The British nuclear horn warns China: Daniel 7

China warning: Britain sending two warships to Asia after Beijing’s nuke threat to Japan

CHINA tensions could explode with Britain permanently deploying two patrol ships in Asian waters after its new Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier and escort ships sail to Japan where Beijing is fighting for influence.

By Paul Withers 

12:53, Wed, Jul 21, 2021 | UPDATED: 15:39, Wed, Jul 21, 2021

China: Video warns Japan over Taiwan intervention

Details of the move were announced by Defence Secretary Ben Wallace during a visit to Tokyo, where he met Japanese counterpart Nobuo Kishi. The latest announcement comes with Chinathreatening to launch nuclear missiles at Japan as tensions over Taiwan threaten a full scale war. The plans also come as the UK looks to deepen security ties with Japan, which has expressed increasing fears over China’s territorial ambitions in the region, including Taiwan.

The two ships to be permanently stationed in the Far East will be HMS Spey and HMS Tamar, which are both 90-metre offshore patrol vessels.

Speaking alongside Mr Kishi, Mr Wallace said: “Following on from the strike group’s inaugural deployment, the United Kingdom will permanently assign two ships in the region from later this year.”

In September, a Royal Naval strike group led by the new £3billion flagship aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth will make a panned visit to Japan.

The British carrier, which will have F-35B stealth jets on board its maiden voyage, will be escorted by two destroyers, two frigates and two support vessels, as well as ships from both the US and the Netherlands.

It will travel through the hotly-South China Sea, claimed by China and Southeast Asian countries, with stops in India, Singapore and South Korea.

Mr Kishi said following its arrival, the Queen Elizabeth and its escort ships will split up for separate port calls to US and Japanese naval bases.

The British carrier, which will have F-35B stealth jets on board its maiden voyage, will dock in Yokosuka, which is also the home of the country’s fleet command and the USS Ronald Reagan – the only forward deployed US aircraft carrier currently in operation.

Mr Wallace also said the UK would also later deploy a Littoral Response Group, a unit of marines trained to undertake missions including evacuations and anti-terrorism operations.

When asked which ports the Royal Navy ships would operate from, a spokesperson for the British Embassy in Tokyo said the Royal Navy ships will not have a permanent base.

In a statement on the deployment, a spokesperson for the Pentagon praised Britain for its “commitment to an inter-connected network of allies and partners, who mutually cooperate and support freedom of navigation and a rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific region.”

Japan is an extremely close ally of Washington and hosts the biggest concentration of US military forces outside the United States, which includes ships, aircraft and thousands of Marines.

The latest moves come with China setting alarm bells ringing after threatening to launch nuclear missiles at Japan if Tokyo intervenes to protect Taiwan.

“What we want to target is Japan’s ability to endure a war. As long as Japan realises that it cannot afford to pay the price of war it will not dare to rashly send troops to the Taiwan strait.”

China has continued to follow a ‘No first use’ (NFU) policy on nuclear weapons for nearly 60 years but the video warned Japan could be made an exception.

It states: “Our country is in the midst of a major change that has not been seen in a century and all political policies, tactics, and strategies must be adjusted and changed in order to protect the peaceful rise of our country.

“If Japan goes to war with China for a third time, the Chinese people will take revenge on the old and new scores.”

The UK Horn Condemns the Iranian Horn (Daniel)

‘Significant concern’: UK condemns Iran ballistic missile launch

Iran sent first military satellite into space on Wednesday from a previously unused launchpad and with a new system.

The United Kingdom said on Friday that an Iranian satellite launch earlier this week was of significant concern and inconsistent with a United Nations Security Council resolution.

“Reports that Iran has carried out a satellite launch – using ballistic missile technology – are of significant concern and inconsistent with UN Security Council Resolution 2231,” a Foreign Office spokesman said.

“The UN has called upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. Iran must abide by this.

“We have significant and long-standing concerns, alongside our international partners, over Iran’s ballistic missile programme, which is destabilising for the region and poses a threat to regional security.”

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) surprised analysts by sending its first military satellite into space on Wednesday from a previously unused launchpad and with a new system.

While Iran stresses that its programme is peaceful, Western nations fear it will help the country build intercontinental ballistic missiles.

State television on Thursday said Iran received signals from the satellite, without elaborating.

France said Thursday that it strongly condemns the launch and called on Tehran to “immediately halt any activity related to the development of ballistic missiles designed to be able to carry nuclear weapons, including space launch vehicles.”

A government statement said: “Given that the technology used for space launches is very similar to that used for ballistic missile launches, this launch directly contributes to the extremely troubling progress made by Iran in its ballistic missile programme.”

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova meanwhile rejected assertions that the launch violated the UN Security Council’s resolution on Iran, noting that Iran has the right to develop its space program for peaceful purposes.

Iranian General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of the IRGC’s aerospace division, told state television that ground stations in Iran are communicating with the satellite, which takes about a week to reach its full capacity.

He said, without elaborating, that the IRGC plans to send more such satellites into even higher orbits in the future.

The Cost for the UK Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

Counting the costs of an ‘independent nuclear deterrent’

31 Jul 2019|Robert Forsyth

As a former Royal Navy submarine commander, I read with interest Hugh White’s suggestion that Australia may, in the decades to come, need to confront the issue of whether it should have its own nuclear weapons. In his new book, How to defend Australia, White argues that Australia can no longer rely in the long term on the US’s ‘nuclear umbrella’.

