-
-
Is Iran ending cooperation with IAEA?
VIENNA (AP) — Iran signaled Thursday that it will no longer cooperate with U.N. experts probing for signs of clandestine nuclear weapons work, confirming the investigation is at a dead end a year after it began.
The announcement from Iranian Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh compounded skepticism about denting Tehran's nuclear defiance, just five days after Tehran stonewalled demands from six world powers that it halt activities capable of producing the fissile core of warheads.
Besides demanding a suspension of uranium enrichment — a process that can create both fuel for nuclear reactors and payloads for atomic bombs — the six powers have been pressing Tehran to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency's probe.
Iran, which is obligated as a signer of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty not to develop nuclear arms, raised suspicions about its intentions when it admitted in 2002 that it had run a secret nuclear program for nearly two decades in violation of its commitment.
The Tehran regime insists it halted such work and is now only trying to produce fuel for nuclear reactors to generate electricity. It agreed on a "work plan" with the Vienna-based IAEA a year ago for U.N. inspectors to look into allegations Iran is still doing weapons work. VIENNA (AP) — Iran signaled Thursday that it will no longer cooperate with U.N. experts probing for signs of clandestine nuclear weapo... more -
Chavez left unanswered questions about Russian military base in Venezuela
Chavez, a close ally of the regime in Havana, said he had passed on greetings to Medvedev from the former Cuban leader, Fidel Castro. During the Soviet era, Cuba was a close ally of Moscow and in 1962 the site of a major Cold War confrontation over the placement of Soviet missiles.
During a press conference, Chavez left unanswered questions on whether Russian military aircraft and naval vessels could be based in Venezuela in the future.
The mass-circulation tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda said there was speculation Chavez may allow Russia to establish a training facility or military base in the country
Medvedev, while not endorsing Chavez’ remarks about the U.S., said he was ready to work with the Venezuelan president in the “common task to achieve a more democratic, just and secure world.”
Venezuela is already Russia’s largest weapons customer in Latin America, having raised eyebrows in recent years with the signing of contracts to buy military helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov automatic rifles.
Bilateral trade reached $1 billion in 2007, mainly due to the arms trade, according to the Russian government statistics.
Chavez, a close ally of the regime in Havana, said he had passed on greetings to Medvedev from the former Cuban leader, Fidel Castro. ... more -
US general warns Russia on nuclear bombers in Cuba
Russia would cross "a red line for the United States of America" if it were to base nuclear capable bombers in Cuba, a top US air force officer warned.
"If they did I think we should stand strong and indicate that is something that crosses a threshold, crosses a red line for the United States of America," General Norton Schwartz, nominated to be the air force's chief of staff, said Tuesday.
He was referring to a report in the newspaper Izvestia that said the Russian military is thinking of flying long-range bombers to Cuba on a regular basis in response to US plans to install missile defenses in eastern Europe.
Izvestia cited an unnamed senior Russian air force official as saying such flights were under discussion. But it was unclear whether they would involve permanent basing of nuclear bombers in Cuba, or just use of the island as a refueling stop.
In his confirmation hearing to become the air force's chief of staff, Schwartz was asked what he would recommend if Russia were to base nuclear capable bombers in Cuba.
"I would certainly offer the best military advice that we engage the Russians not to pursue that approach," he said, adding that Russia would cross a "red line" if it did.
A White House spokeswoman declined to comment on the Izvestia report because there had been no "official response from the Russian government."
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman responded to the report by saying, "That scenario is hypothetical and speculative at this point."
Conducting long-range bomber patrols to Cuba would signal a reawakening of military cooperation by former Cold War allies Moscow and Havana, and resurrects issues that first arose with the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.
The crisis, which brought Washington and Moscow to the brink of nuclear war, ended with an understanding that Moscow would remove its intermediate range missiles from Cuba and not introduce strategic systems in the island.
