Pakistan’s Nuclear Terrorism

Taliban flaunts missile launch: Threat to world security

[ April 29, 2015 12:56:00 ] The deadly Pakistan-based Islamist group Tehreek-e-Taliban (TTP) has become deadlier. If its claims that it has developed an indigenous missile named Omar-1 which it successfully test-fired are true then it poses a grave threat not only to Pakistan and Afghanistan but to the regional and international security as well. Terrorism has acquired new dimensions and threatens to alter the status of the world order. The scenario is very scary. The new firepower will not only help grow the influence of the fundamentalist Islamic forces, it will also endanger the actors who created them. And Pakistan will be the first to face the heat as its security forces have stepped up operations against the Taliban following a dastardly attack on a Peshawar school in which 145 people lost their lives, including 132 school children. And the Taliban has made its intentions clear by stating that its enemies will be on the run. From now onwards, the Taliban will not only be able to inflict maximum pain on its adversaries, it can widen its operations as the missile can easily be assembled and dissembled in accordance to the situation. What we are witnessing today is a new version of terrorism. The movement is acquiring a very deadly shape after it has drawn in its fold several highly qualified technocrats, who are religiously motivated, indoctrinated and bent on establishing an Islamist state. Technology, it is now apparent, is their latest weapon of the Taliban. With terror as their chosen instrument, these radical Islamists seek to remake the world. The more worrisome trend is the links between some retired Pakistani military and intelligence officials and nuclear scientists to Taliban and al-Qaeda militants. Without their help, it would not have been possible for the fundamentalists to acquire the technology to develop a missile. The latest development will give Western leaders nightmares about militants acquiring nuclear materials, or worse, an entire weapon. When the militants can develop a missile, can that be far behind? It certainly will be next on the agenda of militants. And god forbids if that happens, the entire mankind will be endangered. The consequences of the cocktail of terrorism and nuclear weapons can be very devastating. If militants have gained strength today, then Pakistan can not absolve its responsibility. It has allowed the militants to grow, giving them not only shelter but finances. Pakistan has long been suspected of playing a double game, fighting some militants while supporting those its generals have regarded as strategic assets to be used against rivals and neighbours, India and Afghanistan. Not only that, Pakistan has notoriously played a vital role in nuclear proliferation. One cannot forget the enormity of what Pakistani nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan has done. He created an elaborate, wholly illicit network by selling nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea and Libya. Was he doing it alone? Looks unlikely! The Pakistani establishment and the military in particular were completely complicit as Khan widened his nuclear black market. The fear of nuclear terrorism in Pakistan stemming from the danger of radical Islamists overrunning the country and gaining control of the country”s nuclear assets is arguably the greatest threat. The possibility of Pakistan”s nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands looks more real now than ever. And the world can”t turn its eyes off. There can be no second view about the fact that TTP is now a force to reckon with. Over the last few years and especially since the Nawaz Sharif”s PML (N) has come to power, the government of Pakistan has been floundering in its policy to tackle the challenge posed by this militant organisation. The government cannot be faulted for efforts to engage the TTP in talks as was spelled out in its election manifesto; it bent backwards in its efforts and managed a few rounds of dialogue. The TTP, however, arrogantly perceived this effort as a sign of weakness and has adopted unreasonable postures. Most distressing has been its policy of continuing with its violent activities even as the talks are underway. Time has come for Pakistan to act and act decisively. It will have to shun its approach of differentiating between good militants and bad militants. The United States has often reminded Pakistan to fight militant groups that threaten Afghan, Indian and U.S. interests. It is high time that pressure is built on Pakistan to target all militant groups to bring security to the region. Pakistan should also realize that a lot of its own citizens have died as a result of terrorism. A lot of members of their military have fallen dead. While the people of Pakistan talk in hushed tones against the TTP, an all out popular upsurge is not being witnessed. No violent movement can be quelled unless the people do not provide unrelenting support to the military and political initiative. Terrorism can be contained by the security forces only with unrelenting support of the local population. The people in Pakistan are presently on the fence-sitters phase, they want the Taliban out of their lives but are dependent upon the government and the security forces to do the dirty job, they are not coming forward to make a contribution. Not much can be achieved without such support coming by. It”s important for Pakistan to recognize that threat and to act against that threat. Not only Pakistan, it is also the responsibility of the international community to ensure that these militant groups do not gain a foothold but are pushed back into the recesses of memory. The world can”t afford to remain a silent spectator now. The top priority should be to ensure that Pakistan”s nuclear weapons and technology do not fall into the hands of terrorists. Xiaomi”s Tata coup Industrialist Ratan Tata has created quite a flutter by becoming the first Indian to invest in the cash-rich, fifth-largest smartphone vendor in India, the Chinese $45-billion Xiaomi Corp. While the amount Mr Tata has invested is not known, it is a real coup for the Chinese company, which has ambitions to be the number one smartphone vendor in India in three years. They had approached Mr Tata to act as adviser and mentor. But even more than helping us “tweak our business model”, as Xiaomi”s Manu Jain said, it is significant that Mr Tata, by putting his signature on one of China”s most successful start-ups, has helped dilute fears that Indian security agencies have had about Chinese equipment makers. Of course China”s credibility has come a long way since May 2013, when it was said that the Indian government had launched an investigation of Huawei and ZTE, both Chinese telecom equipment-makers, following security concerns over Beijing”s alleged involvement in cyber espionage. Prior to that there were concerns about using Chinese telecom equipment to roll out fibre optic networks. But that is all in the past as India too has advanced technologically to be able to put in place security safeguards.It is exciting to see what Mr Tata”s contribution will be in Xiaomi, which made news this week with the spectacular launch of the Mi4i, with 4i standing for India. Mr Tata has in the last one year invested in several e-commerce start-ups, but this one is different. Jaitley”s big challenge Finance minister Arun Jaitley faces one of his biggest challenges this week as the Lok Sabha decides the fate of the constitutional amendment bill on the Goods and Services Tax. The entire Opposition and some BJP allies had opposed the bill”s introduction, and many of them, excluding the allies, walked out, making the fate of the bill a fait accompli. Jaitley is said to be in hectic parleys to get the Congress and others to agree to a discussion as they keep insisting that the bill be sent to the standing committee. This is just political cussedness as the bill, that was first talked about in 2003 during the first BJP-led NDA government, has already been with the standing committee for two and a half years.The Congress seems to be paying the BJP back in the same coin as it were BJP-led states that had scuttled agreement on GST even though it was discussed threadbare by the empowered committee of state finance ministers during the Manmohan Singh government. It was alleged then the BJP was deliberately opposing the bill as it did not want the Congress to take credit for it. It is a sad commentary that such a major reform that could increase GDP by 2 per cent, facilitate the ease of doing business and give the states financial strength is being sacrificed at the altar of tit-for-tat. Mr Jaitley will need enormous give-and-take and generosity to get the Sonia Gandhi-led Congress to transcend its hurt pride. Why we Indians are an unhappy lot Money is not everything, but can you be happy if you don”t have it? That”s a no-brainer, obviously. But the SDSN report reminds us to seriously consider a policy orientation that may help in climbing the happiness chart. The third edition of the World Happiness Report suggests that India figures way down the list, meaning it is a more unhappy place to be in than most countries in the world. In a survey of 158 countries, it found itself in the rear of the pack at place 117, a slide from the rank of 111 a year ago. This can hardly be good advertisement for our society, our government, or our political and economic system. Obviously, there is a long way to go before we can turn the corner since we are so lowly placed. It hasn”t helped that the Indian economy flew at more than seven per cent annual average rate of growth between 2004 and 2014 in spite of the last two years of the UPA recording growth rates of less than five per cent – the best for any democracy ever. And the forecast for the first year of the Narendra Modi dispensation is somewhat higher. But even if this is not realised, the data should still be reasonably comforting. And yet, high growth rates do not automatically translate into promotion on the scale of the world happiness index, as tabulated by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, an initiative of the UN helmed by the well-known Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs. But it cannot be lost on anyone that the world”s happiest countries – Switzerland tops the list this year – are also among its richest. Money is not everything, but can you be happy if you don”t have it? That”s a no-brainer, obviously. But the SDSN report reminds us to seriously consider a policy orientation that may help in climbing the happiness chart. The yardstick adopted by SDSN makes it obvious that societies and countries should be caring, have social systems to be proud of, should respect freedoms, and should obviously also provide their people access to health, education and housing, and, not the least, should be low on corruption. India loses out on many of these pegs, and we should move quickly to fix the problem. The Modi government had promised much when it came in about a year ago, but the sense many have – rich and poor alike – is that action has not followed on words, although much was promised. Corruption levels have not changed but tolerance thresholds are lower, making for social disharmony. The economic expectations have not been met. While we take these on board, it does cause surprise that countries like war-torn Iraq, the nursery of terrorism Pakistan, and politically-wracked Bangladesh have outperformed India on the happiness index – Pakistan by a mile (it is ranked 81). No less surprising, Pakistan is ahead of China. The question then is, does the index need fixing, and, if so, how?