I’ve spent some time post-service researching the justification for the UK’s decision to acquire, and sustain, a submarine-launched nuclear-armed ballistic-missile system, and the negative effect that decision has had on our armed services and the navy in particular. The UK experience provides some lessons for any state that’s thinking of acquiring a ‘nuclear deterrent’ for the first time.

The first question one must ask is whether nuclear deterrence actually works. Counter to Cold War ideology, and with the benefit of hindsight, it’s now quite clear that nuclear weapons have never deterred any aggression against a nuclear-armed state or a state such as Australia that’s a beneficiary of US extended nuclear deterrence.

Some would argue that the 1962 Cuban missile crisis was such a time. However, Khrushchev backed down not for fear of massive US retaliation but because he realised, only just in time, that the biggest danger came from losing control of his own deployed nuclear-armed forces who might start a war the USSR didn’t want.

It’s also significant that US nuclear weapons were irrelevant in the Vietnam War, in which Australia was deeply involved with its largest military commitment since World War II.

Furthermore, and more recently, the risk of nuclear war through miscalculation, mistake or malfunction has, if anything, increased. The much-respected Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, in its 2014 report Too close for comfort, documented some 13 separate occasions when the world has come extremely close to that happening. Two recent books, former UK ambassador to Moscow Rodric Braithwaite’s Armageddon and paranoia: the nuclear confrontation and Daniel Ellsberg’s The Doomsday Machine: confessions of a nuclear war planner, provide compelling evidence of the dangers inherent in possessing nuclear weapons.

Despite this, and without any apparent current or probable future existential threat—why else, for example, have the UK Trident missiles been at ‘several days’ notice to fire’ since 1994?—the UK has decided to continue with its ‘independent nuclear deterrent’ into the 2060s at an estimated cost of around £150 billion.

However, for all the enormous expenditure, the UK Trident is not independent. In reality, the US—which leases its missiles to the UK from a common US pool, and whose technical design and support for every part of the weapon system to target and launch them is critical—can frustrate the UK from using Trident if it disapproves. So, unlike France, the UK has opted for nuclear dependence on the US.

A force of four nuclear-armed ballistic-missile-equipped nuclear-powered submarines (SSBNs) is required to maintain one continuously on patrol. In addition, to maintain its independence from the US, Australia, like France, would need to design and manufacture its own missiles and associated space-launch system, warheads, specialised satellite navigation, targeting and communications systems. And for that it would need to acquire nuclear submarine design, build, operation and maintenance skills. The UK’s decision to rely upon the US for all of that has predictably resulted in a heavy political as well as still onerous financial cost.

Then there’s the need for a nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN), plus at least one surface ship and maritime patrol aircraft to protect the deployed SSBN. Experience shows that at least six SSNs are required to have one always available for this task. Keeping one UK SSBN continuously at sea and undetected places huge and growing strains on a now very depleted and imbalanced navy.

In fact, the cost of maintaining a UK ‘deterrent’ has led to the hollowing out of all the UK’s conventional armed forces to the point where it cannot deter, let alone respond effectively to, aggression against the homeland. For example, the Royal Navy’s fighting fleet has been reduced to six destroyers and 13 frigates—alarmingly, the same numbers of destroyers sunk and frigates damaged during the 1982 Falklands War. There are new frigates on order, but these barely sustain the number of these key workhorses in the navy’s core role of protecting maritime trade and graduated conventional deterrence.

Already the Royal Navy is struggling to have enough units to escort one of the two supercarriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. How deeply ironic it is that, as we may be about to exit the European Union, we’re having to call on European navies to help protect UK oil tankers in the Gulf because we can no longer do it on our own.

Admiral Lord Nelson famously wrote, ‘Were I to die at this moment “want of frigates” would be found stamped on my heart.’ A growing number of Royal Navy admirals are now expressing similar sentiments.

Australia, with no nuclear propulsion or missile experience to build on, must either be dependent on US technology and support, or embark on an even more costly all-Australian project. I would urge those who advocate either of these approaches to take a long, hard look at the counterproductive effect that sustaining the four UK Trident submarines has had on the defence of the homeland.  Simply put, it has denied our armed services, especially the navy, the equipment and personnel they need to meet the wide variety of today’s actual threats.

Our ‘nuclear deterrent’ has degraded our conventional deterrence capability such that a ‘last resort’ weapon system would too quickly become the only option left, with associated loss of credibility.

AUTHOR

Robert Forsyth served in the Royal Navy from 1957 to 1981. He commanded conventional and nuclear-powered attack submarines, was executive officer of a Polaris-missile-equipped submarine, and commanded the submarine commanding officers’ qualifying course. Image courtesy of the Royal Navy.

Iran Threatens the British Horn

Britain will be ‘slapped in the face’ for seizure of Iranian tanker, cleric says

Britain will soon get “slapped in the face” for last week’s capture of an Iranian supertanker, a cleric was quoted as saying Friday amid rising tensions between the two nations in the Gulf.

Cleric Kazem Sedghi, an adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told worshipers during Tehran’s Friday prayer sermon broadcast live on Iranian state TV that the United Kingdom should be worried for their actions off the coast of Gibraltar.