Russia would cross "a red line for the United States of America" if it were to base nuclear capable bombers in Cuba, a top US air forc... more -
McCain jokes about killing Iranians with cigarettes
John McCain, who once sang in jest about bombing Iran, on Tuesday reacted to a report of rising U.S. cigarette exports to the country by saying it may be "a way of killing 'em."
McCain, known for acerbic comments and for sometimes firing verbally from the hip, was responding to a report that U.S. exports to Iran rose tenfold during President George W. Bush's term in office despite hostility between the two states.
A rise in cigarette sales was a big part of that, according to an Associated Press analysis of seven years of U.S. trade figures.
"Maybe that's a way of killing 'em," McCain said to reporters during a campaign stop in Pittsburgh. "I meant that as a joke, as a person who hasn't had a cigarette in 28 years, 29 years," he added, laughing.
He declined further comment on the report.
John McCain, who once sang in jest about bombing Iran, on Tuesday reacted to a report of rising U.S. cigarette exports to the country ... more -
AMERICA THE NOT SO GREAT
America is a great nation but that doesn't mean that it is a perfect nation. We have experienced disasters, terrorism, and death but America has also been one of the greatest purveyors of violence in history.
Patriotism is not to be judged by one's blind loyalty to their nation but is judged by one's committment to make their nation great and stay true to the pillars of its inception. America is a great nation but that doesn't mean that it is a perfect nation. We have experienced disasters, terrorism, and death but A... more -
the other presidential contest.
Less than six months after the next American president takes office, Iran will hold its own Election Day. To win that race takes not only popular acclaim but the approval of one man—Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—and so far, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has the edge. For all his economic and diplomatic bungling, Ahmadinejad is still liked by Iran's poor: he stands up to the West; he knows how to talk to ordinary folk, and he's never been accused of personal corruption. Fat oil revenues help, too. Most important, he's no threat to Khamenei. Here's a look at other contenders.
Ali Larijani: Speaker of Majlis (Parliament). Khamenei likes him, but his ego puts others off.
Gholam Ali Haddad Adel: Supreme Leader's in-law and friend, not independent enough for some voters.
Mohammad Khatami: Reformist ex-president, widely seen as hopelessly wishy-washy.
Mehdi Karrubi: Tougher than Khatami, but equally poor odds. Reformists like him scare Khatami.
Mohammad Jafar Ghalibaf: War-hero mayor of Tehran has been running since 2005.
I wonder if the current administration has taken this into account while planning to deal with Iran. Less than six months after the next American president takes office, Iran will hold its own Election Day. To win that race takes not o... more -
War with Iran will not stop "nuclear program".
A U.S. military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities could set Tehran's program back years but would raise the risk of retaliation against American troops in the region and of driving Iran to work even harder to make atomic weapons, U.S. experts and officials say.
Any U.S. attack -- something the Pentagon insists is not planned but is subject of frequent speculation as Iran defies calls to rein in its nuclear program -- could involve thousands of sorties and missile launches against hundreds of targets.It would be limited to air strikes, rather than a full-scale attack requiring U.S. ground forces, who are now tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, analysts said.
But the strike would be hampered by a lack of intelligence on the number and location of the nuclear facilities dispersed throughout Iran, according to nuclear security experts.
At best, many experts say a U.S. strike could delay Iran's nuclear weapons capability by three to five years. Parts of the program would likely survive, perhaps even critical technologies and certainly know-how.
"We could set it back probably at least several months maybe a few years but then we run the risk of stimulating them to work even harder next time, burying facilities even deeper, putting in more air defence batteries," said Charles Ferguson, nuclear expert at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank.facilities are scattered throughout the country and could be included as targets, experts speculated. Satellite pictures suggest Iran has dug tunnels around Natanz, for example, which could contain uranium enrichment equipment.
Nuclear research facilities in Iran's capital might be targeted as well, but such strikes raise the risk of civilian casualties and the attendant risk of international uproar, said U.S. defense officials, speaking on condition of anonymity.The military risks, however, are high, according to both defense analysts and officials.