The Russian Nuclear Horn Expands (Dan 7:7)

Russia building nuclear reactors – and influence – around the globe

By Hannah Thoburn

April 29, 2015

Russia has been notoriously brazen in using state-owned companies as instruments of national power. President Vladimir Putin’s natural-gas wars with Belarus and Ukraine made headlines and sometimes left substantial parts of Europe in the cold. But Moscow’s exploits in other energy-related areas have been less noticed.

Recent revelations about the concerted Russian effort to buy up uranium resources across the globe may change that. For Moscow’s state-owned nuclear-energy company, Rosatom, has made successful inroads into markets around the world. It is Rosatom — not France’s Areva or the United States’ Westinghouse — that has 29 nuclear reactors in various stages of planning and construction in more than a dozen countries, the largest number of nuclear reactors being built internationally. In contrast, Areva, though largely owned by the French state, has not sold one reactor since 2007.

Much of Rosatom’s success can be ascribed to the strong support provided by the Russian government. Moscow recognized roughly 10 to 15 years ago that Rosatom’s work enables Russia to add another energy-related means of extending its long-term political influence throughout the world. Unlike oil or gas projects, Russia’s nuclear developments need not be in neighboring countries or even in its region — a fact that broadens the Kremlin’s investment options.

Globe-trotting deals

The countries that Russia and its state-owned nuclear company have signed agreements with in the past year are diverse indeed. The most recent deal is with Jordan, a land-locked, energy-poor Middle Eastern nation, which just agreed to have Rosatom complete two nuclear reactors by 2022.


Less than a month before the Jordanian agreement, Putin finalized a deal with Hungary for Rosatom to build and install two reactors to the already existing Soviet-built plant at Paks in south-central Hungary. The deal has come under intense scrutiny from the European Union over the source of the nuclear fuel, but looks set to go ahead.

Only days before the Hungary deal, Putin used his visit to Egypt to conclude a preliminary agreement with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Moscow is set to build Egypt’s first nuclear power plant, in the northern city of Alexandria.

In November, Russia signed a contract with Iran to build two more reactors at the Bushehr site, where Russia has already built one reactor that is now operational. The deal left open the possibility of Rosatom building an additional four reactors at a site yet to be determined.

India has long had a relationship with Rosatom, as New Delhi has worked desperately over the past years to increase its electricity production capacity. A Russian-built reactor came online at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant in 2013, a project conceived under the Soviet regime. Another reactor is to begin operation at Kudankulam later this year. Two more nuclear reactors are planned for construction at the same site. When Putin visited India in December 2014, the two governments confirmed that their cooperation in the nuclear sector would continue, with at least 10 more reactors planned in the coming years.

In northern Finland, Rosatom has started preliminary work on a site where a new nuclear plant is scheduled to come online in 2024. Turkey’s first nuclear plant, also built by Rosatom, is set to break ground this spring.



Rosatom is also looking toward Latin America. While Putin was touring South America in July 2014, the Russian leader and Argentine President Cristina Kirchner signed nuclear energy cooperation agreements and in April 2015 agreed to have Rosatom build a reactor at the Atucha-3 plant outside Buenos Aires. In February 2015, Rosatom concluded an agreement with Brazil’s National Nuclear Energy Commission to provide supplies of Molybdenium-99, an element used in many nonmilitary nuclear applications.

Crucial Moscow support

So why, tender after tender, are Russia and Rosatom having more success than Western nuclear firms? There are four key reasons:

Favorable financing. Though Russia may be hurting for cash because of international sanctions, Moscow is still willing to undertake projects that promise long-term gains. The returns are expected to be more than financial. The Putin regime sees these projects as part of its national strategy. It is willing to heavily subsidize Rosatom and also provide loans to countries too poor to afford its products. These subsidies mean that Rosatom can sell nuclear reactors at a far lower price than its competitors.

Rosatom’s Build, Own and Operate scheme. Many developing countries are keen to develop nuclear power as a source of comparatively cheap energy but are unable to raise the funds to build reactors. In addition, they have neither the desire nor the expertise to operate the reactors once they are built. The build, own and operate deals remove these obstacles and put the responsibility on the Russians. But they also hold the countries hostage to Russian desires and demands. Under these controversial deals, Russia and Rosatom provide nuclear fuel, processing when it has been depleted, education for workers and technicians, maintenance and installation of any needed upgrades. Turkey’s new plant at Akkuyu is the first set to be built under these conditions.




Rosatom’s relative freedom from governmental oversight. In comparison to the world’s other large companies engaged in nuclear construction, Areva of France, Westinghouse of the United States and TEPCO of Japan, Rosatom is not dissuaded from building in certain countries. In contrast, U.S. companies are prevented from building reactors in all but the 46 countries with which the United States has already concluded so-called 123 Agreements on the sharing of nuclear expertise. Countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh, where Rosatom is building reactors, are not on that list, effectively keeping U.S. companies from even competing for those deals.

Deal sweeteners. In certain circumstances, a nuclear deal with Russia is only part of a larger package. Vietnam’s collaboration with Russia, for example, has also allowed it to purchase submarines and other military equipment from Moscow.

West versus Rosatom

For all these reasons, competing against Russia and Rosatom has become increasingly difficult for Western corporations, which are steadily falling behind.

France’s Areva, for example, is in serious financial straits and must address recent revelations of technological problems with one of its reactor designs. Westinghouse is hamstrung by Americans’ reluctance to build new reactors. Foreign buyers often want to see how the reactor models they decide to build are running in a company’s base, and Westinghouse has nothing to show them. Japanese companies have been adversely affected by the 2011 meltdowns at the Fukushima power plant.
Meanwhile, Rosatom, backed by the full power of the Putin government, is expanding its international reach and, in doing so, widening the scope of Russian power. As it has begun to do in other arenas — media and finance, for example — Europe and the United States must identify and counter Russian influence in the energy sphere.

Sooner or later, Washington’s and Brussels’ instinct to ignore these challenges will not only seriously undermine Western businesses, it will also cede to Russia the international influence it so ardently seeks to purchase.

