The Hypocrisy of the Australian Nuclear Horn

 
People’s tribunal finds Australia guilty over nuclear weapons
Hamish McDonald

Malcolm Turnbull is getting accused of many things as he heads towards the first anniversary of his snafu-prone prime ministership. But aiding and abetting the planning of genocide, ecocide and even omnicide (that is, the destruction of everyone and all living things)?

Well, yes. The University of Sydney was recently the venue for an international people’s tribunal, a kind of volunteer court, in which the leaders of the nine nuclear powers were on trial for planning the above crimes through their explicit threats to use their weapons. Turnbull, as our current leader, was up for facilitating the use of American weapons. The judges were New Zealand’s former disarmament minister Matthew Robson and Sydney politics academic Keith Suter, who duly found the accused guilty, in absentia of course.

They ruled that nuclear weapons violate the accepted principles of international humanitarian law in wartime because they cannot discriminate between military and civilian targets; go far beyond proportional response and military objectives; don’t protect non-combatants; cause unnecessary suffering by spreading poison, disease and genetic damage; cause massive environmental damage; threaten future generations; threaten death on a scale amounting to genocide; and involve massive collateral damage to neutral countries.

The United States, France, Russia, Pakistan and Britain refuse to rule out first use of their nuclear weapons, “but all indicted leaders have military plans and exercises that demonstrate that they are ready to use nuclear weapons if they deem it necessary”, the tribunal found.

Turnbull had retired politics professor Bob Howard, brother of predecessor John Howard, speaking up as volunteer defence counsel. But it was guilty as charged, since Australia’s position was that it would accept the use of nuclear weapons by the US in its defence.

The gesture comes as nuclear powers are expanding or modernising their arsenals. India and Pakistan are in a nuclear arms race: even use of 100 Hiroshima sized-bombs in that theatre would plunge the Earth into its coldest climate for a thousand years, University of Missouri expert Steven Starr told the tribunal. An exchange between the big powers would, aside from the immediate casualties, create a new Ice Age and result in most surviving humans and large animals dying of starvation.

Britain’s new prime minister, Theresa May, has just had legislation passed for a $69 billion replacement fleet of ballistic missile submarines. The Americans are developing a new guided bomb called the B61-12, which has got the Federation of American Scientists worried because it could be the most “usable” or “thinkable” nuclear weapon ever developed. Its relatively small yield can be adjusted up or down to a maximum 50 kilotons. Combined with high accuracy from its motors and steerable fins, this could tempt commanders into a “precision” nuclear strike, taking a gamble nuclear escalation won’t result.

Nuclear ‘weasels’

Australia has steadily retreated from the push for universal nuclear disarmament that Bill Hayden, notably, inserted into policy when he was foreign minister in the Hawke government to provide moral balance to the alliance with the US.

As we’ve noticed before, the new Defence White Paper this year dropped all that. “Australia’s security is underpinned by the ANZUS Treaty, United States extended deterrence and access to advanced United States technology and information,” it stated. “Only the nuclear and conventional military capabilities of the United States can offer effective deterrence against the possibility of nuclear threats against Australia.”

Some might argue that joint facilities such as the space warfare facilities at Pine Gap and Geraldton would be first targets of a nuclear opponent seeking to disable the US command network. China says it would not use its weapons against a non-nuclear power. But would a country that hosts nuclear war-fighting facilities count as one?

Julie Bishop is all for nuclear weapons, gushing that “the horrendous humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons are precisely why deterrence has worked”. In Geneva, her diplomats have been hard at work trying to derail efforts for a United Nations ban on nuclear weapons.

Richard Lennane, a former Australian diplomat who now runs a Geneva NGO called Wildfire which supports such a ban, chronicled the manoeuvres this week on the Lowy Institute’s website The Interpreter. Australian delegates in a UN working group have been trying to moderate the push for a ban, by seeking a “progressive” elimination of nuclear weapons rather than an outright ban, in company with some 28 nations that rely on extended deterrence from nuclear protectors. They are known variously as the nuclear “umbrella” or “weasel” group.

