1945: The United States becomes the first (and remains the only) country ever to use an atomic weapon in warfare, obliterating the Japanese city of Hiroshima and instantly killing 70,000 people. (Many thousands more would die later from the effects of radiation poisoning.) Three days later, the port city of Nagasaki is destroyed by a [...]
Posts Tagged ‘Nuclear weapons’
May 21, 1956: Bikini Is Da Bomb
May 21st, 2010 |
No Comments
1956: The United States proves it can deliver a hydrogen bomb from the air — by dropping one on the small island group known as the Bikini Atoll. The B-52 bomber crew misses its target by a mile (well, 4 miles, actually) but the point is made: Nobody is safe from the most fearsome [...]
Feb, 11, 1939: Lise Meitner, ‘Our Madame Curie’
February 11th, 2010 |
No Comments
1939: Austrian-born physicist Lise Meitner publishes her discovery that atomic nuclei split during some uranium reactions. Her research will be overlooked by the Nobel committee when it awards a prize for the work.
Meitner is a prominent example of a woman whose gender put her in the back seat when the top prize was given. [...]
Feb. 1, 1951: TV Shows Atomic Blast, Live
February 1st, 2010 |
No Comments
1951: For the first time, television viewers witness the live detonation of an atomic bomb blast, as KTLA in Los Angeles broadcasts the blinding light produced by a nuclear device dropped on Frenchman Flats, Nevada.
See also:
Video Gallery:
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb Video
Photo Gallery:
Nuclear Blasts Show Terrifying Power
One of [...]
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb Video
February 1st, 2010 |
No Comments
<< previous image | next image >>
See also:
Feb. 1, 1951: TV Shows Atomic Blast, Live
Photo Gallery:
Nuclear Blasts Show Terrifying Power
Operation Ranger
Operation Ranger was a series of nuclear tests conducted at the Nevada Proving Ground (now called the Nevada Test Site) northwest of Las Vegas. Los Angeles TV station KTLA televised one blast from [...]
Hiroshima calls for nuke-free world by 2020 on bomb anniversary
August 6th, 2009 |
No Comments
The Japanese city of Hiroshima on Thursday marked the 64th anniversary of the world’s first atomic attack as its mayor called for the total abolition of nuclear weapons in the coming decade. Some 50,000 people, including atomic bomb survivors as well as Prime Minister Taro Aso and
Aug. 5, 1963: Finally, a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
August 5th, 2009 |
No Comments
1963: Three of the four nuclear powers sign a limited treaty that bans most, but not all, nuclear weapons testing.
The Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed in Moscow by the United States, Soviet Union and Great Britain. The fourth nation to possess “the bomb,” France, did not sign the treaty. Nor did China, which [...]
North Korea ready for nuclear talks with US
July 27th, 2009 |
No Comments
Pyongyang seeks to end standoff with US and address foreign tensions over missile launches
North Korea said today it was open to talks about the rising tension over its nuclear weapons programme, a marked shift in tactics after months of ratcheting up foreign anxieties with nuclear test and missile launches.
The statement appeared to be a call for direct talks with the United States, a longstanding goal of the regime. It comes days after the North Korean leadership traded jibes with the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, at a regional summit in Thailand. It said she was “by no means intelligent” and looked like a schoolgirl or a pensioner going shopping, after she compared it to a group of “small children”.
In today’s announcement the foreign ministry in Pyongyang made clear its continued opposition to the six-party nuclear talks, which it said sought only to “disarm and incapacitate” the nation.
The statement from a foreign ministry spokesman, carried by state media, said that siding with those who sought their resumption “will not help to ease tension”. But it said: “There is a specific and reserved form of dialogue that can address the current situation.”
Analysts say North Korea has used its weapons tests to improve its technology, advertise it to potential customers and bolster support for the regime after the illness of the leader, Kim Jong-il. But they also believe it is attempting to grab the attention of the US and push it into direct negotiations.
The US has said it would hold direct talks with Pyongyang within the six-nation process if it returned to the negotiating table and took irreversible steps towards denuclearisation. North Korea quit the aid-for-disarmament discussions in April.
The talks stalled last winter as North Korea wrangled with the US over how to implement agreed measures and verify its activities.
But Washington will not want to be seen to reward North Korea’s military tests, and Clinton told NBC yesterday the multinational negotiations were the appropriate way to engage with the state.
The other nations involved in the discussions – China, Japan, South Korea and Russia – would be reluctant to see bilateral talks. Beijing is concerned that a direct relationship between Pyongyang and Washington would damage its own long-term interests.
On Friday, North Korea’s ambassador to the United Nations, Sin Son Ho, said the country was “not against a dialogue”, according to Japan’s Kyodo news agency.
North Korea’s main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said the country’s envoy told an Asian security conference last week the nuclear standoff was a matter between Pyongyang and Washington.