Primary among them is the possibility of retaliation against U.S. troops by Islamist militant groups Washington says Tehran supports. The U.S. military accuses Iran of training and equipping the Shi'ite militias in Iraq, which are seen by U.S. commanders as one of the largest threats in that country.
But particularly frightening to officials inside the Pentagon is the possibility Iran would use suicide boats to attack U.S. ships in the Gulf or to disrupt crude oil trade.
A U.S. military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities could set Tehran's program back years but would raise the risk of retaliation agai... more -
Israel flies 100 planes to show Iran its striking power
Tehran yesterday "denounced Israel as a "threat to global peace" after Israel held a large military exercise in an apparent dress rehearsal for a potential attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.
An Iranian government spokesman, Gholam-Hossein Elham, dismissed suggestions of an attack by Israel as "impossible", the official IRNA news agency reported.
He said "the threats and the claims of [the] Zionist regime" proved Iran's view that Israel was "dangerous and a threat to the global peace and security".
Elham's remarks came after Pentagon officials confirmed US media reports of a large military exercise by Israel earlier this month to show Iran that it had the capacity to strike at its nuclear facilities.
More than 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s flew more than 900 miles in the Mediterranean, roughly the distance from Israel to Iran's Natanz nuclear plant. They were accompanied by refuelling planes and helicopters for rescuing any downed crews.
A source in Washington described the exercise as "sabre-rattling" and said he did not think an attack was imminent.
"If the Israelis were serious about it, no one would know about it until after it has happened," he said.
Nonetheless, the development sent oil prices higher after it was leaked to the New York Times by the Pentagon.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, responded to the news by saying an attack would turn the region into a "fireball" adding that he would resign if there were a military strike.
Both the US and Israel have said they will not allow Iran to secure a nuclear weapon capability. Iran says its nuclear development is for civilian purposes and it has no ambition to build a bomb.
Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, warned Israel and the US against any attack, saying there was no evidence that Iran was intent on building a nuclear weapon. Asked about Israeli warnings this month, Lavrov said yesterday: "I hope the actual actions would be based on international law. And international law clearly protects Iran's and anyone else's territorial integrity."
Pentagon officials told reporters that the Israelis "have been conducting some large-scale exercises - they live in a tough neighbourhood".
The leak came a week after Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, offered a deal to Tehran to stop uranium enrichment, a stage in the development of a nuclear weapon capability. Tehran has not ruled it out.
The leak could be designed to put pressure on Iran - but it may be counterproductive, pushing Tehran into rejection. Two days after the offer, while George Bush was visiting London, Gordon Brown announced tougher financial sanctions against Iran.
There has long been speculation that Bush, prodded by Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, might launch an attack - or give the green light to Israel to launch one - before leaving office next January. But that speculation is receding.
The Israeli military refused to comment on the exercise but said its air force "regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel".
Although Israel says it favours tougher sanctions to curb Iranian nuclear ambitions, it has pointedly not ruled out military action.
This week, Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, repeated his warning that Iran remained the biggest threat in the region. "I don't think we deserve to live under the threat of a nuclear Iran," he said in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald published on Thursday.
Shaul Mofaz, a deputy prime minister and former army chief, provoked criticism this month when he told an Israeli newspaper that an attack was unavoidable. "If Iran continues its programme to develop nuclear weapons we will attack it," said Mofaz, who is in charge of Israel's strategic dialogue with the US over such issues as Iran" ....
By Ewen MacAskill, Rory McCarthy and agencies. Tehran yesterday "denounced Israel as a "threat to global peace" after Israel held a large military exercise in an apparent dress rehe... more -
Obama pledges support for Israel
Barack Obama has pledged unwavering support for Israel in his first foreign policy speech since declaring himself the Democratic nominee for president.