Babylon’s Nuclear Missiles Could Be Cyberattacked (Rev 15:2)

Former commander of US nuclear force urges taking missiles off high alert, citing cyberthreats

Published April 29, 2015

Associated Press

• FILE – In this April 21, 2011, file photo, Gen. James Cartwright takes part in a news conference at the Pentagon. A former commander of U.S. nuclear forces is leading a call for taking U.S. and Russian nuclear missiles off high alert, arguing that a longer fuse could keep a possible cyberattack from starting a nuclear war and would mean less risk of miscalculation in a crisis. Cartwright, who headed Strategic Command from 2004-07 and served as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before retiring in 2011, said in an interview that “de-alerting” nuclear arsenals would foil hackers by reducing the chance of launching a missile in response to a false warning of attack. He says this can be accomplished without eroding the weapons’ deterrent value. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File) (The Associated Press)
  

WASHINGTON –  Taking U.S. and Russian missiles off high alert could keep a possible cyberattack from starting a nuclear war, a former commander of U.S. nuclear forces says, but neither country appears willing to increase the lead-time to prepare the weapons for launch.

Retired Gen. James Cartwright said in an interview that “de-alerting” nuclear arsenals could foil hackers by reducing the chance of firing a weapon in response to a false warning of attack.

Essentially adding a longer fuse can be done without eroding the weapons’ deterrent value, said Cartwright, who headed Strategic Command from 2004 to 2007 and was vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before retiring in 2011.

The Obama administration has considered and rejected the idea before of taking nuclear missiles off high alert. There appears to be little near-term chance that Moscow would agree to pursue this or any other kind of nuclear arms control measure, given the deteriorating U.S.-Russian relations after Russia’s intervention in eastern Ukraine.

The U.S. and Russia also are at odds over a U.S. accusation that Moscow is violating a treaty banning medium-range nuclear missiles.

Robert Scher, the Pentagon’s top nuclear policy official, told Congress this month that “it did not make any great sense to de-alert forces” because the administration believes the missiles “needed to be ready and effective and able to prosecute the mission at any point in time.”

An example of the high alert level of U.S. nuclear weapons is the land-based nuclear force. These are the 450 Minuteman 3 missiles that are kept ready, 24/7, to launch from underground silos within minutes after receiving a presidential order.

A study led by Cartwright proposes to adjust the missile command and control system so that it would take 24 hours to 72 hours to get the missiles ready for launch.

Cartwright said cyberthreats to the systems that command and control U.S. nuclear weapons demand greater attention. While the main worry once was a hacker acting alone, today it is a hostile nation-state, he said, that poses more of a threat even as the Pentagon has improved its cyberdefenses.
 
“The sophistication of the cyberthreat has increased exponentially” over the past decade, he said Tuesday. “It is reasonable to believe that that threat has extended itself” into nuclear command and control systems. “Have they been penetrated? I don’t know. Is it reasonable technically to assume they could be? Yes.”

Cyberthreats are numerous and not fully understood, officials say.

Could a hacker spoof early warning networks into reporting attack indications that lead to overreactions by national leaders? Could they breach firewalls to transmit unauthorized launch orders to crews in nuclear missile launch control centers?

Defense officials are tight-lipped about countering this type of cyber threat.

Last week the No. 2 official at the National Nuclear Security Administration, Madelyn Creedon, was asked at a Senate hearing about progress against this threat to nuclear command and control. She said the government is “doing better,” but she declined to publicly discuss details.

Two years ago the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board, an advisory group, reported that “most of the systems” in the U.S. nuclear arsenal had not been fully assessed to understand possible weak spots in the event of an all-out cyberattack.

Cartwright is the lead author of a report published Wednesday by the Global Zero Commission, an international group co-founded by a former Air Force nuclear missile launch control officer, Bruce Blair, now a research scholar at Princeton. The report calls for a phased approach to taking U.S. and Russian missiles off high alert, with 20 percent of them off launch-ready alert within one year and 100 percent within 10 years, under a legal or political agreement.

The report argues that lowering the alert levels should be preceded by both Russia and the U.S. eliminating a strategy known as a “launch on warning” — being prepared to launch nuclear missiles rapidly after early warning satellites and ground radar detect incoming warheads. It says this presents an unacceptable level of nuclear risk, and argues that vulnerability to cyberattack against the warning systems or the missile control systems is “a new wild card in the deck.”

“At the brink of conflict, nuclear command and warning networks around the world may be besieged by electronic intruders whose onslaught degrades the coherence and rationality of nuclear decision-making,” the report says.

___
Follow Robert Burns on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/robertburnsAP

Antichrist Orders Jihad (Revelation 13:18)

Al-Sadr: Killing Saddam’s aide politicises jihad 
Wednesday, 29 April 2015 11:20 

Leader of the Sadrist Movement Muqtada Al-Sadr said yesterday that claims that former President Saddam Hussein’s aide Izzat Ibrahim Al-Douri had been killed were aimed at politicising “Jihad and victories.”

Last week, the Iraqi government announced it had a corps which was believed to be that of Al-Douri. It said the corps was undergoing DNA tests.

Al-Sadr said: “The Popular Shia Crowds are experiencing challenges which might disrupt their work. Some of the challenges are the disunity among its militias, American interference and the abundance of its sects.”

He expected an Arabic interference like what happened Yemen and other international conflicts, calling for unity and mobilising all efforts to undermine the potential Arabic interference.

As part of his call to undermine external interference, Al-Sadr called for liberating Al-Anbar and Mosul. He also called for the government not to depend on the US to fight terrorism.

After the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, Washington announced a $10 million-award for anyone offering information leading to Al-Douri’s arrest or death.

Al-Douri was the second in line in Saddam’s regime and had been in hiding since the American invasion. He sometimes issued statements; in one he announced his support for ISIS.

Antichrist Speaks Out Against Babylonian Hegemony (Rev 13)

Iraqi Cleric Says US Defense Bill May Split Iraq

April 29, 2015 – 17:17

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Wednesday threatened to hit the US interests in and out of Iraq over a proposed defense bill yet to be approved by the US, which he said could divide Iraq.

“The US House of Representatives intends to pass a draft law on Iraq making each sect independent from the other, and this will be the beginning of Iraq’s division,” Sadr said in a statement.

If the US passes such law, “then we will be obliged to lift the freeze on the military wing which is tasked with (fighting) the American side, to start hit the US interests in Iraq and even abroad possibly,” Sadr warned.

The US House Armed Services Committee on April 27 released a defense bill which is scheduled to be debated and voted on in the committee on April 29.

The bill suggested that at least 25 percent of 715 million dollars of US aid to Iraqi forces to be allocated to the Kurdish Peshmerga and the Sunni tribal militias and a yet-to-be-established Iraqi Sunni National Guard, Xinhua reported.

Sadr also urged the Iraqi government and the country’s parliament to adopt a strong response to the US bill, the statement said, adding that the Iraqi people have to protect their land by rejecting and denouncing such move that could divide the country.

South Korea Will Become One Of Ten Nuclear Powers (Dan 7:7)

