will actively provide for – the disastrous possibility of nuclear terrorism. Waltz has dealt with all of these objections at some point in his work; though to many, he has not adequately responded (Betts (2000)).

The Learning Channel documentary Doomsday: “On The Brink” illustrated 40 years of U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons accidents. Even the 1995 Norwegian rocket incident demonstrated a potential scenario in which Russian democratization and military downsizing at the end of the Cold War did not eliminate the danger of accidental nuclear war through command and control errors. After asking: might a future Russian ruler or renegade Russian general be tempted to use nuclear weapons to make foreign policy? the documentary writers revealed a greater danger of Russian security over its nuclear stocks, but especially the ultimate danger of human nature to want the ultimate weapon of mass destruction to exercise political and military power. Future world leaders might not understand how close the Soviets, Russians, and Americans were to doomsday, how easy it all seemed because apocalypse was avoided for a mere 40 years between rivals, politicians not terrorists, who loved their children and did not want to die, against 30,000 years of human prehistory. History and military experts agree that proliferation can be slowed, but never stopped (technology cannot be uninvented).[95]

§Proliferation begets proliferation

Proliferation begets proliferation is a concept described by Scott Sagan in his article, “Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons?”. This concept can be described as a strategic chain reaction. If one state produces a nuclear weapon it creates almost a domino effectwithin the region. States in the region will seek to acquire nuclear weapons to balance or eliminate the security threat. Sagan describes this reaction best in his article when he states, “Every time one state develops nuclear weapons to balance against its main rival, it also creates a nuclear threat to another region, which then has to initiate its own nuclear weapons program to maintain its national security” (Sagan, pg. 70). Going back through history we can see how this has taken place. When the United States demonstrated that it had nuclear power capabilities after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Russians started to develop their program in preparation for the Cold War. With the Russian military buildup, France and the United Kingdom perceived this as a security threat and therefore they pursued nuclear weapons (Sagan, pg 71).

§Iran

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been a frequent critic of the concept of nuclear apartheid as it has been put into practice by several countries, particularly the United States. In an interview with CNN‘s Christiane Amanpour, Ahmadinejad said that Iranwas “against ‘nuclear apartheid,’ which means some have the right to possess it, use the fuel, and then sell it to another country for 10 times its value. We’re against that. We say clean energy is the right of all countries. But also it is the duty and the responsibility of all countries, including ours, to set up frameworks to stop the proliferation of it.” Hours after that interview, he spoke passionately in favor of Iran’s right to develop nuclear technology, claiming the nation should have the same liberties.[96]

Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and claims that any work done in regards to nuclear technology is related only to civilian uses, which is acceptable under the treaty.[97] Iran violated the treaty by performing uranium-enrichment in secret, after which the United Nations Security Council ordered Iran to stop all uranium-enrichment.[98]

§India

India has also been discussed in the context of nuclear apartheid. India has consistently attempted to pass measures that would call for full international disarmament, however they have not succeeded due to protests from those states that already have nuclear weapons. In light of this, India viewed nuclear weapons as a necessary right for all nations as long as certain states were still in possession of nuclear weapons. India stated that nuclear issues were directly related to national security.

Years before India’s first underground nuclear test in 1998, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty was passed. Some have argued that coercive language was used in an attempt to persuade India to sign the treaty, which was pushed for heavily by neighboring China.[99] India viewed the treaty as a means for countries that already had nuclear weapons, primarily the five nations of the United Nations Security Council, to keep their weapons while ensuring that no other nations could develop them.[100]