In yesterday’s interview, Clinton repeated her warning that North Korea does not have any friends left after the UN security council’s toughening of sanctions last month.
She praised China, the North’s main ally, for being “extremely positive and productive” in pressuring Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear programme.
“We’ve been extremely gratified by their forward-leaning commitment to sanctions and the private messages that they have conveyed to the North Koreans,” Clinton said.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
N Korea calls Clinton ‘pensioner going shopping’
July 23rd, 2009 |
No Comments
Exchange of insults reflects lack of progress at regional summit over country’s nuclear programme
The stand-off over North Korea’s nuclear programme took a turn for the petty today, with the country’s leadership claiming Hillary Clinton looked like a “primary schoolgirl” or “a pensioner going shopping”, after Clinton compared them to “small children”.
The exchange of jibes reflected the lack of progress at a regional summit being held in Phuket, Thailand.
North Korea, attending the talks, said it had no intention of re-entering six-nation talks on its nuclear programme, because of the “deep-rooted anti-North Korean policy” of the US.
“The six-party talks are over,” the spokesman for the North Korean delegation, Ri Hung Sik, said at the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean) security forum.
Clinton said North Korea had “no friends left that will protect them” from international determination that the regime dismantle its nuclear programme.
She called on North Korea to dismantle its weapons programme verifiably and irreversibly or face further isolation and the “unrelenting pressure” of international sanctions. She said the international community was prepared to offer a package of incentives if Pyongyang complied, including the normalisation of diplomatic relations.
A 2007 six-party agreement in which North Korea began dismantling its nuclear complex at Yongbyon in return for fuel oil deliveries broke down in April this year, when North Korea threw out UN inspectors and restarted its weapons programme. It has since raised tensions by conducting an apparent nuclear test (some experts say it could have been a hoax using huge quantities of high explosive) and a series of missile tests.
In an interview on Monday, Clinton said the US should not over-react to North Korean provocation. She told ABC television: “Maybe it’s the mother in me, the experience I’ve had with small children and teenagers and people who are demanding attention: Don’t give it to them.”
Pyongyang’s reaction took three days to come, but the delay did not lessen its evident fury.
“We cannot but regard Mrs Clinton as a funny lady as she likes to utter such rhetoric, unaware of the elementary etiquette in the international community,” a foreign ministry statement said. “Sometimes she looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
US threatens Iran ‘defence umbrella’
July 22nd, 2009 |
No Comments
Clinton outlines policy of containment if Tehran cannot be stopped from constructing warheads
Hillary Clinton today outlined how the US may go about containing a nuclear-armed Iran by extending a “defence umbrella” to US allies in the region.
The US secretary of state, speaking on the way to a security summit in Thailand, later said she was not suggesting a new policy. But her comments marked the first time a senior US official has publicly contemplated the option of containment in the event of Iran’s succeeding in building a nuclear weapon.
Until today such an option was a taboo subject among US government officials and their British counterparts, who have insisted Iran would be ultimately stopped from constructing a warhead.
Iran says its nuclear programme is not for military purposes, and refuses to comply with UN security council resolutions calling on Tehran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. The impasse has grown into a crisis as the enrichment programme has expanded over the past few years.
“We will still hold the door open [for negotiations], but we also have made it clear that we will take actions, as I have said time and time again, crippling action working to upgrade the defences of our partners in the region,” Clinton told Thai television.
“We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment: that if the United States extends a defence umbrella over the region, if we do even more to develop the military capacity of those [allies] in the Gulf, it is unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer because they won’t be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can once they have a nuclear weapon.”
Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Tehran, said: “She’s implying that, if Iran became a nuclear weapon state, then the US would develop their existing defence commitments and that the US would contemplate nuclear deterrence to protect Persian Gulf states.”
Clinton’s remarks appeared to be aimed at influencing the decisions being made in Tehran. She was also seeking to fend off an arms race in the Middle East, where America’s Arab allies are nervous about the rise of a nuclear Iran, and considering their own nuclear options.
But her comments angered America’s closest ally in the region, Israel, and drew an immediate riposte from minister of intelligence and atomic energy, Dan Meridor.
“I was not thrilled to hear the American statement … that they will protect their allies with a nuclear umbrella, as if they have already come to terms with a nuclear Iran. I think that’s a mistake,” Meridor said on Army Radio.
Asked for clarification at press conference, Clinton said: “I was simply pointing out that Iran needs to understand that its pursuit of nuclear weapons will not advance its security or achieve its goals of enhancing its power both regionally and globally.
“The focus that Iran must have is that it faces the prospect if it pursues nuclear weapons of sparking an arms race in the region. That should affect the calculation of what Iran intends to do and what it believes is in its national security interest because it may render Iran less secure, not more secure.”
The remarks appear to reflect deepening US pessimism on Iran following the June presidential elections, which brought an entrenchment by hardliners in Tehran.