India-Pakistan: Why South Korea Matters

April 28, 2015: Despite more economic and military aid from China Pakistan still has to face that fact that their military spends $7 billion a year compared to $40 billion a year for India. While China spends over $120 billion a year China is currently confronting most of its neighbors and the United States over territorial claims in the South China Sea. There are also claims against Indian territory, but India is part of a much more powerful anti-China coalition. Moreover India has a GDP of $2 trillion compared to $245 billion for Pakistan. While the per capita income for Pakistan and India has long been about the same, since economic reforms in the 1990s (less socialism more free markets) India has pulled ahead. Even more humiliating is the fact that many East Asian nations had the same per capita income as Pakistan and India in 1960 but are way ahead now. South Korea, for example, now has per capita income 17 times larger than Pakistan’s. South Korea concentrated on free markets, education and reducing corruption. That’s simple enough, but doing that has proved impossible so far for Pakistan (or India, which is at least trying). Worse for Pakistan’s rulers is the fact that more Pakistanis are aware of these discrepancies and asking “Why?”
Meanwhile, one of the unpublicized parts of the recent Chinese $46 billion aid and investment package is assurances that the thousands of Chinese who will accompany that money will be safe in general and especially from Islamic terrorists. Most of these Chinese will be involved with the $28 billion worth of infrastructure (roads, railroads and power stations) China is building. Thus Pakistan is organizing a special protection force of 12,000 men. This will consist of 12 infantry battalions (six from the army and six from the Rangers and Frontier Corps) and some special operations and intelligence personnel. China also wants more Pakistani action against Islamic terrorists (Turkic Uighurs) from China who have been based in Pakistan.
The $46 billion is in addition to a 2013 deal where China pledged to spend $18 billion to build a road from Pakistan’s Indian Ocean port of Gwadar and into northwest China. This will require drilling long tunnels through the Himalayan Mountains on the border (in Pakistani controlled Kashmir.) This new deal expands that into a more extensive project called the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor. This will make it much easier and cheaper to move people, data (via fiber optic cables) and goods between China and Pakistan. China also gets a 40 year lease on much of the port facilities at Gwadar, which India fears will serve as a base for Chinese warships.
Pakistan is not getting along as well with its other neighbors. Pakistan has forced (since mid-2014) several thousand Islamic terrorists into eastern Afghanistan. In addition increasing anti-Afghan feelings in Pakistan has led to another effort to persecute and expel several million Afghans living (often illegally) in Pakistan. So far this year over 3,000 such refugees a month are returning from Pakistan. While many of these refugees could evade expulsion efforts over 40 percent of those who return cite growing anti-Afghan attitudes and harassment as the main reason for coming back to Afghanistan.
Then there is the Pakistani refusal to participate in the Arab effort to suppress pro-Iran Shia rebels in Yemen. This is important for the Gulf Arabs who are inclined to keep most of their troops out of Yemen. Iran is more and more threatening and while Pakistan refused to send troops they did promise to come in with troops if Saudi Arabia were invaded. The only likely invader is Iran, so Pakistan, also dependent on Saudi generosity, has not entirely backed away. Besides, Pakistan is Sunni and has nukes which is some protection against threats from a future nuclear armed Shia Iran.
India has joined Burma in pressuring China to do something about the continued shipments of Chinese weapons to tribal rebels in northern Burma and northeast India. China denies this is happening and points out that many Burmese rebels have long used Chinese weapons they bought from illegal dealers in China and then smuggled into Burma. China also points out that Burmese troops also use Chinese weapons. Burma and India counter that the rebels in both countries are using weapons China did not sell to the Burmese Army. Moreover these Chinese weapons (often older and cheaper designs) are showing up worldwide in the hands of rebels, terrorists and gangsters. The point here is that China is looking the other way as a huge illegal arms sales and smuggling operation goes about its business. China is in the midst of a major corruption crackdown so these complaints from Burma and India might be addressed this time around. Then again, maybe not.
The offensive against Islamic terrorists in the northwest, begun in mid-2014, continues. Actually, because of the large number of captured documents and prisoner interrogations there have been more raids and arrests outside the northwestern tribal territories. This has caused some problems because an army plan to go after Islamic terrorists in Karachi (the largest city in Pakistan, where about eight percent of all Pakistanis live) has encountered political resistance because of fear this is part of some secret plot to stage another coup.
The Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine is being felt as far away as India. That’s because the last five of 40 Indian AN-32 transports being upgraded in Ukraine have, well, sort of disappeared. Ukrainian engineers working in India to upgrade another 64 An-32s were called home and India can no longer get An-32 spare parts from Ukraine. The original contract called for 40 An-32s to be upgraded in Ukraine and another 64 in India. Now India faces the prospect of most of its aging An-32s becoming inoperable by the end of the decade. India is desperate to remedy this situation and is considering purchasing new transports. This is a very expensive alternative, but appears to be the only one.
April 23, 2015: In northwest Pakistan (Waziristan and Khyber) the military claims to have killed at least 47 Islamic terrorists over the last two days. This involved both ground operations and air strikes.
April 22, 2015: The U.S. revealed that a January 29 UAV missile strike on an Islamic terrorist compound in Pakistan (near the Afghan border) that killed six Islamic terrorists also killed two foreign hostages (an American held since 2011 and an Italian held since 2012) that American intelligence did not know were there. The two hostages had been kidnapped in Pakistan and held for ransom. The U.S. discourages payment of ransom because it encourages kidnappers to go after more Americans. The U.S. has carried out nearly 400 of these UAV missile attacks Pakistan since 2004.
April 20, 2015: Pakistan ordered another fifty JF-17 jet fighters, to be delivered by 2018. The first Pakistani JF-17 squadron became operational in 2010. Pakistan has already received sixty JF-17s as part of a project that began in 1992 and while it was a joint Pakistan-China development project China supplied most of the money and did most of the work. China, however, does not use the JF-17, only Pakistan. That’s largely because the JF-17 is assembled in Pakistan, although over 40 percent of the components come from China or Russia. The project has gone through several name changes (FC-1, Super 7).  The 13 ton warplane is meant to be a low cost ($20-30 million) alternative to the American F-16. The JF-17 is considered the equal to earlier versions of the F-16, but only half as effective as more recent F-16 models. The JF-17 uses the same Russian engine, the RD-93 that is used in the MiG-29. The JF-17 design is based on a cancelled Russian project, the MiG-33. Most of the JF-17 electronics are Western. The JF-17 can carry 3.6 tons of weapons and use radar guided and heat seeking missiles. It has max speed of Mach 1.6, an operating range of 1,300 kilometers and a max altitude of 17,000 meters (55,000 feet). China has tried to export the aircraft to other countries but found that, for what it cost, it was not competitive.
April 17, 2015: Pakistan agreed to send warships to help maintain the naval blockade of Yemen. Pakistan refused to supply warplanes or ground troops and Arab anger at this is growing. So the warships are a peace offering and willingness to support the UN approved arms embargo of Yemen.
April 16, 2015: India test fired another Agni III. This is a 48 ton ballistic missile that was first tested in 2006. It has a maximum range of 3,500 kilometers and a payload of 1.5 tons. Most of them are now aimed at China rather than Pakistan.
April 15, 2015: For the first time since 2012 Pakistan successfully launched a Hatf V ballistic missile. With a range of 1,300 kilometers, the missile can reach most of India. Pakistan sees missiles like this as essential to making Pakistani nuclear weapons a real deterrent to Indian invasion. The Indians are building an anti-missile system, with Israeli help and Pakistan is building more missiles and nuclear warheads in an attempt to create the capability to overwhelm these Indian defenses. Meanwhile, Indian politicians, press and public opinion all show no enthusiasm whatsoever for an invasion of Pakistan. There is, however, fear of Pakistan based Islamic terrorists making more attacks on India. Pakistan refuses to admit that this threat exists.
In eastern India (Bihar) police found a cache of Maoist weapons. Ammunition and equipment).
April 14, 2015: In eastern India (Chhattisgarh) Maoists began their usual April-June offensive by killing 13 police (and wounding 18) in three days of ambushes and raids. Maoist losses were, according to a Maoist captured later, more than twice as large. The police brought in reinforcements and during the rest of the month went on the offensive against the local Maoists.
April 13, 2015: India accused North Korea of continuing to sell Pakistan ballistic missile technology. It is already known that North Korea paid renegade Pakistani scientists at least $3.5 million for nuclear weapons technology in the late 1990s and that technical cooperation between the two countries continued.
April 12, 2015:  In northwest Pakistan (North Waziristan) American UAVs used missiles to kill four Islamic terrorists.
April 11, 2015: In southwest Pakistan (Baluchistan) tribal separatists were responsible for the night attack on a camp for workers building a bridge in a remote area. Twenty of the workers were killed and three survived with wounds. Police soon found and killed 13 separatists, including most of those responsible for the massacre.
April 10, 2015: Pakistan released (on bail) Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi from jail. This enraged the United States and India because Lakhvi was the planner for the 2008 Islamic terror massacre (166 dead) in Mumbai India. Shortly thereafter Pakistan was sent convincing evidence and India asked that Lakhvi be arrested and extradited for prosecution in India. Lakhvi was arrested in 2009 but Pakistan refused to turn him over or prosecute him themselves. Lakhvi was a hero to many Pakistanis because he is a widely known leader of Lashkar-e-Taiba. This Islamic terror group specializes in attacks in India and is very popular among middle and upper class high school and college students. Lashkar i Taiba was organized and long supported by the Pakistani military, mainly to organize and carry out terrorist attacks in India. This is widely known in Pakistan where few people will dare criticize the attacks inside India.