“Iran’s strong establishment will soon slap Britain in the face for daring to seize the Iranian oil tanker,” he said.

IRAN WARNS OF ‚REPERCUSSIONS‘ FOLLOWING ‚MEAN AND WRONG‘ SEIZURE OF OIL TANKER

Sedghi’s warning came after the Iranian government on Friday called Britain to immediately release the oil tanker that British Royal Marines seized last week on suspicious it was breaking European sanctions by taking oil to Syria.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman accused London of playing a “dangerous game” a day after police in Gibraltar, a British overseas territory on the southern tip of Spain, said they arrested the captain and chief officer of the supertanker.

Abbs Mousavi told Iranian state news agency IRNA that “the legal pretexts for the capture are not valid … the release of the tanker is in all countries’ interest.”

“This is a dangerous game and has consequences,” he added.

BRITAIN’S SEIZURE OF IRANIAN OIL TANKER WON’T GO ‚UNANSWERED,‘ OFFICER SAYS

Gibraltar has insisted its decision to detain the Iranian tanker was taken alone and not on orders from any government, despite a senior Spanish official previously saying the interception was carried out at the request of the United States.

“All relevant decisions in respect of this matter were taken only as a direct result of the government of Gibraltar having reasonable grounds to believe the vessel was acting in breach of established E.U. sanctions against Syria,” Fabian Picardo, the territory’s chief minister, told reporters. “There has been no political request at any time from any government that Gibraltar should act or not act on one basis or another.”

The detained vessel contained 2.1 million barrels of light crude oil, he added.

TRUMP VOWS TO ‚SUBSTANTIALLY‘ INCREASE SANCTIONS ON IRAN IN RESPONSE TO URANIUM ENRICHMENT

The British navy said Thursday it had stopped three Iranian paramilitary vessels from disrupting the passage of a British oil tanker through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf. The brief but tense standoff stemmed from the U.K.’s role in seizing the Iranian tanker.

In this image from file video provided by UK Ministry of Defence, British navy vessel HMS Montrose escorts another ship during a mission to remove chemical weapons from Syria at sea off the coast of Cyprus in February 2014. Five Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps gunboats tried to seize a British oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz Wednesday but backed off after a British warship approached, a senior U.S. defense official told Fox News. (AP/UK Ministry of Defence)

On Friday, the British Ministry of Defense said it was moving up its timetable for relieving the HMS Montrose, a frigate operating in the Persian Gulf, with the larger HMS Duncan destroyer in the wake of the recent developments.

„This will ensure that the UK alongside international partners can continue to support freedom of navigation for vessels transiting through this vital shipping lane.“

Iran recently began surpassing uranium enrichment limits set in its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers in response to President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the accord a year ago. He also has re-imposed tough sanctions on Tehran’s oil exports, exacerbating an economic crisis that has sent its currency plummeting.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Lucia I. Suarez Sang is a Reporter & Editor for FoxNews.com. Follow her on Twitter @luciasuarezsang

Iran Threatens the Brits (Daniel 7/8)

Iranian boats ‚tried to intercept British tanker‘

 11 July 2019 UK

REUTERS

HMS Montrose was shadowing a British tanker as it moved into the Strait of Hormuz

Iranian boats tried to impede a British oil tanker near the Gulf – before being driven off by a Royal Navy ship, the Ministry of Defence has said.

HMS Montrose, a British frigate shadowing the tanker British Heritage, was forced to move between the three boats and the tanker, a spokesman said.

He described the Iranians‘ actions as „contrary to international law“.

Iran had threatened to retaliate for the seizure of one of its own tankers, but denied any attempted seizure.

Boats believed to belong to Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) approached British Heritage and tried to bring it to a halt as it was moving out of the Gulf into the Strait of Hormuz.

Guns on HMS Montrose were trained on the Iranian boats as they were ordered to back off, US media reported. The boats heeded the warning and no shots were fired.

The BBC has been told British Heritage was near the island of Abu Musa when it was approached by the Iranian boats.

HMS Montrose had been shadowing British Heritage from a distance but came to its aid once the Iranian boats began harassing the tanker, BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said.

Although Abu Musa is in disputed territorial waters, HMS Montrose remained in international waters throughout.

A UK government spokesman said: „Contrary to international law, three Iranian vessels attempted to impede the passage of a commercial vessel, British Heritage, through the Strait of Hormuz.

„We are concerned by this action and continue to urge the Iranian authorities to de-escalate the situation in the region.“

International Trade Secretary Liam Fox thanked the crew of HMS Montrose, adding: „It is our duty as a parliament to ensure that all those forces are adequately resourced.“

What does Iran say?

Quoting the public relations office of the IRGC’s Navy, the Fars news agency said, in a tweet, the IRGC „denies claims by American sources“ that it tried to seize British Heritage.

„There has been no confrontation in the last 24 hours with any foreign vessels, including British ones,“ the IRGC added, according to the AFP news agency.

Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the UK made the claims „for creating tension“.

„These claims have no value,“ Mr Zarif added, according to Fars.

Why are UK-Iran tensions escalating?

Image copyright

EPA

Image caption

Two tankers were attacked in the Strait of Hormuz in June

The relationship between the UK and Iran has become increasingly strained, after Britain said the Iranian regime was „almost certainly“ responsible for the attacks on two oil tankers in June.