Hopes had been raised in Washington that Barack Obama’s warm overtures to the Iranian people and the offer of talks without preconditions would break the long-running impasse over uranium enrichment.
Iran has so far not replied to the latest offer from six major powers – the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China – to provide economic help and technical assistance in building a nuclear power industry, if Iran suspends enrichment. Little hope is left in Washington or other western capitals that any response now will be positive.
The outgoing director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, said recently he thought Iran was developing a breakout capacity to build nuclear weapons, as an “insurance policy” against perceived foreign threats.
The containment option is boosted by the belief that Iran is running out of uranium ore to convert and enrich. The US thinks the supply will run out by next year and is urging all uranium-producing countries to tighten control over their exports, to ensure Iran does not get hold of any more.
If that effort is successful, it would limit the size of arsenals Iran is able to build. That is the theory at least. It is very much plan B as far as the west is concerned, but it is a bow to new realities.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
US threatens to ‘cripple’ nuclear Iran
July 22nd, 2009 |
No Comments
Secretary of state pledges to protect Gulf allies if Tehran attempts to intimidate neighbours
Hillary Clinton today signalled a significant shift in US foreign policy by discussing publicly how a nuclear-armed Iran could be contained in the Middle East.
Until today, the shared position of the US, Britain and France was that Iran would not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, and no senior official from any of the three countries would discuss the option of containment.
However, Clinton broke that taboo during a visit to Thailand, when she pledged enhanced US protection for Washington’s Gulf allies, implying nuclear protection, if Iran succeeded in building a bomb.
“We… have made it clear that we’ll take actions, as I’ve said time and time again, crippling action working to upgrade the defences of our partners in the region,” Clinton told Thai television.
“We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment: that if the United States extends a defence umbrella over the region, if we do even more to develop the military capacity of those (allies) in the Gulf, it is unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer because they won’t be able to intimidate and dominate as they apparently believe they can once they have a nuclear weapon.”
Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Tehran said: “She’s implying that, if Iran became a nuclear weapon state, then the US would develop their existing defence commitments and that the US would contemplate nuclear deterrence to protect Persian Gulf states.”
The remarks appeared to be aimed at reassuring Arab allies uneasy about the rise of a nuclear Iran, and considering their own nuclear options. It also seeks to influence the decisions being made in Tehran. But it drew an immediate riposte from Israel’s minister of intelligence and atomic energy, Dan Meridor.
“I was not thrilled to hear the American statement…that they will protect their allies with a nuclear umbrella, as if they have already come to terms with a nuclear Iran. I think that’s a mistake,” Meridor said.
Clinton’s comments appear to reflect a new US pessimism on Iran following the June presidential elections, that brought an entrenchment by hardliners in Tehran.
There had been hope in Washington that Barack Obama’s warm overtures to the Iranian people and the offer of talks with Iran without preconditions would break the long-running impasse over Iranian enrichment of uranium.
Iran insists the uranium is intended for peaceful power generation, but the UN security council has called for it to be suspended, at least until doubts over Tehran’s intentions are resolved.
Iran had put off, until after the recent election, a response to the latest offer from six major powers – the US, Britain, France Germany, Russia and China – to offer economic help and technical assistance in building a nuclear power industry, if Iran suspends enrichment. There is little hope left in Washington or other western capitals that any response now will be positive.
The outgoing director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, said recently he thought Iran was developing a breakout capacity to build nuclear weapons, so that it would have all the components in place to build a warhead at short notice.
The containment option is boosted by the belief that Iran is running out of uranium ore to convert and enrich. The US thinks the supply will run out by next year and is urging all uranium-producing countries to tighten control over their exports, to ensure Iran does not get hold of any more.
If that effort is successful, it would severely limit the size of arsenals Iran is able to build. That is the theory at least. It is very much “plan b” as far as the west is concerned, but it is a bow to new realities.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Fears of Burma-N Korea nuclear link
July 21st, 2009 |
No Comments
• Hillary Clinton warns of military co-operation between regimes
• Proliferation experts track purchases of suspicious equipment
Hillary Clinton today expressed concern over military links between North Korea and Burma, after evidence emerged that the Burmese junta may be trying to acquire nuclear technology from Pyongyang.
Experts said there is no proof of a Burmese nuclear programme but pointed to worrying signs. The Burmese military has been doing business with a North Korean company that specialises in nuclear technology. The junta has also made suspicious purchases of sophisticated dual-use equipment. A North Korean ship suspected of heading to Burma with an unknown cargo turned back after being shadowed by American warships earlier this month. Finally, reports have emerged of a secret visit by senior Burmese officials to North Korea late last year.
“We know that there are also growing concerns about military co-operation between North Korea and Burma, which we take very seriously,” Clinton, the US secretary of state, told journalists in Bangkok. “It would be destabilising for the region. It would pose a direct threat to Burma’s neighbours.”