Saudi And Pakistan Shall Be Bitter Enemies (Dan 7)

A Houthi militant reacts at the yard of the residence of the military commander of the Houthi militant group, Abdullah Yahya al Hakim, after an airstrike destroyed it, in Sanaa, April 28, 2015. (photo by REUTERS/Khaled Abdullah)

Is Pakistan pivoting away from Saudi Arabia?

Author Bruce Riedel Posted April 28, 2015 

 

Saudi Arabia continues to press Pakistan to provide tangible support for its war in Yemen. Most Pakistanis are pushing back and criticizing the kingdom and its gulf allies in unprecedented candor.

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his senior army leadership traveled to Saudi Arabia last week for another consultation on Riyadh’s request for military support for the campaign against the Houthis. Sharif said after the visit that he was not confronted with a “wish list” and he reiterated Pakistan’s commitment to defend the kingdom if it is attacked. But the Pakistani leadership offered no tangible military aid. The prime minister’s brother, Shabaz Sharif, has also visited Saudi Arabia separately to try to reassure Gulf leaders, but he could not calm the tensions either. The Sharif government is clearly uncomfortable with saying no to its Gulf benefactors but it faces strong domestic opposition to the war.

The Pakistani parliament’s unanimous decision to stay neutral in the Yemen war has been widely praised in the country. A distinguished professor of physics, Pervez Hoodbhoy, wrote an editorial this week titled “Let the Saudis Fume,” praising the Sharif government for rejecting the “GCC diktat” and saying no to “an irritated septuagenarian monarch and his angry princes.” The article assured Pakistanis that the Gulf Cooperation Council states can not expel Pakistani guest workers or their “petro-countries would grind to a halt.”

Hoodbhoy also takes on directly the issue of Saudi-Pakistani potential nuclear collusion, usually a subject off-limits in the media. The nuclear physicist reminds Saudis there are “no other nuclear vendors in town,” and that “Pakistan is the only country that can at short notice potentially provide the kingdom with nuclear weapons or a nuclear umbrella” against Iran. His conclusion is that Pakistan should never give the kingdom the bomb.

Other commentators have been scathing about the role Saudi Arabia has played in backing extremist Islamic movements in Pakistan for the last 40 years. Much of the sectarian Sunni-Shiite violence in Pakistan is blamed on Saudi money. Before Yemen, this kind of commentary was rare in Pakistan; the Yemen war has made this rhetoric more frequent, and often satirical.

China has played a role in the drama as well. President Xi Jinping visited Islamabad last week and promised a staggering $46 billion in new investment in Pakistan to build an economic corridor linking western China to the Persian Gulf through Pakistan. China will expand the port of Gwadar in Baluchistan to rival Dubai or Doha as a regional economic hub under this ambitious strategy.
Pakistan has its own security challenges, of course. The Sharif brothers promised Xi that Pakistan will create a new special division of the Pakistani army to protect Chinese workers in Pakistan. The “Special Security Division” will total 10,000 troops and be commanded by a two-star general. Half the men will come from the Special Services Group, Pakistan’s elite commando force. The force will have its own organic air support, i.e., troops for protecting China, albeit at home, but not for waging war in Yemen.

The Pakistanis sought assurances from the Chinese that their neutral policy in Yemen would not undercut their alliance with Beijing in any way. According to leaks from Pakistan, the Chinese were adamant that they understand Pakistan’s hands-off approach in the Saudi-Iranian regional proxy war. Xi allegedly told Sharif that China will stand by Pakistan if its ties with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates unravel.

There are some in Pakistan pressing the Saudi cause. Among the most vocal is the political arm of the terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (Jamaat-ud-Dawa), notorious for the attack on Mumbai in November 2008. Its leader, Hafiz Saeed, has called for Pakistan to send troops to defend the Two Holy Mosques in Mecca and Medina from the Houthis. He has formed a coalition of Sunni groups to defend the mosques from danger, claiming that Israel and the United States are using the Houthis and Iran to endanger the holy places. As early as March, Saeed blamed a “Jewish conspiracy” for fomenting the Houthi rebellion. Lashkar-e-Taiba raises funds in the kingdom, so it undoubtedly sees this propaganda as a good way to endear itself in the Gulf. Lashkar-e-Taiba has close connections to the Pakistani intelligence service, ISI, which is also very close to its Saudi counterpart.

The battle for Pakistan’s support has revealed a degree of animosity toward the Gulf states in the world’s second-largest Muslim country that has not been seen so vividly before. Given the huge investments Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have made over the decades in courting Pakistan and its politicians, it should lead to some soul-searching.

Bruce Riedel is director of the Intelligence Project at the Brookings Institution. His most recent book is “What We Won: America’s Secret War in Afghanistan, 1979-1989.”

Iranian Horn Forces Issue In Gulf (Daniel 8:3)

U.S. says Iranian forces fire on and board cargo ship in Gulf

DUBAI/WASHINGTON | By Noah Browning and David Alexander

 

(Reuters) – Iranian forces boarded a Marshall Islands-flagged cargo ship in the Gulf on Tuesday after patrol boats fired warning shots across its bow and ordered it deeper into Iranian waters, the Pentagon said.

U.S. planes and a destroyer were monitoring the situation after the vessel, the MV Maersk Tigris, made a distress call in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil shipping channels.

Iran’s Tasnim news agency quoted an unidentified source who sought to play down the incident, saying it was a civil matter with no military or political dimension. But the Pentagon described it as an apparent provocation.

The incident came as the United States and five other global powers aim to secure a final nuclear deal with Iran by the end of June.

Under the accord Tehran, which denies seeking to build nuclear weapons, would win sanctions relief in return for slashing the number of its uranium enrichment centrifuges and accepting intrusive international inspections.

Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television earlier said an Iranian force fired on and seized a U.S. cargo ship with 34 U.S. sailors on board, and directed it to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas. But the Pentagon spokesman said there were no U.S. citizens on board the ship.

The company managing the vessel told a Danish news channel there were 24 crew members, mostly from eastern Europe and Asia.

Reuters tracking data showed the Maersk Tigris, a 65,000-tonne container ship, off the Iranian coast between the islands of Qeshm and Hormuz. It had been listed as sailing from the Saudi port of Jeddah, bound for the United Arab Emirates port of Jebel Ali.

Hiroshima Will Be Remembered: By Another Nuclear Holocaust (Rev 15:2)

Nuclear Attack Survivors, 70 Years Later, Now Fading Away

UNITED NATIONS — Apr 28, 2015, 12:12 AM ET

By CARA ANNA Associated Press

Hiroshima survivor Setsuko Thurlow, at right, participates in a march against nuclear weapons Sunday, April 26, 2015, in New York. At 83, she is part of a generation of nuclear attack survivors that is quickly disappearing. (AP Photo/Cara Anna)

What a nuclear attack didn’t take from them, old age will.

Seventy years have passed since the United States shocked the world by dropping atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As nuclear powers gather this week to discuss a landmark disarmament treaty, the now-fragile survivors warn this may be their last chance to use their personal horror to hurry that work along.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, review conference happens just every five years. The average survivor, called hibakusha, is about 80 years old.