§See also

§References

  1. Jump up^ Nash, Gary B., Julie Roy Jeffrey, John R. Howe, Peter J. Frederick, Allen F. Davis, Allan M. Winkler, Charlene Mires, and Carla Gardina Pestana. The American People, Concise Edition Creating a Nation and a Society, Combined Volume (6th Edition). New York: Longman, 2007.
  2. Jump up^ The Baruch Plan | Arms Control, Deterrence and Nuclear Proliferation | Historical Documents | atomicarchive.com
  3. Jump up^ Baruch, Bernard. “The Baruch Plan”.
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Catherine Collins and Douglas Frantz (2007). “How you helped build Pakistan’s bomb”. Asia Times Online. Retrieved30 November 2007.
  5. Jump up^ Beatrice Heuser, ‘Beliefs, Cultures, Proliferation and Use of Nuclear Weapons’, in Eric Herring (ed.): Preventing the Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction Special Issue of Journal of Strategic Studies Vol. 23 No. 1 (March 2000), pp.74-100 [1]; “Proliferation and/or Alliance? The Federal Republic of Germany”, in Leopoldo Nuti and Cyril Buffet (eds.): Dividing the Atom, special issue of Storia delle Relazioni Internazionali (Autumn 1998).
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Steven E. Miller & Scott D. Sagan (Fall 2009). “Nuclear power without nuclear proliferation?”. Dædalus.
  7. Jump up^ Kristin Shrader-Frechette (19 August 2011). “Cheaper, safer alternatives than nuclear fission”. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
  8. Jump up^ [2][dead link]
  9. Jump up^ Additional Protocols to Nuclear Safeguards Agreements
  10. Jump up^ NTI Egypt Profile
  11. Jump up^ When Nuclear Sheriffs Quarrel, The Economist, 30 October 2008.
  12. Jump up^ Remarks With Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim, 5 October 2004
  13. Jump up^ Energy.gov/ International Fuel Services and Commercial Engagement
  14. Jump up^ World War 4 Report. “Iran issues anti-nuke fatwa | World War 4 Report”. Ww4report.com. Retrieved 20 February 2013.
  15. Jump up^ “CNN.com – IAEA chief: Iran deal possible – 6 March 2006”. CNN. Retrieved 20 May 2010.
  16. Jump up^ “The Beginning: 1944-1960”. India’s Nuclear Weapons Program. Nuclear Weapon Archive. 2001. Retrieved 10 November 2006.
  17. ^ Jump up to:a b Siddiqui, Saeed Alam. “Nuclear Power Development in Pakistan”. Govt. of Pakistan. Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission report to IAEA. Retrieved 23 December 2012.
  18. ^ Jump up to:a b Staff (27 March 2012). “Civil nuclear technology: Pakistan wants end to ‘discrimination'”. Pakistan Tribune. Retrieved 23 November2012.
  19. Jump up^ Syed Yousaf, Raza (31 July 2012). “Current Picture of Electrical Energy In Pakistan”. Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission. Directorate-General for Nuclear Power Generation. Retrieved 28 November 2012.
  20. ^ Jump up to:a b c Siddiqi, Muhammad Ali (20 April 1995). “N-deterrent vital to security, says PM Benazir Bhutto”. Dawn Newspapers, 1995. Dawn Media Group. pp. 3–6. Retrieved 13 May 2012. Pakistanis are “security conscious” because of the 1971 trauma and the three wars with India. Pakistan’s programme was peaceful but was “a deterrent to India” because New Delhi had detonated a nuclear device. Pakistan, thus, had to take every step to ensure its territorial integrity and sovereignty
  21. ^ Jump up to:a b Samdani, Zafar (25 March 2000). “India, Pakistan can build hydrogen bomb: Scientist”. Dawn News Interviews. Retrieved23 December 2012.
  22. Jump up^ George Russell (3 June 1985). “Who Has the Bomb”. Time Magazine, 1985. Retrieved 9 January 2013.
  23. Jump up^ Khan, Feroz Hassan (22 November 2012). “The Route to Nuclear Ambition”. Eating grass : the making of the Pakistani bomb (google book). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. pp. 119–120. ISBN 978-0804776011. Retrieved 9 January 2013.
  24. ^ Jump up to:a b Washington Release (22 August 2007). “AQ Khan network was ‘imports-exports enterprise’”. Daily Times, 2007. Retrieved23 December 2012.
  25. Jump up^ “Mush helped proliferate N-technology : AQ Khan”. The Times of India. 6 July 2008.
  26. Jump up^ John Pike. “A.Q. Khan”. Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 20 February 2013.
  27. Jump up^ Armstrong, David; Joseph John Trento, National Security News Service. America and the Islamic Bomb: The Deadly Compromise. Steerforth Press, 2007. p. 165. ISBN 9781586421373.
  28. Jump up^ “Eye To Eye: An Islamic Bomb”. CBS News.
  29. Jump up^ Agencies (9 September 2009). “Lankan Muslims in Dubai supplied N-materials to Pak: A Q Khan”. Express India. Retrieved 20 February2013.
  30. Jump up^ “On the trail of the black market bombs”. BBC News. 12 February 2004.
  31. Jump up^ “Bhutto Warns India Against Testing Nuclear Device” Daily Telegraph (London), 6 January 1996, p. 12, by Ahmed Rashid
  32. Jump up^ NTI. “6 January 1996”. NTI; Pakistan Television (PTV). Retrieved 18 November 2011.
  33. Jump up^ NTI, Shahid Ahmed Khan. “Nuclear Chronology”. NTI publications. Archived from the original on 8 November 2010. Retrieved2 December 2011. Nawaz Sharif acknowledged his country’s nuclear capability on 7 September 1997
  34. Jump up^ Craig S. Smith, “Roots of Pakistan Atomic Scandal Traced to Europe”, The New York Times, 19 February 2004, page A3.
  35. Jump up^ Bill Powell; Tim McGirk (14 February 2005). “The Man Who Sold the Bomb”. Time Magazine. Retrieved 7 August 2013.
  36. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e IISS reports. “A.Q. Khan and onward proliferation from Pakistan”. Copyright 2006 – 2012 The International Institute For Strategic Studies (The International Institute For Strategic Studies (IISS)).
  37. Jump up^ “Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance | Arms Control Association”. Armscontrol.org. Retrieved 20 February 2013.
  38. Jump up^ http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf
  39. Jump up^ Crick, Michael (3 August 2005). “Programmes | Newsnight | How Britain helped Israel get the bomb”. BBC News. Retrieved 20 February2013.
  40. Jump up^ Staff writers, ISRAEL : Vanunu’s Treason Appeal Is Rejected Los Angeles Times, 28 May 1990
  41. Jump up^ Frank Barnaby (14 June 2004). “Expert opinion of Frank Charles Barnaby in the matter of Mordechai Vanunu”. Retrieved 16 December2007.
  42. Jump up^ http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm
  43. Jump up^ http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm
  44. Jump up^ http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/israel/nuke.html
  45. Jump up^ http://www.wrmea.org/wrmea-archives/95-washington-report-archives-1982-1987/december-1986/694-israels-nuclear-arsenal.html
  46. ^ Jump up to:a b c d International Atomic Energy Agency: Safeguards Statement for 2008 and Background to the Safeguards Statement
  47. Jump up^ International Atomic Energy Agency: Safeguards Annual Report (2008)
  48. Jump up^ Reuters: High-enriched uranium traces found in Egypt: IAEA
  49. Jump up^ ABC News: IAEA: Weapons Grade Uranium Traces Found in Egypt
  50. Jump up^ GOV/2003/75, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Report by the Director General, 10 November 2003.
  51. Jump up^ IAEA Board of Governors: “Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran” (September 2005)
  52. Jump up^ IAEA Board of Governors: “Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran” (February 2006)
  53. Jump up^ Security Council demands Iran suspend uranium enrichment by 31 August, or face possible economic, diplomatic sanctions (UN News Centre Press Release, 31 July 2006)
  54. Jump up^ “Security Council imposes sanctions on Iran for failure to halt uranium enrichment, unanimously adopting Resolution 1737”. United Nations. 23 December 2006. Retrieved 23 December 2006.
  55. Jump up^ “SECURITY COUNCIL TOUGHENS SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN, ADDS ARMS EMBARGO”. UN News Centre. United Nations. 24 March 2007. Retrieved 16 April 2007.
  56. Jump up^ SECURITY COUNCIL TIGHTENS RESTRICTIONS ON IRAN’S PROLIFERATION-SENSITIVE NUCLEAR. Department of Public Information, UN Security Council.
  57. Jump up^ United Nations Security Council: Resolution 1835, Security Council Reaffirms Earlier Resolutions on Iran’s Uranium Enrichment, Calls on Country to Comply with Obligations ‘Fully and Without Delay’
  58. Jump up^ “Security Council Imposes Sanctions on Iran for failure to halt Uranium Enrichment, Unanimously adopting Resolution 1737 (2006)”. 23 December 2006.
  59. Jump up^ AFP:Six powers to meet soon over Iran’s nuclear program
  60. Jump up^ Tehran Times: Iran wants new nuclear fuel talks
  61. Jump up^ Council on Foreign Relations: Iran’s Nuclear Program
  62. Jump up^ American Institute of Physics: The gas centrifuge and nuclear weapons proliferation