David Albright, the head of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, which specialises in monitoring nuclear proliferation, said: “There’s no hard evidence, just suspicions right now. We’re watching it.”
Albright said one of the principal causes of suspicion was the link between the Burmese military and a North Korean firm, Namchongang Trading Corp (NCG), which is under UN and US sanctions for its role in trading in nuclear technology. NCG set up an office in Damascus, and western officials have alleged the company channelled equipment and materials towards the construction of a nuclear reactor in Syria which was destroyed by an Israeli air raid in September 2007. NCG’s chief executive is Yun Ho-jin, a nuclear expert who was once North Korea’s delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Albright said Burma had also attempted to acquire suspicious technology. “This is hi-tech equipment, capable of making very high precision components. It has other end uses, but it’s hard to see why else Burma would be buying it,” he said.
Last month, Japan arrested one North Korean and two Japanese businessmen for attempting to export a magnetometer (a device for measuring magnetic fields) to Burma. Magnetometers can be used in archaeology and geophysics, but they are also a critical component in missile guidance systems.
Two years ago, the Burmese junta made an overt attempt to begin a nuclear programme. It signed an agreement with Russian atomic agency Rosatom for the construction of a 10-megawatt research reactor, but the deal stalled, possibly as a result of diplomatic pressure on Moscow. US officials fear Burma may have decided to pursue a covert route through Pyongyang.
Earlier this month, a North Korean freighter, the Kang Nam I, which had made previous trips to Burma, was shadowed at sea by the US navy until it reversed course. It remains unclear what its freight was, and US officials were reluctant to board it, fearing it might be an empty decoy designed to embarrass Washington.
The Associated Press today quoted a South Korean intelligence expert as saying satellite images suggested the Kang Nam I was carrying equipment for a nuclear programme and Scud-type missiles.
Recent reports in Burmese exile media have spoken of a military pact late last year between the two countries, including the construction of underground installations, but the existence of such a pact has yet to be publicly confirmed.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Voters want nuclear arms scrapped
July 13th, 2009 |
No Comments
Survey for Guardian finds 54% support disarmament rather than replacing Trident deterrent
Voters want Britain to scrap nuclear weapons altogether rather than replace Trident, according to a new Guardian/ICM poll today. The result marks a sharp turnaround in public opinion amid growing debate about the cost of a new generation of nuclear weapons and the impact of conventional defence cutbacks on the war in Afghanistan.
For decades nuclear disarmament has been seen as a minority issue, with most voters assumed to favour continued investment in an independent British nuclear weapons system. But today’s poll shows that 54% of all voters would prefer to abandon nuclear weapons rather than put money into a new generation of Trident warheads, as the government plans.
Last week’s G8 summit brought suggestions that Britain might include Trident in international disarmament talks. “What we need is collective action by the nuclear weapons powers to say that we are prepared to reduce our nuclear weapons,” said Gordon Brown.
Today’s figures mark a dramatic turnaround in public opinion since Trident renewal was announced by Brown three years ago. In July 2006, 51% backed renewal, while 39% opposed it. Since then support for a new Trident system has fallen by nine points while opposition has grown by 15 points.
Overall, only 42% of all voters now back renewal, according to the poll. Until now a majority of voters have always supported a British nuclear system, although one other recent ICM poll showed most people wanting to extend the life of the existing Trident system rather than spend money upgrading it.
In 2006 Gordon Brown reaffirmed Britain’s commitment to Trident, and the government won Commons backing, thanks to Tory support. A design contract is expected to be signed this September, during the parliamentary recess, and the nuclear weapons were excluded from the defence review announced last week.
The poll shows for the first time that a majority of Labour voters oppose nuclear weapons, as well as most Liberal Democrats.
On balance, 59% of Labour voters want Britain to scrap nuclear weapons, against 40% who want to replace them. In 2006 Trident renewal was backed by a majority of Labour voters. Even among Conservative voters, 41% would now rather see unilateral nuclear disarmament than a new generation of weapons. That may encourage the opposition to defer renewal as part of a package of spending cuts.
Today’s results are one consequence of the growing political battle over public spending, with retired defence chiefs, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs suggesting that the £20bn cost of replacing Trident would be better spent on conventional forces.
The poll also suggests that the Conservatives are outflanking Labour in the debate over spending. More than two-thirds of voters say they want spending to be cut, double the proportion who believe the government should increase expenditure, as some ministers continue to argue. Even a majority of Labour voters want to see cutbacks.
As a result the Conservative party has extended its lead over Labour to 14 points. At 41%, up two, Tory support is at its highest in an ICM poll since March, before the expenses scandal broke. Labour, unchanged on 27%, is stuck on its second-lowest ICM score since June last year.
The Liberal Democrats are on 20%, up two points, while backing for other parties is 12%, down three as minor party support from the European elections fades.
• ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,000 adults aged 18+ by telephone on 10-11 July 2009. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Talks may lead to UK nuclear cut
July 9th, 2009 |
No Comments
• Prime minister rules out unilateral reduction
• Tougher inspection regime to be proposed
Britain’s nuclear stockpile could be reduced after multilateral talks next year that are likely to flow from a global summit on nuclear weapons, Gordon Brown indicated yesterday.
The summit, to be convened by Barack Obama, is expected to come up with a new regime to prevent nuclear proliferation and the safe storage of nuclear stockpiles. It is likely to involve up to 30 countries, providing an opportunity for discussion on a more intrusive weapons inspection regime and a chance for nuclear weapons states other than Russia and the US, which between them account for 95% of nuclear weapons, to contribute to the disarmament process.
Talks are due next year anyway on a successor to the 40-year-old nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The Obama summit, which is likely to be held in March, will also look at the risks posed by nuclear terrorism, the safety of nuclear stockpiles and atomic smuggling.
The safety issue has been made more urgent by the expected worldwide spread of civil nuclear power. Obama briefed his fellow G8 leaders on his plan following his summit in Moscow earlier this week, where he signed a framework accord aimed at cutting stockpiles to as low as 1,500 warheads. Britain is acting earlier than intended, mainly because of worries that proliferation is in danger of accelerating, driven by fear of a nuclear North Korea and nuclear Iran.
Gordon Brown indicated that a key aim of the Obama summit could also be to discuss a new inspection regime, whereby countries such as Iran would be placed under a tougher obligation to prove that they were not developing nuclear weapons. In return, non-nuclear weapon states would be given greater help with developing civil nuclear power.
In the next few days, he is due to publish a plan setting out detailed British proposals on civil nuclear power, disarmament and non-proliferation, fissile material security and the role and development of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
In a speech in March, Brown pointed out that Britain had halved the number of its nuclear warheads since 1997, and said it was ready to reduce the number further in multilateral discussions.
Yesterday, Brown stressed he was not planning to reduce Britain’s stockpile unilaterally, or to revisit the decision to press ahead with a replacement for the Trident nuclear weapons system. But he indicated a better weapons inspection regime would help give Britain confidence to disarm.
He said: “We have to show that we can deal with this by collective action. Unilateral action by the UK would not be seen as the best way forward. We are prepared to reduce our nuclear weapons, but we need new kinds of assurances that other countries are not proliferating.”
Brown added: “We need a tougher regime so the onus will be on the countries that do not have nuclear weapons to prove this. One of the problems with Iran is the question of whether you can prove or not that they have nuclear weapons. If there is an international agreement that requires all countries to be open with the rest of the world then Iran would have to prove to us that it did not have nuclear weapons, rather than us to prove they were developing nuclear weapons.
“It is not guilty unless proven innocent, but if a country has accepted an obligation not to have nuclear weapons then you have got to prove and demonstrate that is the case, and I would think people would think that is fair.”
Paul Ingram, director of the British American Security Information Council, said there were several ways Brown could slim down the Trident force without abandoning it altogether. “It wouldn’t surprise me if he looks at force structure – the numbers of warheads, how many submarines, how many missile tubes, patrol arrangements. They all enable the government to consider how it can on one hand maintain some kind of nuclear deterrence but at the same time away from a cold war posture.”
However, Daryl Kimball, the head of the Arms Control Association in Washington, portrayed Brown’s offer as a half-measure. “His government needs to more carefully explain why it needs to retain that Trident force in the first place,” Kimball said. “Who are they deterring, why and in what circumstances? There seems to be no explanation except that it serves as a vague insurance policy against some vague future threat.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Britain ‘ready to negotiate Trident’
July 9th, 2009 |
No Comments
Brown rules out total abandonment, but agrees to reduction in summit expected to prevent proliferation on a new scale
Britain’s nuclear stockpile could be reduced in multilateral talks that are likely to flow from a global summit on nuclear weapons to be convened next year by US President Barack Obama, Gordon Brown indicated today.
The summit is expected to look at a new regime to prevent nuclear proliferation and the safe storage of nuclear stockpiles.
The summit, likely to involve as many as 30 countries, would provide an opportunity for discussion on a new, more intrusive weapons inspection regime and a chance for nuclear weapons states other than Russia and the US, owners of 95% of nuclear weapons, to contribute to the disarmament process.
There are due to be talks anyway next year on a successor to the 40-year-old nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The Obama summit, likely to be held in March, will also look at the risks posed by nuclear terrorism, the safety of nuclear stockpiles and atomic smuggling. The safety of nuclear stockpiles has been made more urgent by the likely vast spread of civil nuclear power worldwide. Obama briefed his fellow G8 leaders on his plan following his summit in Moscow earlier this week.