There are signs they are fading. Sunday’s thousand-strong rally in Manhattan against nuclear weapons was led by a trio of women in wheelchairs, slowly making their way along the mile-and-a-half route.

One of the most famous survivors, 86-year-old Sumitero Taniguchi, could not join them. Frail and silent, he sat in a wheelchair and watched the march set off up the avenue. Japanese media surrounded the Nagasaki survivor with cameras, leaning in for a better view.

“I was shocked when I saw him,” said 83-year-old Hiroshima survivor Setsuko Thurlow, who completed the march in a wheelchair. “He was so much thinner.”

Thurlow was 13 when Hiroshima was bombed and 140,000 people were killed. “People at a distance saw the mushroom cloud and heard a thunderous roar. But I did not see the cloud because I was in it,” she says when she tells her story. She climbed from flaming ruins and spent hours giving water to a field full of people dying.

She has spoken about her experience, she said, thousands of times around the world. “My health? I’ve been blessed,” she said after Sunday’s march. But friends say she lives with pain every day.
Japan is famous for having the world’s oldest population, but supporters of the hibakusha warn that the health effects of a nuclear attack likely will shorten their lives.

Taniguchi was 16 years old and riding his bicycle about a mile away from the epicenter when Nagasaki was bombed. Seventy thousand people were killed. His back was so badly burned that he spent much of the next three and a half years lying on his stomach. His friends say he still has open wounds and cannot sweat.l, which will not allow humans to live nor die as humans,” he told an audience at a disarmament gathering in New York over the weekend.

Later, waiting for an elevator to go up one floor, a chain of origami peace cranes around his neck, Taniguchi declined an interview request. Too tired, his friend Hiroko Kumagai explained. “I am very worried about his health condition,” she said quietly.

“It’s a miracle he’s alive. And he’s a super heavy smoker,” said Kathleen Sullivan. The program director for a project called Hibakusha Stories said this year will be the last to bring survivors to speak at New York City schools, “because frankly, it’s concerning bringing so many elderly people together.”

Sullivan teared up for a moment over the recent death of a good friend, a survivor who was in his late 80s. She worries about how to carry stories forward as a unique generation passes away.

In the past few years, trainings have begun in Hiroshima and Nagasaki so that people can share the experiences of specific survivors, she said. But the personal impact will be missing.

The U.N. secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, has made a special point to thank the hibakusha. “I defy anyone to look into the eyes of these courageous and resilient individuals and say you know better what nuclear weapons bring,” he said in a statement as the nuclear conference opened.

About three dozen hibakusha came to New York for the nuclear conference, but it’s the last time a significant number will be able to make the trip, said Joseph Gerson, disarmament coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee.

Pain and shame around radiation exposure at Hiroshima and Nagasaki lifted slowly in Japan, inhibiting public discussion. Hibiki Ouchi’s grandfather was a Hiroshima survivor who later died of skin cancer, but no one told her his story until a few years ago, when her mother got breast cancer and worried that it was because of the bomb.

By then, Ouichi was already working with the Japan Council Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs.
“I never met my grandfather, but maybe he made me do this,” she said. “Whenever I hear a hibakusha testimony, I feel they are him.”

Hopes now rest on the youngest survivors like Toshiki Fujimori, 71. “We younger hibakusha are trying to inherit the experience,” he said.

But he remembers nothing of his own. When Hiroshima was attacked, he was 1 year old.

The Harlot Still Does Not Have Power Of Babylon (Rev 17)

 No ‘veto power’ for Clinton on uranium deal

Eugene Kiely, FactCheck.org

The author of Clinton Cash falsely claimed Hillary Clinton as secretary of State had “veto power” and “could have stopped” Russia from buying a company with extensive uranium mining operations in the U.S. In fact, only the president has such power.

At the time of the sale, Clinton was a member of the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which is required by law to investigate all U.S. transactions that involve a company owned or controlled by a foreign government. Federal guidelines say any one of nine voting members of the committee can object to such a foreign transaction, but the final decision then rests with the president.

“Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction,” the guidelines say.

Through a spokeswoman, author Peter Schweizer told us he meant that Clinton could have forced the issue to the president’s desk. But that’s not what he said when he appeared on Fox News Sunday, where he discussed the uranium deal and his upcoming book to be released on May 5.

Schweizer’s book — Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich — focuses on foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit created byformer president Bill Clinton. In his book, Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution, seeks to link some of those donations to the official actions taken by Clinton when she was secretary of State.

TheNew York Times, which received an advance copy of the book, wrote an article April 23 that said the Clinton Foundation failed to publicly disclose millions in contributions it received from investors who stood to profit from the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian-based company with uranium mining stakes in the West, to Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency. The Times said its article “built upon” Schweizer’s reporting.

That sale was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States in October 2010, giving Russia control over 20% of uranium production in the United States, according to the Times.

The book in general and the Timesarticle in particular have stirred up the 2016 presidential campaign. The Clinton Foundation was forced to acknowledge that it “made mistakes” in failing to disclose some of its donations, and Republicans have questioned Hillary Clinton’s role in the sale.  Mitt Romney said the money donated to the Clinton Foundation “looks like bribery,” and Sen. Rand Paul called for an investigation.

But Schweizer and the Times presented no evidence that the donations influenced Clinton’s official actions.

The fact is, Clinton was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee, which also includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve, and did approve, the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)

Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday, made that point when he questioned Schweizer about his lack of evidence connecting the donations to the uranium deal. (Fox News was among the media outlets that received an advance copy of his book.) Schweizer made the counterargument — again without any evidence — that the investors bought her silence by making contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

Schweizer speculated that investors were worried about Clinton’s history of opposing the sale of “critical assets” in the U.S., citing her opposition as a senator to the 2006 sale of six U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.

Wallace, April 26: Nine separate agencies and they [Clinton campaign officials] point out there’s no hard evidence, and you don’t cite any in the book that Hillary Clinton took direct action, was involved in any way in approving as one of nine agencies the sale of the company?

Schweizer: Well, here’s what’s important to keep in mind: it was one of nine agencies, but any one of those agencies had veto power. So, she could have stopped the deal. So, what’s interesting about this, of all those nine agencies, who was the most hawkish on these types of issues? Hillary Clinton. She had a reputation going back to the Dubai Ports deal.

But Schweizer is wrong when he says that Clinton had “veto power” and “could have stopped the deal.” At best, she could have forced the president to make a decision.

The committee, which is known by its acronym CFIUS, can approve a sale, but it cannot stop a sale. Only the president can do that, and only if the committee recommends or “any member of CFIUS recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction,” according to guidelines issued by the Treasury Department in December 2008 after the department adopted its final rule a month earlier.

Treasury Department, Dec. 8, 2008: Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction. Pursuant to section 6(c) of Executive Order 11858, CFIUS refers a covered transaction to the President if CFIUS or any member of CFIUS recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction, or if CFIUS otherwise seeks a Presidential determination on the transaction.

Even the president cannot prohibit a transaction without “credible evidence” that the “foreign interest exercising control might take action that threatens to impair the national security,” according to the regulation.

We emailed Schweizer’s publicist with links to the CRS report and the regulation that governs the committee’s work. Schweizer responded through the publicist: “By veto I mean halt the deal and advance their concerns to the President.” He also noted that Clinton was the only committee member who had a family foundation that received donations from the investors in the uranium deal.

But Schweizer is trafficking in speculation.

Very little is known about the Uranium One-Rosatom deal or Clinton’s role in it. That’s because the law has “strong confidentiality requirements,” as Treasury explains on its site. “By law, information filed with CFIUS is subject to strong confidentiality requirements that prohibit disclosure to the public. Accordingly, CFIUS does not disclose whether parties to any transaction have filed notices with CFIUS, nor does CFIUS disclose the results of any review,” Treasury says. “When a transaction is referred to the President, however, the decision of the President is announced publicly.”