    The most difficult step in building a nuclear weapon is the production of fissile material

  63. Jump up^ Westall, Sylvia (3 July 2009). “No sign Iran seeks nuclear arms: new IAEA head”. Reuters. Retrieved 1 December 2009.
  64. Jump up^ “Documents Indicate A.Q. Khan Offered Nuclear Weapon Designs to Iraq in 1990: Did He Approach Other Countries?” by David Albright and Corey Hinderstein (4 February 2004).
  65. Jump up^ Fitzpatrick, Mark (2007). “§Dr. A. Q. Khan and the rise and fall of proliferation network“. Nuclear black markets. London, United Kingdom: International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). ISBN 978-0-86079-201-7.
  66. Jump up^ Chronology of Libya’s Disarmament and Relations with the United States, Arms Control Association.
  67. ^ Jump up to:a b News Update on IAEA & Libya, Chronology of Key Events, (December 2003 – September 2008), International Atomic Energy Agency.
  68. ^ Jump up to:a b Rohlfing, Joan. “Libya: Nuclear Programme Overview”. Nuclear Threat Initiative. Nuclear Threat Initiative. Retrieved 18 March 2014.
  69. Jump up^ GOV/2004/12, Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement of the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Report by the Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency, 20 February 2004.
  70. Jump up^ “Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement of the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya: Resolution adopted by the Board on 10 March 2004”. International Atomic Energy Agency. 10 March 2004. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
  71. Jump up^ Searchina, “Reasons for digging tunnels in Burma”, 11 August 2009.
  72. Jump up^ “Myanmar building nuke reactor, says media report”. The Times of India, 2 August 2009.
  73. Jump up^ “Goodbye clenched fist, hello sweaty palm”. The Economist. 17 November 2012. Retrieved 25 November 2012.
  74. Jump up^ Pete Earley, “Comrade J: The Untold Secrets of Russia’s Master Spy in America After the End of the Cold War”, Penguin Books, 2007,ISBN 978-0-399-15439-3, pages 114–121.
  75. Jump up^ “Nuclear Weapons Program”. WMD Around the World – South Africa. Federation of American Scientists. 2000. Retrieved 10 November2006.
  76. Jump up^ 6 September 2007 Air strike at globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 24 October 2007.
  77. Jump up^ “Syria rejects U.S. allegations on existence of nuclear activities”. News.xinhuanet.com. 25 April 2008. Retrieved 15 May 2009.
  78. Jump up^ “IAEA slams U.S. for withholding data on alleged Syrian nuclear reactor”. Haaretz.com. Retrieved 15 May 2009.
  79. Jump up^ “Prospects for Further Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”. Special National Intelligence Estimate. CIA. 23 August 1974. p. 40. SNIE 4-1-74. Retrieved 20 January 2008.
  80. Jump up^ “National Security Decision Memorandum 276”. United States National Security Council. 15 October 1974. Retrieved 15 March 2007.
  81. Jump up^ “National Security Directive 61” (PDF). The White House. 2 July 1991. Retrieved 15 March 2007.
  82. Jump up^ Dan Plesch (March 2006). “The Future of Britain’s WMD” (PDF). Foreign Policy Centre. p. 15. Retrieved 15 March 2007.
  83. ^ Jump up to:a b Ministry of Defence and Property Services Agency: Control and Management of the Trident Programme. National Audit Office. 29 June 1987. para. 1.1, 3.27, A4.4. ISBN 0-10-202788-9.
  84. Jump up^ “Stockpile Stewardship Plan: Second Annual Update (FY 1999)” (PDF). U.S. Department of Energy. April 1998. Retrieved 15 March2007.
  85. Jump up^ “Britain’s Next Nuclear Era”. Federation of American Scientists. 7 December 2006. Archived from the original on 6 February 2007. Retrieved 15 March 2007.
  86. Jump up^ “Plutonium and Aldermaston – an historical account” (PDF). UK Ministry of Defence. 4 September 2001. Retrieved 15 March 2007.
  87. Jump up^ “Additional Information Concerning Underground Nuclear Weapon Test of Reactor-Grade Plutonium”. U.S. Department of Energy. June 1994. Retrieved 15 March 2007.
  88. Jump up^ “Disarmament Diplomacy: In The News (or Should Be) – US-UK Nuclear Weapons Cooperation Up for Renewal”. Acronym.org.uk. Retrieved 20 February 2013.
  89. Jump up^ “United Nations Association of the UK |”. Una-uk.org. Retrieved 20 February 2013.
  90. Jump up^ “Has Iran Achieved a Nuclear Weapons Breakout Capability? Not Yet, But Soon”. Nonproliferation for Global Security Foundation. December 2008. Retrieved 25 June 2013.
  91. Jump up^ Gvosdev, Nikolas. “The Realist Prism: Iran Nuclear Standoff Obscures Broader Proliferation Challenges”. column. Worlds Politics Review. Retrieved 27 December 2013.
  92. Jump up^ Waltz, Kenneth. “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb”. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 27 December 2013.
  93. Jump up^ “‘Breakout time’: Report details how Iran could achieve undetectable nuclear capability”. World Tribune. Retrieved 27 December 2013.
  94. Jump up^ Mearsheimer, John (2006). “Conversations in International Relations: Interview with John J. Mearsheimer (Part I)”. International Relations 20 (1): 105–123. doi:10.1177/0047117806060939.See page 116
  95. Jump up^ Doomsday: On The Brink, The Learning Channel, 1997
  96. Jump up^ Iranian president: No ‘nuclear apartheid’, CNN
  97. Jump up^ Adherence to and Compliance With Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments, Bureau of Verification and Compliance, U.S. Department of State, 30 August 2005
  98. Jump up^ UN Security Council Resolution 1737
  99. Jump up^ Against Nuclear Apartheid, Jaswant Singh
  100. Jump up^ Options, Mike Moore, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

§External links and references

Organizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Nuclear Secrets — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Launching World War 3 with The Missiles of September — Videos

Posted on August 28, 2013. Filed under: American History, Babies, Blogroll, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Crime, Drones, Economics, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Genocide, government spending, history, Islam, Islam, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Natural Gas, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Security, Shite, Strategy, Sunni, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Terrorism, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

061806-N-8492C-066

Destroyers_Off_Syria

uss-gravely

The Four $1.8 Billion Destroyers Circling Syria

Special Report Online: What Action Will US Take In Syria?