Gordon Brown indicated that a key aim of the Obama summit may also be to discuss a new regime whereby non-nuclear weapon states, such as Iran, would be placed on a new tougher obligation to prove that they were not developing nuclear weapons. In return, non-nuclear weapon states would be given greater help with developing civil nuclear power to meet their energy needs.
He is due in the next few days to publish a plan setting out detailed British proposals on civil nuclear power, disarmament and non-proliferation, fissile material security and the role and development of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
In a speech in March, Brown pointed out Britain had reduced the number of its nuclear warheads by 50% since 1997, and said: “If it is possible to reduce the number of UK warheads further, consistent with our national deterrence requirements and with the progress of multilateral discussions, Britain will be ready to do so.”
Since then Brown has announced a strategic defence review, and Obama has agreed with the Russians on a further reduction of their nuclear stockpile.
Yesterday Brown stressed he was not planning to reduce Britain’s nuclear stockpile unilaterally, or to revisit the decision to press ahead with a replacement for the Trident nuclear weapons system. But he indicated a better weapons inspection regime would help give Britain confidence to disarm.
He said: “We have go to show that we can deal with this by collective action. Unilateral action by the UK would not be seen as the best way forward. We are prepared to reduce our nuclear weapons, but we need new kinds of assurances that other countries are not proliferating.”
He said: “The issue for all countries is can we achieve a sensible reduction in nuclear weapons at this stage whilst existing nuclear weapon states remain so. No one is calling on us as part of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to renounce our weapons. The whole point of the NPT is that those countries that have nuclear weapons will be willing to reduce them as much as possible and at the same time those countries that do not have nuclear weapons will be given the benefit of civil nuclear power whilst renouncing nuclear weapons.”
He added: “We need a tougher regime so the onus will be on the countries that do not have nuclear weapons to prove this. One of the problems with Iran is the question of whether you can prove or not that they have nuclear weapons. If there is an international agreement that requires all countries to be open with the rest of the world then Iran would have to prove to us that it did not have nuclear weapons rather than us to prove they were developing nuclear weapons.
“It is not guilty unless proven innocent, but if a country has accepted an obligation not to have nuclear weapons then you have got to prove and demonstrate that is the case, and I would think people would think that is fair.”
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
US and Russia offer to cut warheads
July 7th, 2009 |
No Comments
• Obama signs framework accord at Moscow summit
• Deal could lead to arsenals of both being cut by a third
The US and Russia today agreed a nuclear disarmament road map that would see them cut their arsenals by up to a third, in a preliminary agreement signed by Barack Obama during his Russia trip.
Pledging to reverse a “sense of drift” in Washington’s relations with Moscow, the US president said he hoped a new nuclear arms reduction treaty to replace the Start-1 pact, which expires this December, would be ready by the end of the year. “We must lead by example and that is what we are doing here today,” he said in Moscow.
Under terms of the outline deal the sides have agreed to reduce their nuclear stockpiles to between 1,500-1,675 warheads each and that strategic delivery systems – ballistic missiles, submarine-launched missiles and heavy bombers – be cut to between 500 and 1,100.
But it was unclear today whether negotiations between the US and Russia would actually yield a new treaty – or whether both sides could bury their differences over the former’s missile defence plans. The Kremlin has made it clear that a deal is impossible if the US administration goes ahead with its missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Obama said today that a review of that shield would be completed as early as this summer. But he gave no indication whether he was willing to dump it – instead merely predicting that the diametrically opposed positions of the two nations on the shield “could be reconciled”.
Obama also insisted the purpose of the shield was to intercept missiles from Iran or North Korea or other states rather than from Russia. But he conceded that convincing Moscow of this would be hard work. “It’s going to take time to break down existing suspicions,” he noted.
Despite Obama’s pledge to reset “US-Russian relations”, there was little sense from today’s summit that the two sides had managed to overcome the hostility and suspicion that characterised relations between George Bush and Vladimir Putin. Nor was there much of the sparkle that has accompanied previous summits between US and Russian leaders.
Asked whether he trusted Dmitry Medvedev, Obama responded by calling Russia’s president “straightforward and professional”. But he also had problems pronouncing his Russian counterpart’s name – dubbing him on one occasion: “Mededev” – and appeared tired after the flight from Washington.
Analysts said the nuclear deal at the very least revived the notion of disarmament, which had been lost amid the hostilities of recent years, and was realistic.
“The negotiations are going to be tense,” said Paul Ingram, the executive director of the British American Security Information Council. “The Russians will be playing hardball but the Americans know Moscow has a strong interest in getting a treaty signed. Both sides have too much invested in reaching an agreement.”
Once the treaty is signed, the next question will be how much further the US and Russia have to go. Obama has dedicated himself to a world free of nuclear weapons, but that remains a theoretical target.