The Clinton campaign told the Timesthat generally these matters did not reach the secretary’s level, so she may not have been involved at all. According to the Times, Jose Fernandez, a former assistant secretary of state, represented the department on the committee. He told the Times: “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”

Schweizer raises legitimate questions about the Clinton Foundation and its donations. He simply goes too far when he says Clinton had “veto power” and “could have stopped” the uranium deal.

Russia Enriching Even More Uranium (Dan 7:7)

Russia 1st to test 10Gen uranium enrichment centrifuges

Published time: April 27, 2015 11:37 Edited time: April 27, 2015 12:26

RIA Novosti / A. Solomonov

Rosatom, Russia’s nuclear agency, confirms scientists are testing 10th generation centrifuges. No other country even possesses 9th gen tech, putting Rosatom years ahead of the competition. “We’re on to 10 Gen,” announced Aleksandr Belousov, general director of Urals Integrated Electrochemical Plant (UIEP), a Rosatom subsidiary in Novouralsk, Sverdlovsk Region, in the Urals. “Scientists and engineers are solving technical issues, which is quite difficult. Any kind of new research and technological development is a venture undertaking, you can either succeed or fail… Any new machinery must be economically efficient. [10Gen] is being developed out of economic expediency, not for mere modernization. The more energy-intensive the machinery is, the more technical problems emerge,” Belousov said. A gas centrifuge uses principles of centrifugal force to perform radioisotope separation of gases, by accelerating molecules to such an extent that particles of different masses are physically separated within a rotating container. The centrifugal separation of isotopes is used for various purposes. First of all for production of low-enriched (up to 3-4 percent) uranium to be used as fuel at nuclear power plants. It also is used to produce weapons-grade, highly-enriched uranium (90 percent of U-235). Centrifuges are also needed to produce radioisotopes for medicine and various technical issues. Centrifuges are operated in cascades of hundreds and thousands units. Manufacturer supplies centrifuges in assemblies of 20 units in two rows, and at the factory they are placed on the columns in tiers, one above the other. Last week the second cascade unit of 9 Gen gas centrifuges has become operable at the UIEP, with the first 9 Gen unit introduced in late December 2013. Having two 9 Gen centrifuge cascades means that UIEP is the leader in the industry, making up to 48 percent of Russian radioisotope market and 20 percent of the global market, RIA Novosti reports.

Image from sdelanounas.ru

The 9 Gen centrifuges are four times more productive than 8 Gen centrifuges, which means a similar productivity pace should be applied to 10 Gen units, Belousov said. Development of nuclear enrichment centrifuges in the Soviet Union began in 1952. Over the time general dimensions of the machinery changed a little yet the productivity has augmented by 14 times, whereas operating costs have diminished by at least 10 times, aide to the UIEP head, Gennady Solovyov, said. The modern Russian centrifuge is a state-of-the-art component made of composite materials and special aluminum alloy. Its rotor spins with unbelievable speed of 1,000 rotations per second and can do it without a single stop for 30 years. Mechanical malfunctions are extremely rare, no more than 0.1 percent (one failure per 1,000 units) per year.

 

Russia’s TVEL Fuel Company (TENEX for operations abroad) is the largest operator of nuclear enrichment centrifuges and absolute leader of world’s radioisotope market, possessing about 30,000 separative work units (SWU), which is almost half of the world’s total 65,000 SWUs. Russian centrifuges are also the most advanced and have higher output capacity than SWUs from rival companies in France, US or Japan.

 

Starting from 2009 Russia is supplying 7 and 8 Gen centrifuges to China. The second-largest operator of uranium enrichment centrifuges after Rosatom is URENCO, a joint German, Dutch and UK enterprise operating 14,200 SWUs. Rosatom is heavily investing in nuclear enrichment at the UIEP. In 2014, the corporation allocated 7.5 billion rubles (nearly $150 million), whereas for 2015-2019 Rosatom plans to spend on the UIEP no less than 34 billion rubles (about $667 million).

What Nuclear Safety??? (Daniel 8:8)

Nuclear safety

Michael Krepon — Published about 7 hours ago

 

IT’S not easy to make nuclear weapons, build missiles to carry them long distances, and to produce highly enriched uranium or plutonium. But the hardest part of making nuclear weapons is keeping them safe so they do not detonate except under orders from the National Command Authority. Because escalation control will be extremely difficult after the appearance of a single mushroom cloud, an accidental, inadvertent or unauthorised detonation can lead to ruin.

Nuclear safety and security techniques and practices are designed to prevent these eventualities. Gates and guards and personnel reliability programmes help with nuclear security. Nuclear weapon design features and other safety techniques help provide insurance against accidental, inadvertent or unauthorised detonations. Nuclear safety and security reinforce each other. Sometimes these categories merge. For example, authorisation codes required to arm and use a nuclear weapon, called permissive action links, can be considered as essential for both nuclear safety and security. Additional design features are also required.

The US has a ‘one-point safety’ standard for its nuclear weapons. This means that the probability of achieving a nuclear yield greater than four pounds of TNT must not exceed one in a million for any event involving the initiation of the warhead’s high explosive at a single point on its periphery. The US achieved this exacting safety standard after decades of effort, significant investment, and a learning curve from nuclear testing.

Warhead safety mechanisms will be put to the test in the event of conventional warfare. During crises, both Pakistan and India rely for deterrence purposes on missiles that are advertised to carry nuclear warheads as troops are mobilised in fighting corridors. In past crises, Pakistan has used missile flight tests and movements of medium-range missiles to clarify resolve to India. Medium-range missiles can be kept far from potential zones of fighting and are hard to target.

Short-range missile systems constitute a new feature in deterrence equations on the subcontinent. India has flight-tested the Prahaar, a missile with up to 350 kilometre range. Pakistani analysts assert that the Prahaar could carry nuclear weapons. Pakis­tan has flight-tested the nuclear-capable Nasr with a range of perhaps 60 kms. It has been advertised as being capable of carrying nuclear warheads to reinforce “full spectrum deterrence”, so as to dissuade Indian leaders from authorising military advances on Pakistani territory.

To have their proper deterrent effect, short-range missile systems need to operate close to the forward edge of prospective battlefields. In the event that crisis management fails and warfare begins, these missiles can either be in motion or be fixed targets. Either way, the Pakistani and Indian air forces are trained to employ aggressive tactics, and these missiles will be fair game. If they are struck, if they are carrying nuclear weapons, and if these weapons do not incorporate advanced safety features, mushroom clouds could result.

While much is known about how to make nuclear weapons, fissile material and delivery vehicles, little information is in the public domain about mechanisms for nuclear safety. States that already have decades of experience can share best practices regarding nuclear security, but some critical information regarding nuclear safety is highly classified. Even if long-time nuclear weapon states were willing to share sensitive information, potential reci­pients would not allow outsiders anywhere near their nuclear design information. In other words, there is a mutual taboo about in­­formation exchanges relating to nuclear safety.

Understanding nuc­lear safety issues is hard for political and military leaders. They are not trained in nuclear physics, mechanical engineering and chemistry. They cannot make independent judgements about nuclear weapon safety and must rely on guarantees provided by technical experts and lab heads.

US presidents have relied on competing design teams at different nuclear labs to double check assurances they received and to confirm technical calculations. Because US labs had comparable design capabilities and were highly competitive, this proved to be an effective way to confirm assurances given. In addition, junior analysts at national labs were encouraged to question the design decisions of their elders, and could do so without sacrificing their professional advancement.
Nuclear safety begins with avoiding intense crises and warfare. Nuclear safety can be advanced by a competitive but collaborative laboratory culture. Rethinking dangerous military practices is another way to improve nuclear safety and security. Weapons that are hardest to maintain control over in wartime and closest to live fire are, by definition, the least safe and secure. If weapon designs are not one-point safe, making them hard to find and keeping them at a distance from ongoing military operations is the best insurance policy against the accidental, inadvertent and unauthorised use of nuclear weapons.