He told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), a prominent Jewish lobby, Israel's security was "sacrosanct" and "non-negotiable".
He also said he would do "everything" to stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon.
As the Democrats' primary season ended, Mr Obama received the support of enough delegates to clinch the nomination.
His rival, Hillary Clinton, has yet to concede.
Their speeches to Aipac focused on similar topics - with Mr Obama setting out what he would do as US president, while Mrs Clinton referred to what "the next president" should do.
She told Aipac the Democratic party's strong commitment to Israel would continue under the next Democratic president.
"I know Senator Obama understands what is at stake here," she said.
"It is an honour to call him my friend - and let me be clear, I know that Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel."
~~~~~~~~
This is the first thing he does after declaring himself the winner of the nomination? Don't tell me that none of them are beholding to lobbies to get elected in this country. And isn't that sweet? After all the division they caused they are now friends because they will get what they want. This to me is not the politics of change but the status quo.
Did Obama or Clinton mention that it is wrong for any country including Israel to have nukes? Did they explain why American taxpayers don't have healthcare but yet our money goes to buy tanks and weapons for the Israeli government to bomb innocent people and children and keep them from having water and food thus putting their own people in danger of attacks? And what does Obama mean by doing "everything" to eliminate the threat of Iran getting a weapon? Didn't the IAEA already claim they don't have one? That sounds just like the rhetoric we are getting now. Does this also mean that if Bush moves to attack Iran they would condone it?
Just what country are they running for president for? Why is such devotion to AIPAC obligatory for every presidential candidate? What about obligations to the people of this country who on the whole have had enough of this? When someone actually sees the "change" he speaks of, let me know. Barack Obama has pledged unwavering support for Israel in his first foreign policy speech since declaring himself the Democratic nomin... more -
The Bomb People
What puts the "mass" in Weapons of Mass Destruction? Nuclear Weapons. Adam Yamaguchi visits the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria, the world's nuclear detective agency, and learns about the state of nuclear proliferation today, and what the UN's nuclear watchdogs are doing to keep tabs on it. What puts the "mass" in Weapons of Mass Destruction? Nuclear Weapons. Adam Yamaguchi visits the International Atomic Energy Agency i... more
-
No more Nuclear bombs! Abolish Nukes!!!!
Please sign this and pass it onto everyone you know.
Help me tell the next President that we will no longer stand for this terrible stuff.
Thank you-
PEACE Please sign this and pass it onto everyone you know. ... more -
McCain nuclear proliferation/Iran attack ‘speech’ interrupted
Several times! Good work guys/girls! The tide is turning.
-
Nuclear power is no solution to the climate crisis: exposing the myths
The nuclear industry is hoping that concern over climate change will result in support for nuclear power. However, even solely on the grounds of economic criteria it offers poor value for money in displacing fossil fuel plant. Further, with its high cost, long construction time, high environmental risk and problems resulting from waste management, it is clear that nuclear power does not offer a viable solution to climate change. Rather a mixture of energy efficiency and renewable energy offers a quicker, more realistic and sustainable approach to reducing CO2 emissions.
The nuclear industry is hoping that concern over climate change will result in support for nuclear power. However, even solely on the ... more -
Nuclear subsidies in Lieberman/Warner bill draw criticism
The leaders of six national environmental and public interest groups warned today that the impending Lieberman-Warner climate change bill could contain at least $544 billion in taxpayer subsidies for nuclear energy. This would represent the biggest federal handout in history for the nuclear industry, already the most heavily subsidized energy sector over the past 50 years.
The Lieberman-Warner bill is expected to be on the Senate floor in early June. According to an analysis conducted by Friends of the Earth, the bill contains close to half a trillion dollars that can be accessed by the nuclear energy industry under a vaguely entitled category for “zero and low carbon energy technologies.” Nuclear is the only energy industry that could fall under this category that does not have a specific carve elsewhere; funding for renewable energy is identified separately in the bill.
