http://terrorism-news.blogspot.com/....And again, this bomb thing....I've written about this a little while back. The big changes since? North Korea now has a bomb...Or claim to have tested one. Iran is frantically working on developing one, so they say.
Mr. Bush has indeed voiced his opinion on this for some time. And it would be a blessing if the Nations who have developed these awful things could get together and eliminate the whole frightful mess. It will never happen. As I recall it is said that the USA has an arsenal of 2400 Atomic or Hydrogen Bombs. Some of them are aimed at various targets. Some constantly in the air 24/7, some under the sea, submarines, ready to launch at any time it is felt by the administration to do so.
......today's Russia, Federal Russian Republic; former Sovietunion is said to have stock and control of 1800 units... (some of these items used to be kept in former domains of the USSR such as the Ukraine, Georgia and a few of the ....stan areas.
Britain and France stock and own about 50 to 60 each. China keeps stock of atomic arsenals.
India and Pakistan are part of this nuclear club.
Israel is suspected to have a few atomic bombs in their reserve arsenal.
Germany and Japan .....No bombs, they the former enemies of the USA are under the US Umbrella...Whatever that is all about.
The USA is the only country who under President Truman in 1945 actually deployed 2 bombs on the population of Japan thus quickly ending the 2nd. World War.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
New Nuclear Challenge
Non-proliferation at the CrossroadsDr. Chintamani MahapatraSchool of International Studies, JNUFurther proliferation of nuclear weapons threatens to destabilize the global stability to an extent that has never happened before. North Korea has just conducted a nuclear explosive test. It has certainly not surprised the world. Unlike India, Pyongyang gave enough notice to the international community before actually exploding a nuclear device.While many countries are still struggling to come to terms with this latest development in the Korean peninsula, serious minded experts have begun to assess the impact of this development on the existing non-proliferation regime itself.Iran, for instance, has been refusing to give up its plan to establish a full nuclear fuel cycle in its territory. China and Pakistan are strengthening their nuclear cooperation through proposed establishment of additional nuclear reactors in Pakistan. While Pakistan has closed the file on the Khan international black market network, doubts remain that the network is still operating, though at a lower scale.On the other hand, India’s decision to open up its civilian nuclear reactors to full-scope safeguards under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in return for the Nuclear Suppliers Group’s (NSG) willingness to allow India to import civilian nuclear technology and nuclear fuels hangs in the balance due to the delay in the US Congress to approve an amendment bill to the 1954 Atomic Energy Act. The North Korean explosion is expected to cast a shadow over this deal, although the Indian officials appear quite optimistic. Secondly, Libya’s exemplary step to abandon the nuclear weapon path has not been followed by some other suspected countries in the Middle East, which entertain the idea of acquiring nuclear bombs by hook or by crook.The United States, which has often behaved in unilateral ways in recent years, has been trying to follow a multilateral means to tackle the problem of nuclear proliferation. It not only sought the help of the European Union’s diplomatic moves to deal with the Iranian nuclear issue but also went to the UN Security Council to address this issue. In the case of the North Korean nuclear program, Washington has backed a six-nation initiative (US, Russia, China, Japan and the two Koreas) to keep the Korean Peninsula nuclear weapon free. In the wake of revelations about a nuclear material black market run by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, Washington sought the help of Britain and some other countries to persuade Libya to give up its nuclear drive. In order to prevent terrorist groups from acquiring nuclear equipment or material, the US took the leadership in establishing a Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to interdict the shipping containers carrying such materials.The Bush Administration has failed to achieve its goals in some of these areas and is yet to completely succeed in others. The defiance of Tehran and North Korea to international pressure, including the one from the UN Security Council threatens to undermine the credibility of the UN system as a body that can prevent conflict and maintain peace. Neither of these two countries is a major power, but both have managed to disobey the appeals, requests and even strong recommendations of the Security Council.While the high politics in the UN and lack of consensus among the big powers may be said to be partly responsible for emboldening Tehran and Pyongyang, the unanimous resolutions passed in the UN Security Council on Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs in the absence of a consensus on future course of action undermines the functioning of the UN system.The UN system has been continually under stress. But what is more regrettable is the fact that the dilly-dallying of the big five on such crucial issue has ushered in an era leading to the emergence of new nuclear weapon powers. The nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula has altered the geopolitical balance in East Asia.The North Korean nuclear bomb would have cascading effects on Japan, Taiwan and possibly South Korea. Taiwan was experimenting with nuclear weapons in 1970s and gave it up under US pressure. It would take a very short time for Japan to create a highly credible and capable nuclear arsenal. South Korea has also the technical ability to develop nuclear weapons and it has been under the US pressure not to do so. The US inability to prevent a North Korean nuclear bomb will certainly raise the question of credibility in Tokyo and Seoul and both these countries may decide to possess their own deterrent.In the mean time, if Iran becomes new nuclear weapon powers, the geopolitics of the Persian Gulf will be in for a major transformation. Once Iran goes nuclear, can Saudi Arabia be far behind. It is true that the Saudis do not have any indigenous nuclear program. The oil rich kingdom does not need a nuclear energy program and it is meaningless to think of such a program there. But then the same logic would go for Iran as well, which is also an oil rich country. In any case, there have been reports about the Saudi ruling elite hobnobbing with the idea of keeping a small nuclear arsenal. The most plausible case of Saudi bomb will be a transfer of a complete bomb by Pakistan to Saudi Arabia in exchange of money. Iraq’s nuclear ambitions have been dashed to the ground and the next country that worries the most about a possible Iranian domination of the Persian Gulf is Saudi Arabia.So far no oil rich country in the Middle East has been able to acquire a nuclear weapon capability. There have been strong desires in some of the Arab countries to do so, particularly after Israel’s nuclear weapon capability came to the surface. The sunni Pakistan has the nuclear capability, but the Arabs would not like to depend on Islamabad for their protection from an Israeli nuclear weapon capability. Nor would they like to depend on the Iranian bomb—a country that threatened to export its Islamic revolution and destabilize the prevailing ruling establishments. Before long the proud Arabs may be in search of a nuclear weapon.Expansion of the nuclear club is in nobody’s interest except the countries which are trying to break out of the non-proliferation nets and their international commitments and develop a few nuclear bombs. But there is no consensus among the powerful countries on the measures to be adopted to prevent further proliferation. Secondly, the American unilateralism has also certain impact on the nuclear aspirants, since they believe that a nuclear bomb can protect them from big power intervention. The US cannot adopt unilateral military intervention as a strategy of foreign policy and simultaneously expect other countries to come on board to fight proliferation. Multilateralism across the board is the demand of the day. It can alone help prevent further proliferation of lethal weapons.