As the working group headed for its conclusive vote on August 19, it seemed that a suitably weasel-worded consensus resolution had been agreed upon to send to the UN General Assembly: a recommendation for a start on negotiations for a nuclear weapons ban treaty, with a note of the umbrella states’ dissenting view.

Then Australia baulked at the consensus and declared on behalf of 14 umbrella states that the text was not acceptable, and forced a vote. Lennane said it was felt Australia had acted in bad faith “by using the prospect of a consensus report to extract concessions and negotiate a weaker text, and then when others thought all was agreed, pulling the rug from under them and calling for a vote”. Canada, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands and Norway were among the umbrella states that refused to join Australia and voted for the resolution. It was passed, but with much bad will towards Australia. Bishop can be sure of brownie points in Washington, no doubt.

Maybe the Sydney tribunal will be more than a futile gesture against this kind of thing.

Erdoğan eyes Kurds

The Syrian conflict got even more multi-sided this week. Turkey sent tanks and special forces across the border to help its local allies take the town of Jarabulus from Daesh, with US air support.
The Americans sent up fighter jets to warn off Syrian government aircraft that were attacking Kurdish positions elsewhere in the country’s north where US special forces are embedded, though the Pentagon insists this doesn’t amount to a no-fly zone. A two-day ceasefire was suggested for Aleppo.
A suicide bomber killed 51 people, about half of them children, at a Kurdish wedding inside Turkey at the weekend. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s government blamed Daesh and expressed sympathy, but his Kurdish population was not convinced about his sincerity. Until recently, Daesh could get its recruits and supplies across the border from Turkey, and sell its oil production back.

Erdoğan has lately been warming up to Russia and Iran, suggesting he’s switching priorities from seeking the downfall of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad to squelching Kurdish hopes of a new state straddling the present borders of Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq. The move on Jarabulus was to prevent Kurdish groups capturing it first. The Turks have warned the Kurds to back off to the eastern side of the Euphrates River, or they will be attacked. The US balancing act between its Turkish and Kurdish friends gets ever harder.

Russia ‘shows off’

Vladimir Putin does not seem at all deterred, meanwhile, gathering troops, armour, aircraft and advanced missile systems on the frontier with Ukraine. He is poised for attack, but it could all be posturing ahead of Russian parliamentary elections next month.

But posturing hasn’t gone down too well in Tehran. Russia’s recent use of an Iranian air base for bombing runs into Syria got Iranian MPs asking about the terms of use. Defence minister Hossein Dehghan assured them the arrangement had been temporary and was “finished, for now”. And he added, in a radio interview, that “Russians are interested to show they are a superpower to guarantee their share in the political future of Syria and, of course, there has been a kind of showoff and ungentlemanly [attitude] in this field.”

world@thesaturdaypaper.com.au

Nuclear Korea Threatens America’s Allies

US Allies Endangered by N. Korean Sub-Launched Missiles and Burgeoning Nuclear Threat
  
By Bruce Klingner | August 26, 2016 | 9:55 AM EDT

North Korea conducted its most successful test launch of a submarine-launched ballistic missile on Tuesday. The missile traveled 500 kilometers (300 miles), a considerable improvement over the 30-km range of the previous launch, and landed within Japan’s air defense identification zone.

South Korean military officials report that North Korea used an unusual 500-km high trajectory so as not to penetrate the Japanese air defense zone further. If launched on a regular 150-km high trajectory, the submarine-launched missile might have traveled over 1,000 km.

After the unsuccessful missile test earlier this year, the South Korean ministry of defense assessed it would take North Korea three to four years before deploying a submarine ballistic missile force. However, after yesterday’s test, some South Korean military authorities warn deployment potentially could occur within a year.

South Korea does not currently have defenses against submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The SM-2 missile currently deployed on South Korean destroyers only provides protection against anti-ship missiles. South Korea has recently expressed interest in the U.S.-developed SM-3 or SM-6 ship-borne systems to provide anti-submarine launched missile defense.

