Iran Call for Nuclear Abolition by 2025 is Unreported by New York Times

Logo of the Non-Aligned Movement
(photo: Wikipedia)

This guest blog was written by Alice Slater.

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), formed in 1961 during the Cold War, is a group of 120 states and 17 observer states not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc.  The NAM held its opening 2012 session yesterday under the new chairmanship of Iran, which succeeded Egypt as the Chair.

Significantly, an Associated Press story in the Washington Post headlined, “Iran opens nonaligned summit with calls for nuclear arms ban”, reported that “Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi opened the gathering by noting commitment to a previous goal from the nonaligned group, known as NAM, to remove the world’s nuclear arsenals within 13 years. ‘We believe that the timetable for ultimate removal of nuclear weapons by 2025, which was proposed by NAM, will only be realized if we follow it up decisively,’ he told delegates.”

Stuxnet...An Act of War Against Iran?

In 1935 102 cane toads were introduced in Eastern Australia as a tool to control the cane beetle, a local pest to sugar cane. Today there are over 200 million cane toads in Australia, which besides poisoning pets and humans as well as depleting native fauna has directly cost local governments hundreds of thousands of dollars to control, on top of the other economic losses caused by the introduced species. ¹

This is not a story about toads though. This is a story about a virus the United States introduced to the internet which could have much greater consequences than some toads down under. This is a story about the United States authorizing acts of war against Iran over the enrichment of nuclear fuel.

Answering Bolton and Yoo: New START Will Strengthen U.S. National Security

Two staunch ideologues who served in the George W. Bush administration, John Bolton and John Yoo, ask rhetorically in a New York Times opinion piece, “Why Rush to Cut Nukes?”  Bolton, a recess appointment as United Nations Ambassador under Bush II, never met an arms limitation agreement that he supported.  Yoo, the lawyer who wrote memos supporting the legality of water boarding under international law (not a very favorable prospect for captured U.S. soldiers), worked in Bush II’s Justice Department.  Bolton and Yoo can find no good reason to support the New START agreement with the Russians, arguing that without amendments it will weaken “our national defense.”

Let me answer the question posed in the title of their article.

My Critique of Nuclear Deterrence in The New York Times

On Saturday, October 9, my letter to the editor of The New York Times was printed. The letter was in response to an earlier editorial from the Times that essentially called on the UK to scale back its plans for replacing its Trident nuclear weapon system and rely on the United States for a full "nuclear deterrent."

Before joining the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, I worked for two years with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in the UK. CND has worked tirelessly for over 50 years against nuclear weapons in the UK and around the world. Trident replacement was a huge issue when I worked there in 2006-07, as it continues to be now.

Typically I only write letters to the editor when an article or editorial gets me so fired up, I have no choice but to respond. This was one of those cases. Here at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we are working hard to debunk the myth of nuclear deterrence, like in our new 5-minute animated video. Combine that with my history and passion for preventing the UK from replacing its nuclear weapon system and you have a perfect story for me to comment on.

An Unflinching Look At Afghanistan: What Do the WikiLeaks Afghan War Diaries Really Reveal?

By Jasmine Heiss

On July 26, WikiLeaks released a huge cache of more than 75,000 secret US military reports covering the war in Afghanistan. The full compendium of over 91,000 reports, known as the Afghan War Diary, is being hailed as the most significant archive about the reality of a war to have ever been released during the course of a conflict.

Despite their significance, the reports aren’t exactly polished journalistic writing. They are generally written by field units who are answering critical questions: Who, When, Where, What, With Whom, by What Means, and Why. To help make sense of this raw intelligence, Reader Supported News has published a comprehensive everyman’s reading guide (beginning about halfway down the page). One of the most valuable insights that the Reader Supported News offers is the deeply rooted origin of cover-ups: “When reporting their own activities US Units are inclined to classify civilian kills as insurgent kills, downplay the number of people killed or otherwise make excuses for themselves,” they observe. “Conversely, when reporting on the actions of non-US ISAF forces the reports tend to be frank or critical and when reporting on the Taliban or other rebel groups, bad behavior is described in comprehensive detail.”

Small Leak at Chinese Nuclear Plant Reported

According to the New York Times, China reported a small leak from one of their nuclear power plants. The Chinese government claims that sometime last month, trace amounts of radioactive iodine and noble gases leaked into cooling fluid. According to the utility company which reported the leak, international standards do not require the report of such small quantities.

Claims of a government cover-up abound. The nuclear plant, located on Daya Bay in Shenzhen—50km from Hong Kong, is a state-owned facility. The Chinese government was forced to admit to the leak following reports on Radio Free Asia—a month after the leak occurred on May 23, 2010.

Since the incident, the Hong Kong Observatory has tracked radiation levels at the plant, and has reported no abnormal readings.

Dept. of Energy Rules Out the Nuclear Option for the Oil Leak

William Broad of the New York Times wrote yesterday that the Department of Energy has ruled out using a nuclear device in order to stop the BP oil leak, calling the idea "crazy".  The leading proponent of the suggestion, Matt Simmons--a Houston energy expert and investment banker, noted that the Russians used nuclear weapons to end gas leaks five times from 1966-1981.  Only the last attempt by the Russians was unsuccessful, the Broad stated.

While several million gallons of oil continue to spill into the Gulf, harming all wildlife in its wake, a nuclear device to plug the leak would be a terrible option.  For one, the ecological and environmental consequences are completely unknown.  Second, there is no guarantee that a detonation would stop the leak.  To those who point to the successful Russian attempts, it should be noted that in each instance the leak occurred on gas land wells, NOT offshore oil rigs.  Broad also argues that using a nuclear weapon would violate arms treaties at a time when President Obama is promulgating nuclear disarmament.