Last week, British Royal Marines helped the authorities in Gibraltar seize an oil tanker because of evidence it was carrying Iranian crude oil to Syria in breach of EU sanctions.

The Government of Gibraltar said it would not comment on matters relating to the vessel as it was the subject of a police investigation. It said the matter was also now in the Supreme Court.

The Port of Gibraltar’s live map showed Grace 1 remained anchored about 3km off the east coast of Gibraltar on Thursday.

An Iranian official said a British oil tanker should be seized if Grace 1 was not released.

Prime Minister Theresa May’s official spokesman said on Thursday that Grace 1 was a serious sanctions issue in relation to Syria rather than Iran.

Image copyright

REUTERS

Image caption

British Royal Marines helped to detain the oil tanker, Grace 1, near Gibraltar earlier this month

Iran also summoned the British ambassador in Tehran to complain about what it said was a „form of piracy“.

On Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani mocked the UK, calling it „scared“ and „hopeless“ for using Royal Navy warships to shadow another British tanker in the Gulf.

HMS Montrose had shadowed British tanker the Pacific Voyager for some of the way through the Strait of Hormuz, but that journey had passed without incident.

„You, Britain, are the initiator of insecurity and you will realise the consequences later,“ Mr Rouhani said.

Why does the Strait of Hormuz matter?

The Royal Navy has a frigate, four minehunters and a Royal Fleet Auxiliary support ship already stationed in a permanent Naval Support Facility in the region, at Mina Salman in Bahrain.

This is enough to provide reassurance, but probably not to deal with a crisis, the BBC’s Jonathan Beale said.

„HMS Montrose will not be able to provide protection for every commercial vessel in the Gulf with links to the UK,“ he added.

„Ministers will now have to contemplate sending another Royal Navy warship to the region. But in doing so, that may only further escalate tensions with Iran, which is something the government wants to avoid.“

The UK has also been pressing Iran to release British-Iranian mother Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe who was jailed for five years in 2016 after being convicted for spying, which she denies.

Could things get worse?

Iran appears to have been attempting to make good on its threat against British-flagged vessels in the wake of the seizure of an Iranian tanker off Gibraltar.

But though this incident has a specifically bilateral dimension, it is also a powerful reminder that the tensions in the Gulf have not gone away.

And with every sign that the dispute over the nuclear agreement with Iran is set to continue, things may only get worse.

The episode may add some impetus to US-brokered efforts to muster an international naval force in the Gulf to protect international shipping.

But most worrying of all, it shows that elements within the Iranian system – the Revolutionary Guard Corps’s naval arm, or whatever – are intent on stoking the pressure.

This inevitably plays into President Trump’s hands as Britain and its key European partners struggle to keep the nuclear agreement alive.

Image copyright

REUTERS

Image caption

The British Heritage tanker is capable of carrying more than one million barrels of oil, according to BP Shipping

British Heritage is one of three tankers delivered under a fleet rejuvenation project by BP Shipping. All three ships are registered at the port of Douglas, in the Isle of Man.

The crew on the tankers is typically made up of about 25 officers.

It is understood British Heritage was not carrying cargo at the time of the incident with the Iranian boats.

A spokesman for BP said: „Our top priority is the safety and security of our crews and vessels. While we are not commenting on these events, we thank the Royal Navy for their support.“

What are US-Iran tensions about?

The US has blamed Iran for attacks on six oil tankers in May and June.

The chairman of the US military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said, on Wednesday, it wants to create a multi-national military coalition to safeguard waters around Iran and Yemen .

The news followed the Trump administration’s decision to pull out of an international agreement on Tehran’s nuclear programme and reinforce punishing sanctions against Iran .

European allies to the US, including the UK, have not followed suit.

Iran’s ambassador to the UN has insisted Europeans must do more to compensate Tehran for economic losses inflicted by US sanctions.

Tehran has begun to nudge the levels of its enriched uranium beyond the limits of a nuclear deal agreed with a group of world powers , in small and calculated steps.

Majid Takht-Ravanchi told the BBC, Iran would move to the „third phase“ of its stepped-up uranium enrichment programme unless the Europeans kept promises to uphold the economic benefits of the accord.

The European Horns Will Join Babylon the Great (Daniel 7)

GEORGE OURFALIAN/AFP/Getty Images

Khamenei aide says Iran is prepared to enrich uranium unless Europe provides new terms

Tim O’Donnell

July 6, 2019

Iran is ready to enrich its uranium beyond the limits of the 2015 nuclear pact, unless European leaders offer Tehran more concessions.

On Saturday, Ali Akbar Velayati, a top aide to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in a video message that the Islamic Republic is prepared to breach the pact after Iran bolstered its stockpile of uranium last week. The message comes just ahead of a Sunday deadline Iran set for European countries to offer new terms in light of recently-imposed U.S. sanctions. If Europe does go along with the sanctions, Velayati said, „every component of the establishment“ has agreed to boost uranium enrichment levels, citing the fact that the U.S. failed to hold up its end of the bargain when Washington left the agreement last year.

But Uranium enrichment is not the only thing stirring up trouble between Tehran and Europe.