Some experts are dismissive of a submarine-based ballistic missile threat based on the perception that North Korea’s old and noisy submarines would be easy to detect. However, in 2010, a North Korean submarine sank the South Korean naval corvette Cheonan in South Korean waters. In August 2015, 50 North Korean submarines—70 percent of the fleet—left port and disappeared despite allied monitoring efforts.

Despite post-Cheonan efforts, South Korean anti-submarine warfare capabilities remain an area of concern for allied military planners. A strong anti-submarine capability is not only critical for homeland defense but also for protecting sea lines of communication during a crisis on the Korean Peninsula. During a Korean conflict, the South Korean navy could have a critical mission to protect U.S. carrier groups deployed near the peninsula by engaging North Korean submarines.

Expanding Missile Threat

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is pushing forward rapidly on both nuclear and missile fronts. In addition to submarine missile launches, this year he has successfully tested a nuclear weapon, an intercontinental ballistic missile, a road-mobile intermediate-range missile as well as medium- and short-range missiles, re-entry vehicle technology, a new solid-fuel rocket engine, and an improved liquid-fuel ICBM engine. During Kim’s four-year reign, Pyongyang has conducted 34 missile tests, more than twice as many as his father Kim Jong Il did in 17 years in office.

In June, North Korea successfully tested a Musudan intermediate-range missile, which led experts to conclude the regime currently has the ability to threaten U.S. bases in Guam, a critical node in allied plans for defending South Korea. Successful No Dong medium-range missile tests were conducted in July and August, accompanied by North Korean statements that they were practice drills for preemptive nuclear attacks on South Korea and U.S. forces based there.

A North Korean media-released photo showed the missile range would encompass all of South Korea, including the port of Busan where U.S. reinforcement forces would land. Adm. Bill Gortney, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command, stated that North Korea is capable of putting a nuclear warhead on the No Dong medium-range ballistic missile that can reach all of South Korea and Japan.

In March, Kim Jong Un observed another missile launch simulating a nuclear missile attack on South Korean targets. The regime declared those launches were “a sea port of debarkation ballistic missile test [conducted] under the simulated conditions of exploding nuclear warheads from the preset altitude above targets in the ports under the enemy control where foreign aggressor forces are involved.”

In February, North Korea again used a Taepo Dong missile to put a satellite into orbit, the same technology needed to launch an ICBM nuclear warhead. Assessments indicate that the satellite was approximately 450 pounds, twice as heavy a payload as the previous successful satellite launch in Dec. 2012, and that the missile may have a range of 13,000 km, putting the entire continental United States within range.

Defending Allied Security

The accelerated pace of North Korean nuclear and missile tests reflect Kim’s intent to deploy a spectrum of missile systems of complementary ranges to threaten the U.S. and its allies with nuclear weapons. Kim affirmed at the National Party Congress in May—the first held in 36 years—that North Korea will never negotiate away its nuclear weapons.

The U.S. and South Korea should:

Deploy the THAAD ballistic missile defense system. The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, is more capable than any system that South Korea has or would have for decades to defend against North Korean land-based missiles.

Refute fallacious Chinese arguments against THAAD. Beijing asserted that THAAD deployment would impinge on its security interests. However, a careful analysis of THAAD interceptor and radar capabilities and Chinese missile deployment sites reveal Chinese technical objections are disingenuous. Beijing’s true objective is preventing improvement in allied defensive capabilities and multilateral cooperation.

Demonstrate THAAD radar is not a health threat. South Korean critics of THAAD deployment claim fears of radiation risks from the X-band radar, saying it would kill bees and irradiate melons. Independent South Korean measurements show the levels of electromagnetic waves emanating from the radar are at an intensity far safer than required by Korean law.

Deploy sea-based ballistic missile defense against the submarine missile threat. The THAAD system is not designed to counter SLBM threats. The X-band radar can only detect missiles in an approximate 90-degree arc, which would be directed toward North Korea, not the waters surrounding the Korean Peninsula. Therefore, Washington and Seoul should discuss deployment of SM-3 or SM-6 missiles on South Korean naval ships.