U.S. Navy Forces warships prepare for possible strike on Syria

World War 3 : Russia sends Warships off the coast of Syria as tension rises (Aug 29, 2013)

Tomahawk Cruise Missile

USS Stout Launches Tomahawk Missiles During Operation Odyssey Dawn HD

First Cruise Missles fired at Libya from USS Barry

Uploaded on Mar 20, 2011

Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Barry launches a Tomahawk missile in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn. This was one of approximately 110 cruise missiles fired from U.S. and British ships and submarines that targeted about 20 radar and anti-aircraft sites along Libya’s Mediterranean coast.

Launching World War 3 with the missiles of September?

By Raymond Thomas Pronk

TLAM_Launch

Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) launched from guided missile cruiser USS Cape St. George

Credit: commons.wikimedia.org

In poll after poll the vast majority of the American people have opposed United States intervention in the Syrian civil war by military action and the shipping of arms to the Syrian rebels opposed to the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad.

The Syrian civil war is essentially a religious-based civil war between an Islamic Sunni majority and an Islamic Shia minority that controls the Syrian government.

Sunni Muslims comprise about 60 percent of the population with the Syrian rebels being mostly Arab Sunni Muslims. The Syrian rebels are supported by the United States, Britain, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Arab Shia Muslims (Alawite, Twelvers and Ismailis) comprise about 13 percent of the Syrian population. Hafez al-Assad ruled Syria from 1970-2000 and Bashar al-Assad since July 2000. The Assad family is Alawite and most members of the Syrian government are Arab Shia Muslims. The Assad government is supported by Russia, China, Iran and Hezbollah. The Iranian government is a Persian Shia theocracy of Twelvers that also support the Shia Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The civil war is more than two years old with over 100,000 killed, nearly two million Syrians fleeing to other countries including Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt and several million displaced Syrians moving to other areas within Syria to avoid the violence, according to the United Nations Syrian Refugee Response online report.

“About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the U.S. should not intervene in Syria’s civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act,” according to a recent Reuter’s poll. The Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll, taken Aug. 21-26, found that 47.4 percent would oppose, 27.6 percent would support U.S. intervention in Syria, even if Assad’s forces used chemical weapons against civilians, while 25 percent do not know.

After more than a decade of U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) military action and Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) covert action in the Libyan civil war to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi, the American people may have become war weary and opposed to further U.S. government intervention in the Middle East.

In the Libyan civil war the submarine USS Florida launched 100 cruise missiles to takeout Libyan air defenses. This opened a cleared corridor for airstrikes by NATO aircraft and the eventual overthrow of Gaddafi, according to John Barry in his Aug. 20, 2011 online story, “America’ Secret Libya War.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), in a foreign policy speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention on July 22, said “The Assad regime is no friend to freedom or the United States. But this does not mean the enemy of our enemy is our friend. There are currently 17 different rebel groups in Syria, including the largest group, al-Nusra. Al-Nusra fighters are radical anti-American jihadists that are affiliated with al-Qaeda. Politicians in Washington, who are eager to send these weapons, promise they will not fall into the hands of our enemies. Do you believe that? Does anyone believe that?”

On Aug. 20, 2012 at the White House, Obama said, “We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.  We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region, that that’s a red line for us, and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front, or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly.”

On Aug. 26 Secretary of State John Kerry accused the Syrian government of crossing Obama’s red line when he said, “Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable and despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable.”

Kerry pointed out in his statement, “the U.N. investigation will not determine who used these chemical weapons, only whether such weapons were used, a judgment that is already clear to the world.”

The question left unanswered is who actually used the chemical weapons, the Syrian government or the Syrian rebels? As of press time, the Obama administration has not provided concrete proof that the Syrian government ordered the use of chemical weapons.

Obama as much as admitted this in a CNN interview on Aug. 23 when he said, “If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it – do we have the coalition to make it work?”

Obama appears determined to order the U.S. navy to launch Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM). Four destroyers, the USS Barry, the USS Mahan, the USS Ramage and the USS Gravely as well as several submarines armed with TLAMs are at press time in position off the coast of Syria, according to naval officials. These cruise missiles would most likely be used to destroy Syrian air defense, communications and command and control systems. After these have been taken out, cruise missiles and fighter and bomber aircraft could be used to destroy the Syrian air force aircraft and runways and the stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.

According to recent polling however, by Reuters and others, the American people, want no part of the Syrian civil war even if chemical weapons were used, no matter who used them.

The American people may be concerned that given the Syrian government’s allies, the launching of cruise missiles could lead to rapid military escalation and a war with Russia, China and Iran.

Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not the president. Congress is not scheduled to reconvene until Monday, Sept. 9 at 2 p.m.. By then an undeclared war may have begun with the launching of the missiles aimed at Syria.

Obama Warns Syria’s Assad Chemical Weapons A ‘RED Line’

Published on Aug 21, 2012

President Obama made a surprise appearance during Jay Carney’s White House briefing. Speaking to a packed press room, he raised a smile as he traded banter with them before launching into the serious issue of Syria and chemical weapons.
He confirmed that the US has said Assad needs to step down.
Obama then tackled the issue of humanitarian aid to Syrians, and those who are fleeing the country to escape the Assad regime ,severely straining the resources of nearby host countries.
And the President ended the briefing on a serious note, by saying that should the US and United Nations be aware of any chemical weapons then they would react accordingly to the threat.
On the same day that Obama made this statement in the US, the Russian Minister and Syrian ally, SERGEI LAVROV speaking at a news conference in Helsinki, said Moscow would not approve any political transition that was forced on Syria. Stating that only the United Nations Security Council alone, can authorise the use of force against Syria, and not just the US.
Written and presented by Ann Salter

Barack Obama lays down red line to Syria over chemical weapons

Published on Dec 4, 2012

President Obama warns “there will be consequences” if the regime of Bashar Al-Assad used chemical weapons amid reports Syrian military forces were readying supplies of deadly nerve gas.

President Barack Obama warned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad not to use chemical weapons against opposition forces, saying there would be consequences if he were to do so.

“The world is watching,” he said.

“The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable and if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons there will be consequences and you will be held accountable,” Mr Obama said in remarks to a gathering of nuclear proliferation experts.

The President’s warning came as US officials claimed to have detected signs that Syrian forces were mixing the chemicals needed to produce sarin gas, a nerve agent banned under international rules of war.