In related news, Mohammad Ali Mousavi Jazayeri, a member of the Assembly of Experts, a powerful religious body in Iran, said on Saturday that the United Kingdom „should be scared“ of Iran’s retaliatory measures after the seizure of an Iranian supertanker in Gibraltar by the British navy on Thursday. „We have shown that we will never remain silent over bullying,“ he said.

A British-flagged oil tanker came to a halt in the Persian Gulf, but Iran quickly denied reports that it had seized the ship in retaliation. Hours later, a U.K. Maritime Trade Operations official told Reuters that the tanker is „safe and well,“ further dispelling any suspicion.

UK Soon to Join Babylon the Great (Daniel 7)

Iran To Exceed Uranium Enrichment Limits. Should U.K. Leave Nuclear Deal?

Iran confirms it will breach the nuclear deal by speeding up enrichment of uranium. NPR’s Steve Inskeep talks to Karen Pierce, the U.K.’s ambassador to the U.N., about how the deal will be affected.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: 

What do Europeans do now that Iran has begun going beyond the limits of a nuclear deal, or says that it will? Iran has been enriching uranium, an activity that is allowed but sharply limited under that agreement from 2015. Today is the day when Iran said it would go beyond the amount of enriched uranium it’s allowed to have on hand. Remember. This is a deal the United States withdrew from but that other world powers and Iran would like to keep. The U.K. is still in the deal, and we’ve called the U.K. ambassador to the United Nations, Karen Pierce, who’s on the line from New York.

Ambassador, good morning.

KAREN PIERCE: Good morning.

INSKEEP: Do you regard Iran as going out of compliance with the deal today?

PIERCE: I haven’t seen anything from New York that suggests that that has actually happened. But of course, that’s what Iran said it would do today, 27 June. But the next step, in any case, would be for the International Atomic Energy Authority to confirm what, if anything, Iran has actually done.

INSKEEP: Well, let’s suppose they go beyond that limit. Then we’ve got to figure out what to think of it. It seems obvious that means they’re out of compliance with the deal. They’re not following the deal. But Iran’s United Nations ambassador told us on this program the other day, wait a minute. Actually, there’s a provision that allows us to start going out of compliance exceeding the limits in this way if other signatories to the deal are not keeping up their end of the bargain. And you’re not. Do you agree that Europe is not keeping its end of the bargain here to provide economic benefit to Iran?

PIERCE: No, Europe is trying very hard to stand up its end of the deal. I won’t disguise from you, it’s difficult because of the U.N. sanctions. And we said in the Security Council yesterday that we regretted the fact that the deal couldn’t be implemented in full. But the Europeans have set up a special purpose vehicle to get humanitarian and other supplies to Iran. And we believe very firmly Iran should stay in the deal. There’s still enough in the deal, and it’s important for global nonproliferation, as well, that the deal is upheld and that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.

INSKEEP: Would you explain this special purpose vehicle, Ambassador? You’ve got some kind of bank or institution that’s going to try to sell stuff to Iran without running afoul of U.S. sanctions? Is that right?

PIERCE: It’s more a vehicle that money goes into and goods can be supplied under it. It’s not intended to contravene U.S. sanctions. On the contrary, it’s intended to provide a line for vital supplies to Iran. But I just want, if I may, Steve, to go back to this point about compliance.

INSKEEP: Sure.

PIERCE: The Iranians often make the argument that because X has done something, they’re entitled to also not do something that they ought to do under the deal. And we don’t accept that argument. But the deal itself did envisage a circumstance in which Iran might fall out of compliance. And there are mechanisms in the deal itself whereby the participants get together and try to figure out a way to bring Iran back into compliance. So it’s not the end of the story even if Iran has breached. But obviously, that would be a very worrying development.

INSKEEP: So you’re saying that there are provisions that would be like mediation or going to court, and you could press Iran to go back within compliance if, in fact, they go out today. Is that right?

PIERCE: There’s similar provisions to that. They’re not actually going to court.

INSKEEP: Sure.

PIERCE: It’s more about the deal’s participants working this out themselves. But as I say, it was certainly envisaged that one day, we might face this situation. And there are dispute resolution mechanisms within the deal itself that would enable us to get together, discuss with Iran, try to work out how to bring her back into compliance.

INSKEEP: As you know very well, Ambassador, the United States keeps adding more sanctions on Iran and tightening oil and other sanctions on Iran. And their goal – well, we could argue about the goal, but it’s certainly to undermine this deal in every way possible. Do you think this deal is still survivable, that it’s sustainable?

PIERCE: Well, I won’t disguise from you the fact that it is tricky to keep the deal going in the circumstances you describe. Nevertheless, we remain committed to it. The other participants, who include Russia, China, France and Germany, as well as Iran, remain committed to it. It’s vital for European but also regional security. And it’s a really important commitment to help global nonproliferation. So we want to do everything we can to keep the deal intact.

That’s not to say we don’t agree with the American administration about Iran’s behavior in the region, in Syria, in Lebanon, in Yemen and also in the Gulf. But for Europeans, those are two separate things and easier to tackle the second if Iran is in the nuclear deal.

INSKEEP: Karen Pierce, U.K. ambassador to the U.N., thanks.

PIERCE: Thank you.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

The UK Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

This Country Has Enough Nuclear Bombs Aboard Submarines To Kill Millions

Great Britian is a nuclear power with some very deadly submarines. 