Augment allied anti-submarine warfare capabilities. North Korea’s apparent ability to evade allied submarine detection systems is worrisome. Washington should facilitate South Korean collection and analysis capabilities and linkage with U.S. naval intelligence. Seoul requires wide-area ocean-surveillance capability, for both coastal defense and blue-water operations.

North Korea continues its relentless quest to augment and refine its nuclear weapons arsenal and missile delivery capabilities. The international community should maintain a comprehensive effort of augmented sanctions for North Korea’s repeated violations of U.N. resolutions and international law.
But the U.S. and its allies must implement measures to defend themselves against the spectrum of North Korea’s military threats. Ballistic missile defense is an important part of the broader strategy of strong alliances, forward-deployed U.S. military forces in the Pacific, and devoting sufficient resources to the U.S. defense budget.

Bruce Klingner, a senior research fellow for Northeast Asia at The Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center, spent 20 years in the intelligence community working at the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency.

Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published by The Daily Signal.

The Babylonian Press And The Scarlet Woman (Rev 17)

 
Hillary-Putin Uranium Deal: How Long Will Media Ignore It?

Written by William F. Jasper Friday, 26 August 2016 18:00

Most American voters looking toward November would probably be interested in learning about Hillary Clinton’s prime role in delivering one-fifth of America’s uranium production to Vladimir Putin’s Russia. As this matter is critically relevant to our national security, as well as America’s energy security, voters would probably appreciate learning about it before they cast their ballot for the next Oval Office occupant. However, most Americans probably have never even heard about Bill and Hillary Clinton’s ties to the Uranium One-Rosatom-Frank Giustra scandal, through the couple’s corruption-troubled Clinton Foundation, and Hillary’s official dealings while serving as President Obama’s secretary of state.

That is hardly surprising, considering the overwhelming pro-Clinton, anti-Trump bias of the “progressive” establishment media. But new Clinton e-mails and State Department memos released by WikiLeaks may cause some members of the pro-Clinton press brigade to break ranks and confront \the Democratic Party candidate on this vitally important issue. Among the many documents to surface recently is a State Department cable from October 2009 warning of the intentions of Rosatom, Russia’s nuclear energy agency, as it “flexes muscles” with regard to the global uranium market.

State Department officials in Europe cabled Secretary Clinton, warning that a Russian strategy paper they had obtained showed Kremlin plans to gain “long-term supply of nuclear fuel” so they could, among other objectives, “shut” the U.S. company Westinghouse out of the nuclear market and expand Russia’s influence over Europe. The cable also warned Clinton that the plan detailed in the Russian paper “is consistent with Russia’s efforts to dominate the gas supply market in Europe.”
Secretary Clinton was also getting warnings from members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives as well. Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) was particularly alarmed, since the proposed deal involved a large uranium mine in his state. He wrote to President Obama, noting the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity” through Rusatom and its subsidiary, ARMZ. “Equally alarming,” Barrasso said, “this sale gives ARMZ a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.”

Besides the obvious concern over supplying Russia with raw materials for potential use in nuclear weapons, there is also the more immediate concern over loss of vital fuel for America’s own energy needs. The United States is dependent upon nuclear power for 20 percent of our electrical power base. But energy expert Marin Katusa, author of The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp, points out that we produce only about one-fifth of the uranium we need and most of our nuclear plants have only 18 to 36 months of fuel reserves. According to Katusa, under the new Kremlin strategy, not only will Russia be able to starve other countries of power, but the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) will replace the G7 in wealth and clout.
Nevertheless, President Obama and Secretary Clinton have ignored those concerns, with the result that Russia now controls one-fifth (or more) of America’s uranium production. And the Obama administration, via the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), apparently lied to Senator Barrasso when it assured him that ore from the Uranium One mine in Wyoming wouldn’t be exported. “In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the export of uranium for use as reactor fuel,” the NRC told Barrasso in a letter, indicating that the possibility would be virtually nil. However, the NRC now confirms that Uranium One is indeed exporting uranium And that’s not the only concern. Senator Barrasso was also assured that Uranium One would remain a public company, guaranteeing some measure of transparency. But it has since been taken private, with Putin’s company ARMZ now owning 100 percent of the stock.