Rand Paul Obama’s plan to arm Syrian rebels means siding with terrorists

Rand Paul slams Obama’s plans for Syria involvement

Rand Paul: I’m Not Sure I Want To Give Weapons To People Who Are Anti-Christian and Anti-Israel

[youtub e=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9uAJ96BLIM]

Rand Paul Blasts Stupid Senate for Wanting to Arm Syrian al-Qaeda Fighters

Rand Paul Destroys Hillary Clinton Over Benghazi-Gate During Capitol Hill Press Conference

John Kerry: Syria must be held accountable for chemical weapon attacks

Published on Aug 27, 2013

John Kerry: Syria must be held accountable for chemical weapon attacks.

The US secretary of state, John Kerry, has made a stern speech condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria to carry out the ‘indiscriminate slaughter of civilians and the killing of women, children and innocent bystanders’. Kerry said it was a moral outrage and the president was assessing how to respond

John Kerry Syria Chemical Weapons FULL Speech. KERRY: SYRIA ATTACK ‘A MORAL OBSCENITY’

What Is the True Objective of a Strike on Syria?

Rand Paul: Syrian rebels have more incentive to use chemical weapons than Assad

Sen. Ted Cruz with Sean Hannity on Syria, Defunding Obamacare, and More

U.S. DESTROYER LAUNCHES TOMAHAWK CRUISE MISSILES!

Syria: Obama Joins Al-Qaeda…

Published on Mar 20, 2012

Tomahawk cruise missiles being launched towards Qadhafi regime forces as a part of JTF Odyssey Dawn.
USS Stout (DDG-55) is a part of Task Force Odyssey Dawn, the U.S.
Africa Command task force established to provide operational and tactical command and control of U.S.
military forces supporting the international response to the unrest in Libya and enforcement
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. UNSCR 1973 authorizes all necessary
measures to protect civilians in Libya under threat of attack by Qadhafi regime forces.
JTF Odyssey Dawn is commanded by U.S. Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, III.
Odyssey Dawn, Libya11. Video by Spc. Neil Stanfield. 03.27.2011.

TOMAHAWK Block IV TLAM Test Launched from Submarine

watchout from below

Uploaded on May 31, 2007

first tomahawk launch off the new SSGN, USS Florida

Russia reportedly Supports Syria’s Assad Regime with Advanced ‘Ship Killer’ Missiles

Russia Builds Up Naval Presence Off Syria

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Who Wants World War 3 To Start in Syria? The Warmongers Obama and McCain — Not The American People! — Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Robert Baer and Victor Davis Hanson: A Nuclear Iran–Videos

Posted on April 6, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Religion, Resources, Science, Security, Strategy, Taxes, Technology, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Robert Baer and Victor Davis Hanson: A Nuclear Iran – 1/4

Robert Baer and Victor Davis Hanson: A Nuclear Iran – 2/4

Robert Baer and Victor Davis Hanson: A Nuclear Iran – 3/4

Robert Baer and Victor Davis Hanson: A Nuclear Iran – 4/4

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Traitors Treaty On Nuclear Weapon Cuts–Progressive Radical Socialist Barack Obama–Regime Change On January 20, 2013–Countdown

Iranian Green Revolution Regime Change or The Iranian War–Sooner Rather Than Latter–Videos

Victor Davis Hanson–The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Iranian Missile and Nuclear Threat From The Twelver True Believers

Posted on February 4, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Religion, Security, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Iran Launches New Space Rocket With Animals

 

Glenn Beck Show – February 4, 2010 – Pt 1 of 7

Glenn Beck Show – February 4, 2010 – Pt 2 of 7

Glenn Beck Show – February 4, 2010 – Pt 3 of 7

Robert Baer and Victor Davis Hanson: A Nuclear Iran – 1/4

Robert Baer and Victor Davis Hanson: A Nuclear Iran – 2/4

Robert Baer and Victor Davis Hanson: A Nuclear Iran – 3/4

Robert Baer and Victor Davis Hanson: A Nuclear Iran – 4/4

PJTV Specials: Freedom Rising, Iranian Republic Falling

Iranians: Obama, Obama, You’re Either With Them or You’re With Us

Bolton: Lot of Brave Talk on New Iran Sanctions from Obama, But Not the Prospect of Much Action

No One Should Be Surprised That Israel Is Getting Ready To Attack Iran! John Bolton

Ahmadinejad And His Fellow Twelvers (Part 1)

Ahmadinejad And His Fellow Twelvers (Part 2)

Background Articles and Videos

The President’s Message to the Iranian People

Brigitte Gabriel: Obama’s Message & Iran’s Response

obama ya ba oona ya ba ma – 13 aban iran – 4 nov-Obama Are you with us or with them?

PRT. 1 of 4 Glenn Beck speaks w/ Benjamin Netanyahu

PRT. 2 of 4 Glenn Beck speaks w/ Benjamin Netanyahu

PRT. 3 of 4 Glenn Beck speaks w/ Benjamin Netanyahu

PRT. 4 of 4 Glenn Beck speaks w/ Benjamin Netanyahu

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Iranians Take Over Iraqi Oil Well and Dismiss US Nuclear Deal–Call Obama’s Bluff–Obama’s Response–Absolutely Nothing

The Iranian Revolution and Regime–Videos

Time To Topple Totalitarians–Let Liberty Loose–Message From American People To Iranian People–We Support Your Quest For Freedom

Old Media–Deaf, Dumb, Blind, Silent, Irrelevant and Fading Fast

Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu Speaks Truth To Evil and Power–Where Will The American People and President Obama Stand?

Obama and Clinton Betray Allies and Appease Russia Over Proposed Missile Defense System Against Iranian Missile Nuclear Threat!

Remembering September 11, 2001 On The Eighth Anniversary

Failing The Iranian Test–Barack “Hamlet” Obama–To Be or Not To Be President of The United States And Commander-in-Chief?

The Planted Assumption of The National Intelligence Estimate On Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program: Assumes It Conclusion–CYA From Partisan Authors!

The Coming Joint US and Israeli Military Offensive with Syria and Iran–Just Waiting for the Casus Belli?

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP)–The Ultimate Iranian Terrorist Weapon

Posted on August 14, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Economics, Immigration, Links, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Religion, Resources, Science, Taxes, Technology, Video, War | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

 

Electromagnetic Pulse Danger to America from Iran. North Korea launches missile

Newt talks about the threat of a nuclear North Korea

 

 

If Iran launched a missile off the US coast from a freighter that released a electro magnetic pulse (EMP), the damage would be immense. The same is true if the attack was on Israel or Europe.