“Although the word ‘nuclear’ has been carefully omitted from the bill, it is clear that this is a covert attempt to bolster a failing nuclear power industry in the name of addressing climate change,” said Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth. “It’s time to focus on real global warming solutions like solar, wind and energy efficiency, not to further fatten the moribund nuclear calf.”
The environmental and public interest group leaders decried the bill’s record-breaking giveaway to nuclear power which would encourage new construction of nuclear plants, the least-effective way of reducing carbon emissions because of their long construction times and high costs.
"After 50 years of unresolved safety and waste disposal issues, it perplexes many Americans why Congress would support massive subsidies for the nuclear industry," said John Passacantando, Executive Director of Greenpeace USA. "Nuclear power is a dirty and dangerous distraction from real global warming solutions," said Passacantando. "When both Wall Street and Warren Buffet think nuclear is a risky investment, Congress should not waste American tax dollars to further subsidize this 1950s technology."
~~~~
So not only does this bill disguised as a climate change bill when it is nothing more than a pork bill to polluters call for investment in CSS systems for the coal industry to allow themmore time to pollute, but the biggest subsidies for the nuclear industry. And this is the best we can do?
The leaders of six national environmental and public interest groups warned today that the impending Lieberman-Warner climate change b... more -
U.S.-India Nuclear Deal Spurs Pakistan Nuclear Pact With China
Islamabad and Beijing will set up a corporation shortly to build nuclear and coal-based power plants in Pakistan. The decision to form the China-Pakistan Power Plant Corporation was taken during Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s visit to China last month.
Sources said China had promised to help meet Pakistan’s nuclear energy requirements of 8,800 MW by 2030 by expediting the delivery of six plants of 300 MW each. Earlier, the country had assisted Pakistan in setting up the Chashma-1 and Chashma-2 plants of the same capacity.
The sources said that several joint working groups and studies were being undertaken by the two countries to speed up cooperation in different fields, particularly the energy sector.
“But side by side, Pakistan is building a $1.2 billion facility to develop capability to manufacture full-cycle nuclear fuel and power plants,” the sources said. They said the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) would establish the Pakistan Nuclear Power Fuel Complex (PNPFC) to attain 100 per cent indigenous capability to manufacture pressurised water reactors (PWR) and nuclear power plants.
Pakistan had taken the decision to set up the complex in the face of nuclear suppliers’ denial of the technology to all except favoured ones. They cited as example the US deal with India on civil nuclear technology sales.
Islamabad and Beijing will set up a corporation shortly to build nuclear and coal-based power plants in Pakistan. The decision to form... more -
Nuclear energy heats up U.S. Presidential race
John McCain embraces it. Barack Obama wants to address its flaws. Hillary Clinton is cautious but not opposed.
Nuclear power -- controversial in the United States and throughout much of the world -- is on the agenda of all three US presidential candidates as they seek to diversify the country's energy mix and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
Interviews with top policy advisers to the three White House hopefuls reveal a varied approach to the technology that some observers see as a necessary answer to fighting climate change and others view as expensive and dangerous.
McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona who has wrapped up his party's nomination, is by far the most enthusiastic about the carbon-free fuel source, regularly calling for more nuclear power plants at campaign stops throughout the nation.
"I believe we are not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and become energy independent ... unless we use nuclear power and use it in great abundance," he said in North Carolina on Monday.
McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said nuclear power faced an "uneven playing field" from years of political opposition.
"Sen. McCain would eliminate the political obstacles that hinder nuclear power, allow it to compete more effectively, and likely increase its share of the US energy portfolio," he said.
Nuclear energy accounts for about 20 percent of US electricity supply, a figure that could rise if regulations on carbon dioxide emissions are imposed, making greenhouse gas emission-free nuclear plants more attractive.
There are 104 operating nuclear reactors nationwide.
Obama, an Illinois senator and the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, shares McCain's belief that nuclear energy is part of the solution to climate change.