6 Technologies That Changed Warfare Forever

At any one time, at least sixty-four of the UK’s nuclear weapons are somewhere at sea, ready to launch within minutes of warning. While nowhere near as powerful as the U.S. strategic deterrent, the nuclear weapons are more than enough to prevent any opponent from launching a surprise attack. The Royal Navy’s ballistic missile submarines carry on the service’s centuries-old mission of protecting the country from the sea.

The United Kingdom maintains a fleet of four ballistic missile submarines with the ability to devastate even the largest of countries. This fleet came into being after its ally, the United States, canceled a key weapon system that would have been the cornerstone of London’s nuclear arsenal. Fifty years later, the UK’s missile submarine force is the sole custodian of the country’s nuclear weapons, providing a constant deterrent against nuclear attack.

(This first appeaered late last year.)

The United Kingdom’s nuclear force in the early 1960s relied upon the so-called “V-Force” strategic bombers: the Avro Vulcan, Handley Page Victor and Vickers Valiant. The bombers were set to be equipped with the Skybolt air-launched ballistic missile, which could penetrate Soviet defenses at speeds of up to Mach 12.4 (9,500 miles an hour). Unfortunately technical problems plagued Skybolt, and the U.S. government canceled the missile in 1962.

Skybolt’s cancellation threatened to undo the UK’s entire nuclear deterrent, and the two countries raced to come up with a solution. The United States agreed to offer the new Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missile to replace Skybolt. The United Kingdom had no missile submarines to carry Polaris—it would have to build them.

A study by the Ministry of Defense concluded that, like France, the UK would need at least five ballistic missile submarines to maintain a credible deterrent posture. This number would later be reduced to four submarines. Like the French Le Redoutable class, the submarines would bear a strong resemblance to the U.S. Navy’s Lafayette-class ballistic missile submarines, with two rows of eight missiles tubes each behind the sail. Unlike Lafayette and Le Redoutable, the new submarines of the Royal Navy’s Resolution-class would have their hydroplanes on the bow, with the ability to fold up when parked along a pier.

Most of the submarine was British, with two built by Vickers Armstrong at Furness and two by Cammel Laird at Birkenhead. The missiles, missile launch tubes and fire control mechanisms, however, were built in the United States. Each submarine was equipped with sixteen Polaris A-3 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The Polaris had a range of 2,500 miles and was originally equipped with a single British warhead. A midlife improvement for the missile, Polaris A-3TK, replaced the single warhead with two Chevaline warheads plus penetration aids.

The first submarine, HMS Resolution, was laid down in 1964 and commissioned in 1967, followed by Repulse and Renown, commissioned in 1968, and the aptly-named Revenge in 1969. Resolution first successfully launched a missile off the coast of Florida in February 1968.

In the early 1980s, it became clear that the Resolution class would eventually need replacement. Despite the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet threat, London held firm and built all four ships. The UK again decided to build its own submarines and outfit them with American missiles. The result were the four Vanguard-class submarines: Vanguard (commissioned in 1993), Victorious (1995), Vigilant (1996) and Vengeance (1999). Vanguard carried out her first Trident II missile firing in 1994, and undertook her first operational patrol in 1995.

At 15,000 tons displacement, the Vanguards are twice the the size of the Resolution class that preceded them. Although each submarine has sixteen launch tubes, a decision was made in 2010 to load each sub with just eight American-built Trident II D-5 submarine launched ballistic missiles. The Trident II D-5 has a range of 4,600 miles, meaning it can strike targets across European Russia with ease. Each D-5 carries eight multiple independently targetable warhead 100 kiloton warheads, giving each submarine a total of 6.4 megatons of nuclear firepower.

UK missile submarine crews, like their American counterparts, maintain two crews per boat to increase ship availability. Under a program known as Continuous At Sea Deterrence (CASD) at least one submarine is on patrol at all times, with another coming off patrol, another preparing for a patrol and a fourth undergoing maintenance. According to the Royal Navy, CASD has not missed a single day in the last forty-eight years without a submarine on patrol.

In 2016, the Ministry of Defense announced the next generation of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, dubbed Successor, would be the Dreadnought class. The Royal Navy will builds four Dreadnought-class subs, each weighing 17,200 tons, with construction beginning in September 2016. Each will have twelve missile tubes instead of sixteen, and the subs will recycle the Trident II D-5 missiles from their predecessors. The Dreadnought boats are expected to enter service in the 2030s and have a thirty-year life cycle. The ministry expects the new submarines to cost an estimated $39 billion over thirty-five years, with a $12 billion contingency. The introduction of the third generation Dreadnought class will provide the UK with a powerful strategic deterrent until the 2060s and possibly beyond.

At any one time, at least sixty-four of the UK’s nuclear weapons are somewhere at sea, ready to launch within minutes of warning. While nowhere near as powerful as the U.S. strategic deterrent, the nuclear weapons are more than enough to prevent any opponent from launching a surprise attack. The Royal Navy’s ballistic missile submarines carry on the service’s centuries-old mission of protecting the country from the sea.

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national-security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami.