If Israel expects the Iranian government is on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, expect an attack immediately. 

Will next Israeli leader attack Iran?

Otherwise, expect that within the next three to twelve months for the US and Israel to take out as much of Iran’s nuclear weapons program as well as radar, missile defense and command and control systems.

A satellite image of Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment facility 

 A satellite image of Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment facility

 

More talk from the reader.

 

Obama: North Korea Broke the Rules

 

North Korea rocket launch


 

Let  the United Nation handle it.

Sounds like President Obama is back to  voting present again. 

 

 

 Background Articles and Videos

one_second_after

 

William R. Forstchen

“…In March 2009, Forstchen’s latest work “One Second After,” Forge/St. Martin’s books was released. Based upon intensive research and interviews, it examines what might happen in a “typical” American town in the wake of an attack on the United States with “electro-magnetic pulse” (EMP) weapons. Similar in plotting to books such as “On the Beach” and “Alas Babylon,” “One Second After,” is set in a small college town in western North Carolina and is a cautionary tale of the collapse of social order in the wake of an EMP strike. The book has been optioned by Warner Bros. and currently is in development as a feature film. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Forstchen

 

RP Eddy on Fox News Channel’s “America’s Newsroom”

 

U.S. Denies Israel Arms for Iran Attack

“…The United States has turned down Israeli requests for military hardware to help it prepare for a possible attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, a frontpage report in Israel’s Haaretz newspaper said on Wednesday.

 

The unsourced report said the Americans had warned Israel against carrying out any such attack and had refused to supply offensive military hardware. Instead they had offered to improve the Jewish state’s defenses against surface-to-surface missiles.

 

Interviewed on Israeli Army Radio, Defence Minister Ehud Barak did not deny the Haaretz story, but refused to discuss it. “It would not be right to talk about these things,” Barak said. …”

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/weapons_attack_iran/2008/08/13/121598.html?s=sp&promo_code=67DE-1

The EMP Threat

“…Imagine you’re a terrorist with a single nuclear weapon. You could wipe out the U.S. city of your choice, or you could decide to destroy the infrastructure of the entire U.S. economy and leave millions of Americans to die of starvation or want of medical care.

The latter scenario is the one envisioned by a long-running commission to assess the threat from electromagnetic pulse, or EMP. The subject of its latest, and little discussed, report to Congress is the effect an EMP attack could have on civilian infrastructure. If you’re prone to nightmares, don’t read it before bedtime.

An EMP attack occurs when a nuclear bomb explodes high in the Earth’s atmosphere. The electromagnetic pulse generated by the blast destroys all the electronics in its line of sight. For a bomb detonated over the Midwest, that includes most of the continental U.S. Few, if any, people die in the blast. It’s what comes next that has the potential to be catastrophic. Since an EMP surge wipes out electronics, virtually every aspect of modern American life would come to a standstill. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121824192073426161.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r2:c0.228876

 

Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack

http://www.empcommission.org/

 

Congress examines EMP threat
Iran believed to test missiles for attack on U.S.

“More than four years after a stunning report about America’s vulnerability to a nuclear electromagnetic pulse attack was released to Congress, the House Armed Services Committee will hear testimony from the scientist who issued the warning and who believes Iran is pursuing such an option.

William R. Graham, President Reagan’s top science adviser and the chairman of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, will update the committee Thursday morning.

Graham warned in 2005 that Iran was not only covertly developing nuclear weapons, but was already testing ballistic missiles specifically designed to destroy America’s technical infrastructure with the aim of neutralizing the world’s lone superpower. …” 

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69056

 

The Real Threat of Electromagnetic Pulse Weapons

American scientists and intelligence experts agree that rogue regimes in other countries are not only covertly developing nuclear weapons, they may already be testing missiles specifically designed to neutralize America’s infrastructure, thereby rendering us powerless.

“…A single nuclear weapon exploded at a high altitude above the continental United States would interact with the Earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere, and magnetic field to produce an electromagnetic pulse, which would create electrical currents in the Earth. One nuclear warhead could cripple the entire country, knocking out electrical power and circuit boards and rendering domestic communications inoperable. EMP effects are both direct—catastrophically affecting electrical systems—and indirect, from the damage that the destroyed electronics controls then inflict on the systems in which they are embedded. Indirect effects from EMPs can be even more disastrous than the direct effects, and can take much longer to correct.

Many scientists, intelligence sources, and western missile industry experts believe that Iran is already testing ballistic EMP missiles designed to render America powerless, effectively neutralizing the world’s lone superpower. The radical Shiite regime has conducted successful tests of ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and detonating it by remote control while it is still at a high altitude. Intelligence analysts were stunned when Iran openly described the mid-flight detonations of missiles fired from ships on the Caspian Sea. William R. Graham, who served as President Ronald Reagan’s top science advisor, says that the only explanation for such tests is to prepare for the deployment of EMPs. Since the tests have been successful, Iran could possibly have that capability as soon as it has one nuclear bomb ready to aim such a missile. And a strategic ally of Iran, North Korea, already claims to have developed nuclear bomb technology. …”

“…Last month, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security chaired by Arizona Senator John Kyl held a hearing on the EMP threat. The EMP commission, chaired by Dr. William Graham, said that strengthening key infrastructure systems and procuring vital backup equipment such as transformers and generators is both feasible and—compared with the threat—relatively inexpensive.

The report concluded: “The Sept. 11 commission report stated that our biggest failure was one of ‘imagination.’ No one imagined that terrorists would do what they did on Sept. 11. Today few Americans can conceive of the possibility that terrorists could bring our society to its knees by destroying everything we rely on that runs on electricity. But this time we’ve been warned, and we’d better be prepared to respond….”

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-1-2005-77899.asp

 

Electromagnetic bomb

“…An electromagnetic bomb or E-bomb is a weapon designed to disable electronics with an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that can couple with electrical/electronic systems to produce damaging current and voltage surges by electromagnetic induction. The effects are usually not noticeable beyond the blast radius unless the device is nuclear or specifically designed to produce an electromagnetic pulse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_bomb

 

ELECTROMAGNETIC BOMB

A WEAPON OF ELECTRONIC MASS DESTRUCTION
WRITTEN BY CARLO KOPP, DEFENSE ANALYST, MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA

“…Commercial computer equipment is particularly vulnerable to EMP effects, as it is largely built up of high density Metal Oxide Semiconductor (MOS) devices, which are very sensitive to exposure to high voltage transients. What is significant about MOS devices is that very little energy is required to permanently wound or destroy them, any voltage in typically in excess of tens of Volts can produce an effect termed gate breakdown which effectively destroys the device. Even if the pulse is not powerful enough to produce thermal damage, the power supply in the equipment will readily supply enough energy to complete the destructive process. Wounded devices may still function, but their reliability will be seriously impaired. Shielding electronics by equipment chassis provides only limited protection, as any cables running in and out of the equipment will behave very much like antennae, in effect guiding the high voltage transients into the equipment.