The writer is author of Better Safe than Sorry: The Ironies of Living with the Bomb.
Published in Dawn, April 28th, 2015

India Ups Nukes Against China And Pakistan (Dan 7:7)

India’s modified Su-30 can strike China with nuclear warhead: report

• Staff Reporter
• 2015-04-27
• 15:39 (GMT+8)

India’s Su-30MKI fourth-generation multirole fighter jet. (Internet photo)

India will now be able to strike “deep into the heart of China” with a nuclear missile after making modifications to its powerful Su-30MKI multirole fighter jet, according to a report from the Washington-based National Interest magazine.

India’s Strategic Forces Command is said to have modified 42 of its Su-30MKI aircraft so that they can carry air-launched BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles.

New Delhi already has around 200 Su-30MKI aircraft in its arsenal and plans to eventually acquire 282 of the fourth-generation combat fighter, which is intended to be the “backbone” of the Indian Air Force through 2020 and beyond.

The Brahmos, on the other hand, is the fastest cruise missile in the world, capable of traveling at speeds of Mach 3.0 — or 3,000 meters per second.

“In tests, the BrahMos has often cut warships in half and reduced ground targets to smithereens,” said the Russia and India Report, adding that pairing the two together will drastically expand the striking power of the air leg of India’s nuclear triad.

“The Sukhoi’s blistering speed will add extra momentum to the missile, plus the aircraft’s ability to penetrate hardened air defenses means there is a greater chance for the pilot to deliver the missile on to its designated target,” the report said.

Importantly, when the Su-39’s 1,800-km range is combined with the Brahmos’ ability to hit targets 300 km away, India will now be able to strike deep into the heart of China or Pakistan with a nuclear warhead.

In addition, India has also been testing the Agni-V, a three-stage solid-fueled intermediate-range ballistic missile. With a range of about 5,000 km, the missile will give India the ability to strike any part of China with nuclear weapons for the very first time, the National Interest said.

GOP Presents Bill To Block Iran Deal (Eze 17)

US Senate to Debate Bill to Allow Review of Iran Nuclear Deal

April 27, 2015 11:13 AM
Associated Press
The U.S. Senate begins debate this week on a bill empowering Congress to review and potentially reject any Iran nuclear deal.

President Barack Obama grudgingly backed the bill when Democrats joined Republicans in demanding a say on any final agreement, but even with widespread support in the Senate, proponents must first win a battle with some colleagues determined to change the legislation in ways that could cost them the Democratic support needed for passage.

The high-profile debate comes as negotiators from the U.S. and five other nations are rushing to finalize an agreement by the end of June requiring Iran to curb its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart plan to meet Monday for the first time since they laid out the framework for a nuclear deal earlier this month. The State Department said Kerry and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif are to meet in New York where the two are attending a conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

The bill before the Senate would block Obama from waiving congressional sanctions for at least 30 days while lawmakers weigh in. If 60 senators vote to disapprove of the deal, Obama would lose his waiver power altogether.

The president is betting that won’t happen. Even if Congress disapproves, Obama will almost certainly respond with a veto, which could prove hard to override.

The bill’s backers are trying to keep lawmakers focused on how it would give Congress a say on a critical national security issue. They say the measure is not meant to be about how Iran increasingly is wielding influence in the Middle East, its support of terrorist groups or human rights violations.

Some senators are proposing amendments to pressure Iran to end its support of extremist groups, stop threatening to destroy Israel and recognize its right to exist, and release U.S. citizens held in Iran.

Such amendments could scuttle an eventual deal and be difficult for Democrats to support.

If there is a final deal with Iran, Obama can use his executive authority to ease some sanctions on his own and work with the European Union and the United Nations to lift others.

The Beast Of The Sea Opens His Boastful Mouth (Rev 13:10)

  
George W. Bush Bashes Obama on Middle East

By Josh Rogin

In a closed-door meeting with Jewish donors on Saturday night, former President George W. Bush delivered his harshest public criticisms to date against his successor on foreign policy, saying that President Barack Obama is being naïve about Iran and the pending nuclear deal and losing the war against the Islamic State.

One attendee at the Republican Jewish Coalition session, held at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas with owner Sheldon Adelson in attendance, transcribed large portions of Bush’s remarks. The former president, who rarely ever criticizes Obama in public, at first remarked that the idea of re-entering the political arena was something he didn’t want to do. He then proceeded to explain why Obama, in his view, was placing the U.S. in “retreat” around the world. He also said Obama was misreading Iran’s intentions while relaxing sanctions on Tehran too easily. 

According to the attendee’s transcription, Bush noted that Iran has a new president, Hassan Rouhani. “He’s smooth,” Bush said. “And you’ve got to ask yourself, is there a new policy or did they just change the spokesman?”

Bush said that Obama’s plan to lift sanctions on Iran with a promise that they could snap back in place at any time was not plausible. He also said the deal would be bad for American national security in the long term: “You think the Middle East is chaotic now? Imagine what it looks like for our grandchildren. That’s how Americans should view the deal.”  

Bush then went into a detailed criticism of Obama’s policies in fighting the Islamic State and dealing with the chaos in Iraq. On Obama’s decision to withdraw all U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of 2011, he quoted Senator Lindsey Graham calling it a “strategic blunder.” Bush signed an agreement with the Iraqi government to withdraw those troops, but the idea had been to negotiate a new status of forces agreement to keep U.S. forces there past 2011. The Obama administration tried and failed to negotiate such an agreement.

Bush said he views the rise of the Islamic State as al-Qaeda’s “second act” and that they may have changed the name but that murdering innocents is still the favored tactic. He defended his own administration’s handling of terrorism, noting that the terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed to killing Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, was captured on his watch: “Just remember the guy who slit Danny Pearl’s throat is in Gitmo, and now they’re doing it on TV.”

Obama promised to degrade and destroy Islamic State’s forces but then didn’t develop a strategy to complete the mission, Bush said. He said that if you have a military goal and you mean it, “you call in your military and say ‘What’s your plan?’ ” He indirectly touted his own decision to surge troops to Iraq in 2007, by saying, “When the plan wasn’t working in Iraq, we changed.”

“In order to be an effective president … when you say something you have to mean it,” he said. “You gotta kill em.”

Bush told several anecdotes about his old friend and rival Russian President Vladimir Putin. Bush recalled that Putin met his dog Barney at the White House and then later, when Bush went to Moscow, Putin showed him his dog and remarked that he was “bigger stronger and faster than Barney.” For Bush, that behavior showed him that Putin didn’t think in “win-win” terms.

Bush also remarked that Putin was rich, divorced his wife and loves power. Putin’s domestic popularity comes from his control of Russian media, according to Bush. “Hell, I’d be popular, too, if I owned NBC news,” he said.

Regarding his brother Jeb’s potential run for the presidency, Bush acknowledged that he was a political liability for Jeb, that the Bush name can be used against him, and that Americans don’t like dynasties. He also said that foreign policy is going to be especially important in the presidential campaign and that the test for Republicans running will be who has got the “courage” to resist isolationist tendencies.

Regarding Hillary Clinton, Bush said it will be crucial how she plays her relationship with the president. She will eventually have to choose between running on the Obama administration’s policies or running against them. If she defends them, she’s admitting failure, he said, but if she doesn’t she’s blaming the president.

For George W. Bush, the remarks in Vegas showed he has little respect for how the current president is running the world. He also revealed that he takes little responsibility for the policies that he put in place that contributed to the current state of affairs.

To contact the author on this story:
Josh Rogin at joshrogin@bloomberg.net