Hovering in the gilded rooms of the Kremlin like an unwelcome ghost was Putin, whom Obama meets tomorrow for a brief working breakfast. Asked whether he thought Putin or Medvedev ran Russia, Obama replied: “Medvedev is the president and Putin is the prime minister.”
Russia did offer one significant concession, agreeing to let the US fly troops and munitions across its airspace to provide an air corridor for its forces in Afghanistan. The two sides also agreed to resume military co-operation, suspended following Russia’s invasion of Georgia last year.
Obama reaffirmed US support for Georgia’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity”. There was no mention of Ukraine, whose admission to Nato Moscow ardently rejects along with that of Georgia’s.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
US and Russia offer to cut warheads
July 6th, 2009 |
No Comments
Framework signed on US president’s Russia visit would leave each side with as few as 1,500 warheads capable of launch
The US and Russia have agreed to work towards cutting deployed nuclear warheads to as few as 1,500 each under an agreement signed by Barack Obama on his first trip to Russia as president.
Obama and the Russian prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, signed a framework deal aimed at cutting warheads to a maximum of 1,675 within seven years of a nuclear arms reduction treaty coming into force.
Current treaties allow for a maximum of 2,200 warheads, though both sides are thought to have more than that deployed, or capable of launch. According to some expert estimates of current numbers, the new commitment would mean each side scrapping almost 1,000 warheads.
The pact signed today also calls for the number of strategic delivery systems to be reduced to between 500 and 1,100 on each side, from 1,600 under current treaties. Such systems include intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched missiles and heavy bombers.
Obama said he intended to host a summit on global nuclear security next year. Among a flurry of other bilateral announcements today, Russia said it was prepared to let the US fly troops and weapons across its airspace to Afghanistan.
“We must lead by example and that’s what we are doing here today,” Obama said of the preliminary nuclear accord. “We resolve to reset US-Russian relations so that we can co-operate more effectively in areas of common interest.”
Medvedev said today’s summit was a “first step, but a very important step” towards resetting relations.
Obama and Medvedev agreed during their last meeting in April to hold talks on a successor treaty to the 1991 Start-1 pact, which expires in December. But attempts to reach a deal have been aggravated by disagreements over the Pentagon’s planned missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Yesterday, Medvedev said any new arms reduction treaty was definitively “linked” to America’s missile defence ambitions in central Europe.
“We consider these issues are interconnected,” he said. “It is sufficient to show restraint and show an ability to compromise. And then we can agree on the basis of a new deal on Start.” Obama responded by saying that he would complete a review of the need for the missile defence shield in the next two months, and would then re-address the issue with the Russian government in search of a definitive agreement on the issue.
In an interview today with the Russian opposition newspaper Novaya Gazeta, Obama stressed that the missile defence system was not aimed at Russia but rather intended to protect the US and its allies from an Iranian nuclear missile.
He acknowledged “Russian sensitivities” over the shield but said he hoped Moscow would “become a partner in the project”. He made clear he would not accept Moscow’s linkage between arms control and missile defence, a statement that suggests there is little prospect of a rapid breakthrough.
Tomorrow, Obama he will meet Vladimir Putin, Russia’s prime minister and the man who most people believe still runs the country. Obama described Putin slightingly last week as having “one foot in the past”.
Russia’s state-controlled media have so far given Obama a less than overwhelming reception. The Kremlin-controlled Channel One TV last night failed to mention Obama’s visit in its headlines, leading instead with a report on Medvedev’s attempts to encourage energy conservation.
The US and Russia account for more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. They have agreed in principle to reduce their nuclear warheads to a maximum of 2,200 warheads under the Start treaty. But until now they had not been able to agree on a reduction in the systems used to launch them.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Obama faces Russian arms impasse
July 6th, 2009 |
No Comments
Medvedev seeks to tie arms reduction treaty to US missile defence ahead of Obama’s first presidential trip to Moscow
Barack Obama is due to arrive in Moscow today for his first trip to Russia as US president amid dwindling hopes of a breakthrough deal on nuclear weapons.
The summit’s centrepiece is supposed to be a groundbreaking pact on nuclear arms reduction, but Russia said there could be no agreement unless the US was prepared to heed its concerns on missile defence.
Obama and the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, agreed at their last meeting, in April, to hold talks on a successor treaty to the 1991 Start-1 pact, which expires in December. But attempts to reach a deal appear to have come unstuck over the same problem that defeated the Bush administration: the Kremlin’s unbending hostility to the Pentagon’s planned missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.
While Obama has agreed to review the plan, he is not prepared to abandon it. Yesterday Medvedev said any new arms reduction treaty was definitively “linked” to the US’s missile defence ambitions in central Europe.
“We consider these issues are interconnected,” he said. “It is sufficient to show restraint and show an ability to compromise. And then we can agree on the basis of a new deal on Start.”