Computers used in data processing systems, communications systems, displays, industrial control applications, including road and rail signalling, and those embedded in military equipment, such as signal processors, electronic flight controls and digital engine control systems, are all potentially vulnerable to the EMP effect.

Other electronic devices and electrical equipment may also be destroyed by the EMP effect. Telecommunications equipment can be highly vulnerable, due to the presence of lengthy copper cables between devices. Receivers of all varieties are particularly sensitive to EMP, as the highly sensitive miniature high frequency transistors and diodes in such equipment are easily destroyed by exposure to high voltage electrical transients. Therefore radar and electronic warfare equipment, satellite, microwave, UHF, VHF, HF and low band communications equipment and television equipment are all potentially vulnerable to the EMP effect.

It is significant that modern military platforms are densely packed with electronic equipment, and unless these platforms are well hardened, an EMP device can substantially reduce their function or render them unusable.  …”

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread59555/pg1 

 

Russia Threatens Nuclear Strike AGAIN TODAY

http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=y5HU58r2gnU

 

Russian helps build nuclear reactor in Iran

http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=H9NNXxayRiI

 

The US, Russia, and Iran’s Nuclear Program

http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=XboFwfD5hGQ

 

Jack Matlock: Russia, USA, Nuclear Weapons

http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=7J7LMiQXAYU

 

Electromagnetic pulse attack – Future weapons serial

 

Electromagnetic Pulse Attack Threat Raised in US Congress!

 

EMP Pt 1


 

EMP Pt 2

 

Iran missile test 9 July 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMJ5msDa4c&feature=related

 

Bomb Iran But Do Not Obliterate Them. Destroy Missiles


 

United States Security and the Strategic Landscape


 

Gingrich sees Iran threat

to U.S. like Nazi Germany
Ex-speaker latest official to raise alarm
on threat of nuclear EMP attack by Tehran

“…Gingrich concluded that: 

  • Iran is the most dangerous regime in the world and the “single most urgent threat to American national security.” 
  • The threat can only be understood in the context of “The Long War Against the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam, which is a worldwide war in which the United States and its allies are unavoidably engaged, and in which the U.S. has active campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.” 
  • The U.S. cannot be held hostage or rendered impotent by delays of international bureaucracies in dealing with the threat posed by Iran. 
  • One key to preventing or degrading the Iranian nuclear threat is persuading Russia to stop helping Tehran. 
  • The U.S. has no option but to seek regime change in Iran.

Gingrich said there are reasons to believe Iran “is testing the capability to launch a surprise attack on the United States from a merchant ship of our coasts.” …”

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47501

 

The EMP Threat: ElectroMagnetic Pulse Warfare

By J.R. Dunn

“…It would also be wise to implement some of the recommendations of the EMP
commission, including stockpiling spare parts for critical machinery and looking into reports that the military has, since the Cold War, been sliding on equipment requirements. (Individuals can also take steps to protect their personal data, an effort which, with items such as flash drives,?is getting cheaper all the time. A flash drive stored well away from any external electrical lines would very likely survive an EMP strike.)

Above all, we can’t allow the problem to slip past without being addressed, always a danger in a confusing and urgent time. Threats have a way of sneaking up on democracies. Back in the 70s, an American president, on the promise of the Soviet premier that no aerial attack would be carried out on the U.S., decided to shut down the Aerospace Defense Command and its U.S. Army equivalent responsible for air defense of the country. The bases were closed, the assets either scrapped or turned over to the National Guard. Two decades later, on a fine morning in September, there were no alert squadrons, long—range interceptors, or surface—to—air missiles to defend New York and Washington.?

The president’s name was Jimmy Carter. We can do better. …”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/04/the_emp_threat_electromagnetic.html

 

The Electromagnetic Pulse Commission Warns of an Old Threat with a New Face

by Jack Spencer

Backgrounder #1784

“…Protecting the United States against the evolving EMP threat will require a mix of active defenses, passive defenses, and policy changes. Specifically, the United States should:

  • Develop a clear policy about how it will respond to an EMP attack;
  • Assess which assets of the nation’s power grid and telecommunications infrastructure are most critical to the overall system;
  • Harden those critical assets against EMP;
  • Retrofit at least a portion of U.S. military assets to protect against EMP;
  • Engineer EMP protections into a greater percentage of future military capabilities; and
  • Deploy an effective ballistic missile defense. …”

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg1784.cfm

 

Nuclear Weapon EMP Effects

“A high-altitude nuclear detonation produces an immediate flux of gamma rays from the nuclear reactions within the device. These photons in turn produce high energy free electrons by Compton scattering at altitudes between (roughly) 20 and 40 km. These electrons are then trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field, giving rise to an oscillating electric current. This current is asymmetric in general and gives rise to a rapidly rising radiated electromagnetic field called an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Because the electrons are trapped essentially simultaneously, a very large electromagnetic source radiates coherently.

The pulse can easily span continent-sized areas, and this radiation can affect systems on land, sea, and air. The first recorded EMP incident accompanied a high-altitude nuclear test over the South Pacific and resulted in power system failures as far away as Hawaii. A large device detonated at 400–500 km over Kansas would affect all of CONUS. The signal from such an event extends to the visual horizon as seen from the burst point. …”

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm

 

Iran may be developing electromagnetic pulse weapons

“…There’s no shortage of talk over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.  Israel has said point-blank that it would not hesitate to attack Iran (again) if Tehran continues with a weapons program, and both presidential candidates in the United States have said that Iran is dangerous and shouldn’t have nuclear capabilities.  However, the real threat has largely not been discussed by the media in the US.  A report issued in April by the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack notes that an EMP attack could be one of the most devastating types of attack against US military and civilians assets, and wreak havoc on the economy – without requiring a very sophisticated nuclear weapon.