But he opposes new federal subsidies and would work to address concerns about safety and waste storage, senior adviser Jason Grumet said.
"Because of the fact that climate change is a species-challenging dilemma, we don't have the luxury to do anything but try to solve those real problems," associated with nuclear technology, he said.
Clinton, a New York senator, prefers using renewable fuels to fight climate change because of nuclear energy's risks.
"Hillary has real concerns about nuclear power because of the issues around safety, waste disposal and proliferation," policy director Neera Tandem said.
"She opposes new subsidies for nuclear power, but would continue research focused on lowering costs and improving safety."
John McCain embraces it. Barack Obama wants to address its flaws. Hillary Clinton is cautious but not opposed. ... more -
US and Russia in sandwich battle
The US may have won the Cold War, but its culinary skills are sadly behind.
-
What would happen to climate if India & Pakistan got into a nuclear war?
What would happen to climate if India & Pakistan got into a nuclear war?
CU Salon Series
How Serious Is Climate Change?
April 17, 2008 - Moderated by: Richard Brenne
Featured Panelists:
NCAR Social Scientist and IPCC Report author Dr. Patricia Romero Lankao
CU Atmospheric Science Department Chair Dr. Brian Toon
NCAR Social Scientist and IPCC Report author Dr. Kevin Trenberth
produced by OnSight Media
www.onsight-media.com What would happen to climate if India & Pakistan got into a nuclear war? CU Salon Series How Serious Is Climate Change? ... more -
Would attack on Iran be fulfillment of Bible prophecy?
If you read the book of Revelations in the BIble, it mentions a final battle between West and East (Armageddon,) and nuclear exchanges are involved. It is hard to not then question whether or not this is one motivation of Neocons in this government and Israel in trying to lead us to a war with Iran. The link above gives a very comprehensive overview of a place called Megiddo where many of history's greatest battles were fought. I admit it may sound a bit farfetched, but is it really considering who we are dealing with? If you read the book of Revelations in the BIble, it mentions a final battle between West and East (Armageddon,) and nuclear exchanges... more
-
Deadly exposure: Cancers plague children of the Manhattan Project
The New Mexican's cover story tells of how children in Los Alamos were another "collateral damage" of the government that failed to protect U.S. citizens from toxic exposure.
Sue Vorenberg | The New Mexican
5/3/2008 -
"On its unclassified surface, the quiet mountain town of Los Alamos seemed an idyllic place to raise children in the 1940s and 1950s.
Young boys would run down the canyons, chasing paper sailboats as they splashed through trickling streams. They'd fish, or try to catch a glimpse of wild deer as they built tents to camp in the wilderness behind their homes in the sealed community.
Little girls would splash in puddles on the sidewalk in the late spring rains, and hug their daddies when they came home from their jobs — covered in the toxic and sometimes radioactive materials they secretly worked with during the day.
"We thought we were in a good place because it was a closed city and our parents didn't have to worry about us getting kidnapped," said Lynne Loss, 65, who lived in Los Alamos from 1949 to 1957. "We had no idea what was going on."
Contact Sue Vorenberg at 986-3072 or svorenberg@sfnewmexican.com.
Photo by William H. Regan/Palace of the Governors, Negative No. 059227
An aerial view of Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory around 1950 shows what appears to be an idyllic place. But some people who lived as children in Los Alamos in the 1940s and ’50s say the area was filled with toxic waste. A lawsuit filed last month charges the lab with negligence and wrongful death.
Image 3 of 3
______________
Via your friends at TouchArt.net and OneEarthBlog.blogspot.com
"Spread the word that nuclear energy and weapons kill our own, poison the earth and can not be safe." Charleen Touchette TouchArt@aol.com
The New Mexican's cover story tells of how children in Los Alamos were another "collateral damage" of the government that failed to pr... more
-
related topics
Nuclear War
Contributors (173)
Nuclear War