Medevedev’s comments place Obama in an uncomfortable position on one of the biggest foreign policy trips of his presidency. If he makes concessions he risks a political backlash at home and the charge of capitulation. If he doesn’t, he may emerge from the US-Russia summit no more successful than George Bush.
Russian officials revealed that they had not been able to reach agreement on a “framework document” setting out a blueprint for nuclear talks – an ominous sign. Obama, however, made clear his determination to improve relations.
“I believe that Americans and Russians have many common interests, interests that our governments have not pursued as actively as we could have,” he told the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta.
On Tuesday he will meet Vladimir Putin, Russia’s prime minister and the man most people believe still runs the country. Obama described Putin slightingly last week as having “one foot in the past”.
In his interview, Obama acknowledged “Russian sensitivities” over the shield, but said it was needed to protect the US and Europe from a nuclear-armed Iranian missile. He made clear he would not accept Moscow’s linkage between arms control and missile defence, a statement that suggests there is little prospect of a rapid breakthrough.
Analysts said there were profound, irreconcilable differences between both sides, not just over the shield but also on technical issues including counting, verification and delivery systems.
“It requires a miracle to resolve these differences,” said Sergey Rogov, director of the US and Canadian Institute in Moscow.
The US and Russia account for more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. They have agreed in principle to reduce their nuclear warheads below the 2,000 agreed in the Start treaty to 1,500-1,700 each. But they have not been able to agree on a reduction in delivery systems, which include intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines missiles and heavy bombers.
According to Rogov, Russia wants to reduce the number of launchers to 600. The US is insisting on around 1,000. Additionally, Moscow is against the US having what it calls a “return potential”, which would allow nuclear weapons scrapped by the US to be redeployed in the event of a nuclear crisis. “I’m not sure Obama understands it,” Rogov said.
Writing last week in Novaya Gazeta, the Moscow defence analyst Pavel Felgenhaur predicted the summit would be a failure. He said the Russian government, emboldened by the recent oil price rise, expected the US to make “one-sided” concessions while making none itself.
During his two-and-a-half day trip to Moscow, Obama is expected to seek Russia’s co-operation on Iran, and support for a stronger sanctions regime against North Korea. Yesterday, however, Medevev hailed Iran as a “major partner”.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Arguments the left has to win
We must settle our differences on issues from nuclear weapons to healthcare if we are to exert pressure on the policy makers
This week James Purnell launched a Demos project, Open Left, which is asking what it means to be on the left today. To understand the difficulties that face the left you have to start way back. For almost 10 years a consensus has developed within the three main parties inspired by the Thatcher counter-revolution, which argued that government should keep out of industry and leave everything to the market.
It was that very policy that led to the present economic crisis and which has had a dramatic effect on the level of Labour support in two ways: a falling turnout for Labour and the emergence of the BNP.
The present government has many achievements of which we can be proud, not least on the environment, but the party is seen as offering management rather than representation. Policies worked out on the sofas in Whitehall will not, in my opinion, make much of a contribution to the rebuilding of confidence among the voters.
Nor indeed will sectarian strife on the left help.
More and more people worldwide now see that the basic conflict is between the majority who create the wealth and the handful who own it and want jobs and homes, good healthcare and education, decent pensions and peace.
From where I see it now, outside parliament, the reconstruction of a strong left has to begin by developing powerful campaigns centred on the issues that concern people, which can bring in support from across the whole political spectrum.
The Stop the War movement, which has been one of the most successful in my lifetime, enjoyed the backing of conservatives, liberals, greens, as well as those on the left, and will ultimately win a majority for a policy of withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Now some generals are coming out against nuclear weapons at the moment when we are being told we may have to spend billions to upgrade them. This project is the most obvious candidate for a cut in public expenditure.
Housing is another example. We see a long housing waiting list and unemployed builders who cannot be financed because the money is going to the bankers, some of whom are getting huge bonuses, paid for by taxation.
Similarly there is great anxiety about the deliberate privatisation of the public services – which we have seen in academies and the private financing of hospital building – which leaves them outside any democratic control.
It is the same with civil liberties that have been eroded and state pensions which are still dropping behind the earnings with which they were once linked.
Then there is taxation – where the modest increase announced for wealthier people has been denounced by the City but it is nothing compared to the highest level when Churchill left office in 1945 – 95%, justified on the grounds that the money was needed to fight the war and that the rich should share the burdens that others had to bear. These arguments apply to the present economic crisis.
We have to win these arguments if we are to retain power next year.
And that means there has to be much more pressure from below on the policy makers in Downing Street. Out of such pressure will come a revitalised left renewing its commitment to serve those it has always sought to represent.
For the first time in my life the public is more progressive on all these issues than New Labour.
Democracy is the buckle that links the streets to the statute book and to renew the left, democracy must be strengthened in a world increasingly dominated by forces we do not control.
Letters to my Grandchildren, by Tony Benn, will be published in October by Hutchinson