Dr. William Graham, who heads the panel, has noted that recent missile tests by Iran have been suspciously different from past ones. In a private conference last weekend, Dr. Graham outlined the evidence.  Among other issues, Iran has detoned warheads at the top of the missile’s vertical range, or apogee – where the curvature of the Earth would not block the maximum broadcast of an EMP signal. …”

“…The most likely user of a weapon like this would likely be a terrorist group that does not fear reprisal, or as with al-Qaeda, one whose stated goal is to generate conflicts between the West and the rest of the world.  Of course, the military has been designing weapons to handle EMP for decades.  Civilians can also do this, if they so choose.  Click here for an Army manual on EMP shielding . …”

http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/iran-may-be-developing-electromagnetic-pulse-weapons/

 

ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE RISKS AND TERRORISM

“…”Briefly, a single nuclear weapon exploded at high altitude above the United States will interact with the Earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere and magnetic field to produce an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) radiation down to the Earth and additionally create electrical currents in the Earth,” said the report. “EMP effects are both direct and indirect. The former are due to electrical systems, and the latter arise from the damage that ‘shocked’ – upset, damaged and destroyed – electronics controls then inflict on the systems in which they are embedded. The indirect effects can be even more severe than the direct effects.”

The EMP threat is not a new one considered by U.S. defense planners. The Soviet Union had experimented with the idea as a kind of super-weapon against the U.S.

“What is different now is that some potential sources of EMP threats are difficult to deter – they can be terrorist groups that have no state identity, have only one or a few weapons and are motivated to attack the U.S. without regard for their own safety,” explains the commission report. “Rogue states, such as North Korea and Iran, may also be developing the capability to pose an EMP threat to the United States and may also be unpredictable and difficult to deter.” …”

http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/emp-terror.htm

 

Electromagnetic pulse 

“The term electromagnetic pulse (EMP) has the following meanings:

  1. electromagnetic radiation from an explosion (especially a nuclear explosion) or an intensely fluctuating magnetic field caused by Compton-recoil electrons and photoelectrons from photons scattered in the materials of the electronic or explosive device or in a surrounding medium. The resulting electric and magnetic fields may couple with electrical/electronic systems to produce damaging current and voltage surges. See Electromagnetic bomb for details on the damages resulting to electronic devices. The effects are usually not noticeable beyond the blast radius unless the device is nuclear or specifically designed to produce an electromagnetic shockwave.
  2. A broadband, high-intensity, short-duration burst of electromagnetic energy. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

 

Iran military journal eyes
nuclear EMP attack on U.S.
High-altitude missile detonation could be
launched from ship, warn top scientists

“In the latest evidence Iran is seriously planning an unconventional pre-emptive nuclear strike against the U.S., an Iranian military journal has publicly considered the idea of launching an electromagnetic pulse attack as the key to defeating the world’s lone superpower.

Congress was warned of Iran’s plans last month by Peter Pry, a senior staffer with the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack in a hearing of Sen. John Kyl’s subcommittee on terrorism, technology and homeland security. …”

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44017

 

EMP and the Unfought Victory

By Timothy Birdnow

“…An EMP attack does not require pinpoint accuracy; it requires height!  The higher the device is when it detonates, the greater the area affected. Energetic particles affect anything within line of site, and is also carried by the Earth`s magnetic field, increasing the range of damage. A missile fired at America doesn`t need a fancy guidance system.

Such an attack would be devastating to a nation that uses computers and sophisticated electronics, such as the United States. All cash registers are computers, all bank accounting systems, all credit systems, etc. would be affected.  Electricity will be down, so there will be no gasoline available.  This won`t matter, since none of the cars will work (all modern cars are regulated by microcomputers). There will be no planes flying (outside of some military aircraft) since there will be no guidance or control, and no fuel.  Ditto trains.  Water pumps won`t run, so people will go thirsty.  The services we take for granted will fail.  How long before panic sets in?

Even if an EMP strike should only hit the West Coast, the disaster would be catastrophic; the United States electric grid is divided into three segments, and this strike will more than likely take the entire western power grid completely out.  It’s going to be very hard to maintain order with no running water in the arid western United States! Farmers will lose their crops, the sick and elderly will die without air conditioning, and other electricity—dependent services. …”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/07/emp_and_the_unfought_victory.html

 

Electromagnetic Pulse-From Chaos To A Manageable Solution
AUTHOR Major M. CaJohn, USMC

“…IV.  Conclusions:  EMP can be defeated.  The military has a sound
and viable program in its strategic communications systems and
weapons; however, the military must emphasize an EMP training and
field expedient program in its tactical communications systems until
EMP hardened equipment is procured.  The civilian sector has no EMP
program and must get one to ensure it can survive an EMP
environment.
V.  Recommendations:  Military leaders must stress and implement an
EMP training and field expedient technique program.  The military
must continue to procure strategic and tactical equipment that is EMP
hardened.  Government agencies must encourage our civilian sector to
build new communications systems that will withstand an EMP
environment. …”

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/1988/CM2.htm

 

ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE THREATS TO U.S. MILITARY AND CIVILIAN INFRASTRUCTURE

http://superconductors.org/emp-bomb.htm
http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/emp-terror.htm
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/future-weapons-emp-bomb.html
http://www.electronics-related.com/usenet/design/show/98485-1.php
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Strategic-Weapon-Systems/EMP-Bomb-Australia.html
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has197010.000/has197010_1.htm

 

 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS EFFECTS TECHNOLOGY

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/mctl98-2/p2sec06.pdf

 

Engineering and Design – Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) and Tempest Protection for Facilities Proponent: CEMP-ET

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp/toc.htm

 

E-Bombs And Terrorists: September 2001 Cover Story

In the blink of an eye, electromagnetic bombs could throw civilization back 200 years. And terrorists can build them for $400.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281421.html

LOL or COL

Snake Plissken shuts down the earth.

 

Will Israel bomb Iran? Part 1 of 6


 

Will Israel bomb Iran? Part 2 of 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JquTtSl6d8Q

Will Israel bomb Iran? Part 3 of 6 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBrW0YsG20A&feature=related

 

Will Israel bomb Iran? Part 4 of 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFvtq3TLRA8&feature=related   

 

 

Will Israel bomb Iran? Part 5 of 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKLvEr9jZSg&feature=related  

 

Will Israel bomb Iran? Part 6 of 6

 

 

 

Glen Beck: Israel says war with Iran may now be “unavoidable”

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 8 so far )


Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...