UK Horn Steps Up to the Nuclear Plate (Daniel 7:7)

Britain's nuclear submarine breaks through Arctic ice for first time in decade amid Russia tensions

David Hughes

HMS Trenchant breaks through a metre of ice in the Arctic in a show of Britain's military strength.
The Royal Navy submarine is taking part in Ice Exercise 18, a major operation in conjunction with US forces.
It is the first time in a decade a Navy submarine has practiced beneath the ice amid increasing tensions with Russia.
The Arctic region has become an increasing focus of competition.
Russia is believed to hide its ballistic missile submarines there while NATO nations are developing skills to locate and destroy them.
It comes as Britain is braced for a reaction to Theresa May's decision to expel 23 diplomats.
A tit-for-tat reaction is expected and Moscow is also plotting a response to the United States after Donald Trump's administration imposed sanctions on Russians allegedly involved in interfering with the 2016 US elections and cyber-attacks
The attack on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury was highlighted by the US Treasury as one of the justifications for the tougher line against Moscow.
The US treasury department said the use of a military-grade nerve agent in the Salisbury incident "further demonstrates the reckless and irresponsible conduct of its (Russia's) government".

Read More

• Deadly Russian spy poison 'planted in daughter's suitcase before she left Moscow'

The sanctions prompted a swift threat of retaliation from the Russian government, which said a response was already being prepared.

Meanwhile the Kremlin continued to consider how to respond to Mrs May after the largest expulsion of diplomats since the Cold War was announced on Wednesday.
President Vladimir Putin had a meeting with his security council on Thursday to consider UK-Russia relations.
Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov warned Moscow will expel British diplomats "soon" and suggested that the "provocation with Skripal" was an attempt to distract attention from the Brexit process.
Mr Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the final decision on retaliatory measures "will, of course, be made by the Russian president", adding: "There is no doubt that he will choose the variant that best of all corresponds to the interests of the Russian Federation".

Read More

• Jeremy Corbyn defends his position on Russia saying we should not resign ourselves to a 'new cold war'

In a demonstration of the West's unity, Mrs May and Mr Trump, along with Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Emmanuel Macron, issued a joint statement endorsing the Prime Minister's conclusion that it was "highly likely" Russia was behind the attack on the Skripals.

The Daily Telegraph reported that the nerve agent used in the attack could have been planted in Yulia Skripal's suitcase during a recent trip to Moscow.
The newspaper said senior intelligence sources believe an item of clothing, cosmetics or a gift could have been laced with the Novichok toxin.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn , whose response to the attack has led to criticism from some on his backbenches, said "the evidence points towards Russia" being responsible - but the possibility of gangsters being behind the attack rather than the Kremlin could not be excluded.
He warned Mrs May not to "rush way ahead of the evidence" - highlighting the way international crises such as the Iraq War had seen "clear thinking" overwhelmed by "emotion and hasty judgments".
Writing in the Guardian he warned against a "new Cold War" of "escalating arms spending, proxy conflicts across the globe and a McCarthyite intolerance of dissent".
Confirming Labour's support for Mrs May's actions, Mr Corbyn said: "We agree with the Government's action in relation to Russian diplomats."
But he added: "Measures to tackle the oligarchs and their loot would have a far greater impact on Russia's elite than limited tit-for-tat expulsions."
Mr Corbyn said that Mrs May was right on Monday to identify two possibilities for the source of the nerve agent - either Russia authorised the attack or had lost control of the Novichok substance.
"If the latter, a connection to Russian mafia-like groups that have been allowed to gain a toehold in Britain cannot be excluded," he said.
The Labour leader, who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, added: "In my years in parliament I have seen clear thinking in an international crisis overwhelmed by emotion and hasty judgments too many times.
"Flawed intelligence and dodgy dossiers led to the calamity of the Iraq invasion."
Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, who heads up the national counter-terror police network which is leading the Salisbury investigation, appealed for anyone with information about the "despicable" and "appalling" attack to come forward.

Russian Nuclear Horn Warns the UK

'Don't threaten us': Russia's extraordinary nuclear warning to May

Matilda Long

10-13 minutes

---

• Russia warns against ‘threatening a nuclear power’
• Trump leads allies’ backing of Britain and says ‘we’ll back you all the way’
• May had issued a midnight deadline for Putin to explain what happened
• Hundreds of Salisbury residents warned they could have contaminated clothing
• Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia still alive

Russia has warned Britain to “consider the consequences” of mounting a retaliatory cyber strike and told Theresa May not to threaten a nuclear power.

In a fresh sign of the escalating diplomatic tension sparked by the case, the Russian Embassy cautioned against “such a reckless move”.

Theresa May has set Moscow a deadline of midnight on Tuesday to explain how a nerve agent was deployed against Sergei Skripal and his daughter on the streets of Salisbury.

If there is no credible response from the Kremlin, Mrs May has pledged to set out a “full range” of measures to be taken in response.

On a fast-moving day of developments and the ratcheting up of diplomatic tensions, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Rossiya 1 state TV: “One should not threaten a nuclear power”, particularly, she added,  in light of remarks made by Putin earlier this month in which he announced an array of new weapons.

She added: “When an foreign affairs body of a country is headed by people who have absolutely nothing to do with foreign policy, who built their career on populism…, it is normal for them to come out and start scare-mongering. Do not (try to) scare us,” apparently referring to Boris Johnson.

The UK Government has not publicly disclosed the options under consideration if Russia fails to meet its deadline, but reports on Tuesday suggested one possibility was a cyber counter-attack.

Responding to the speculation, the Russian Embassy in the UK issued extraordinary series of tweets: “Statements by a number of MPs, ‘Whitehall sources’ and ‘experts’ regarding a possible ‘deployment’ of ‘offensive cyber-capabilities’ cause serious concern.

1/7 UK Ambassador Laurence Bristow was summoned to @MFA_Russia, where First Deputy FM Vladimir Titov strongly protested the evidence-free accusations by the UK authorities of Russia’s alleged involvement in the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. pic.twitter.com/wQvl2AwLJI

— Russian Embassy, UK (@RussianEmbassy) March 13, 2018

2/7 It was stated that the actions of the UK authorities are a clear provocation and that the Russian Federation was not involved in the incident that took place in Salisbury on 4 March, 2018. pic.twitter.com/WppmgfgO6L

— Russian Embassy, UK (@RussianEmbassy) March 13, 2018

3/7 Moscow will not respond to London’s ultimatum until it receives samples of the chemical substance to which the UK investigators are referring. pic.twitter.com/B5CNtimcc3

— Russian Embassy, UK (@RussianEmbassy) March 13, 2018

4/7 Britain must comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention which stipulates joint investigation into the incident, for which Moscow is ready. pic.twitter.com/8TxEBOpBQ8

— Russian Embassy, UK (@RussianEmbassy) March 13, 2018

“Not only is Russia groundlessly and provocatively accused of the Salisbury incident, but apparently, plans are being developed in the UK to strike Russia with cyber weapons.

“Judging by the statements of the Prime Minister, such a decision can be taken at tomorrow’s meeting of the National Security Council.

“We invite the British side to once again consider the consequences of such a reckless move.”

On Tuesday, the developments came thick and fast.

Allies back Britain

Britain’s international allies, led by the US, have responded with condemnation over the nerve agent attack.

Mrs May was assured of the backing of the US, Germany and France in calls to President Donald Trump, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron, according to Downing Street.

Mr Trump told Mrs May that “the US was with the UK all the way, agreeing that the Russian government must provide unambiguous answers as to how this nerve agent came to be used”.

And the Baltic states, which border Russia, also offered their support in the wake of the attack.

Latvia said it was prepared to offer the “required support” and urged Nato and the EU to agree on action.

Second Russian death

In a further extraordinary development, a probe has been launched by counter-terrorism police amid reports a Russian exile who was a close friend of Putin critic Boris Berezovsky has been found dead.

Scotland Yard said a man in his 60s was found at a home in Clarence Avenue, New Malden, south-west London on Monday and that the cause of his death is unexplained.

The force said in a statement: “At this stage the Met Police Counter Terrorism Command is leading the investigation as a precaution because of associations that the man is believed to have had.

“There is no evidence to suggest a link to the incident in Salisbury.”

Lawyer Andrei Borovkov told Russian media outlets that his client, Nikolai Glushkov, the former deputy director of airline Aeroflot, had died.

But he said he was unaware of the time and circumstances.

Nerve agent warning

Beyond Mr Skripal and his daughter, Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, one of the first responders to the incident, remain in hospital.

Thirty-five local residents have also been seen in hospital. Thirty-four have been released while one is still being monitored.

Separately, one of the inventors of the nerve agent has warned that tiny traces of the chemical could put hundreds of people at risk for years to come.

Dr Vil Mirzayanov was part of the team that developed Novichok in a Russian chemical weapons institute.

He later became so concerned about the damage it could cause he became a whistleblower and fled to America.

‘It’s the same as nerve gas but 10 times, at least 10 times, more powerful,’ he told Sky News.

The chemist warned that symptoms could develop even years after exposure to the substance, and that there is no cure.

Russia hits back

Russia had previously reiterated its innocence over the poisoning, saying Moscow is ‘not to blame’ for the nerve agent attack.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that Moscow will only co-operate with Britain on the investigation if it receives samples of the nerve agent that is believed to have been used to target Mr Skripal and his daughter.

Mr Lavrov said that requests to see samples of the nerve agent have been turned down, which he called a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which outlaws the production of chemical weapons.

In a separate astonishing outburst on Tuesday morning, one Russian MP said that the PM herself was behind the attempted murder, comparing Mrs May to Hitler. 

May makes her move

In a startling statement on Monday evening aimed directly at the Kremlin, the Prime Minister said it was ‘highly likely’ Russia was responsible for the attempted murder of the former spy, calling it a ‘reckless’ act.

A failure by Russia to provide a “credible response” would lead her to view the attack in Salisbury as “an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against the United Kingdom”, sparking undefined retaliatory measures.

Russia responded almost immediately, however, describing Britain’s reaction as a ‘circus show’.

‘There are therefore only two plausible explanations for what happened in Salisbury on the 4th of March,’ the PM said.

‘Either this was a direct act by the Russian State against our country or the Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.’

President Vladimir Putin himself responded to a direct question over Russia’s involvement by saying: ‘You should first get things clear yourselves on the spot and after that we will discuss this with you.”

Boris Johnson had previously told the Russian ambassador that Moscow must ‘immediately provide full and complete disclosure’ of its Novichok nerve gas programme to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

On Monday, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs committee said the attempt on Mr Skripal’s life was ‘looking awfully like it was state-sponsored attempted murder’.