Hillary Clinton’s role in the Uranium One affair concerns not only gross negligence (at best) in a serious matter of national security, but also gives every appearance of blatant bribery. As we have reported previously — and as authors Peter Schweizer and Jerome Corsi have detailed, respectively, in their books, Clinton Cash and Partners in Crime — Hillary Clinton’s State Department was signing off on the Russian takeover of Uranium One while the Clinton Foundation was taking in tens of millions of dollars from Uranium One exec Frank Giustra, and while Bill Clinton and Frank Giustra were zooming about the globe on Guistra’s private jet consummating mega-mining deals.
There is much more to this story that deserves to be made public — before the November elections. The big question is: Can the controlled establishment media be shamed into giving it even a fraction of the airing it should receive?

Risk of Nuclear War is Greater Than Ever

 
Former Secretary of Defense explains why we now have greatest threat of nuclear war ever

Twenty-five years after the end of the Cold War, how safe is America, or the world, from nuclear catastrophe? Not very.

That’s the gloomy message from former Secretary of Defense William Perry, who has spent the past quarter-century focused on reducing the risk of nuclear disaster.

Part of the risk, of course, is there are now many more groups intent on inflicting mass destruction that we saw in the Sept. 11 attacks. But the seemingly old-fashion risk, that of a nuclear confrontation between nuclear powers like the United States or Russia, has not gone away either.

Another reason for concern: America and its closest nuclear competitors — Russia, China, India and others — are locked in an arms race intent on developing better, faster, more destructive weapons. In the U.S. defense officials have already warned Congress that they will need enormous sums, up to $450 billion over 20 years, and more beyond that, to overhaul America’s aging and still-dominant nuclear arsenal. That means requests for new bombers, new subs and new missiles.

This all comes at the tail-end of a presidency that began, back in 2009, with an April speech in Prague in which President Barack Obama promised to work toward a nuclear-free world.

Why do you say that we’re now at greater risk of nuclear disaster than ever?

It’s been true for a good many years, we just haven’t understood that. … To understand why I say that, I have to break it down into categories of what a catastrophe might be.

The one we think of most is another nuclear holocaust. We think of the danger that we had during the Cold War of a nuclear holocaust. That danger is returning. It’s returning because of the continually worsening relations with Russia. But it’s not as bad as it was during the Cold War — yet. So I don’t mean to suggest the nuclear war is more likely than it was during the Cold War though it is more likely than it is thought to be.

In the meantime, we’ve got two new dangers that did not exist in the Cold War. One of them is the risk of a nuclear terrorist and the other is that of a regional nuclear war. For example, between India and Pakistan.

When you add those two into the equation, then the danger of some nuclear catastrophe becomes greater.

With regard to the risk of nuclear terrorism, is it simply because there are more people in the world who wish us harm? Or, has nuclear technology changed in a way that makes it easier to accomplish such an attack?

Both of those are true. The first is due to the rise over the last few decades of radical jihadism. We’ve faced terror groups for a good many decades. But typically, they would conduct terror instances to make a point and draw attention to themselves. They were not out for mass killings. When 9/11 occurred, we realized, we are now confronted with something different.

In the case of Al Qaeda, they were out to kill as many Americans as they could. The number on 9/11 happened to be a few thousand. We also know, they had a project trying to get a nuclear bomb, which happily they did not succeed in. The first and most important point is, there are now terror groups practicing radical jihadism who are out to kill vast numbers of Americans in the thousands or hundreds of tens of thousands instead of just a few dozen. That’s new. That’s just developed in the last several decades.

What also is new is that the access to fissile material has probably increased in the last few decades. More countries now have nuclear weapons. With the access to nuclear weapons in Pakistan and North Korea for example, that opens up more avenues by which a terrorist could get the fissile material by which he could make a bomb. And maybe even get a bomb itself.

The Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the Soviet Union collapsed in late 1991, a year ahead of Bill Clinton taking office. You were his defense secretary. You said then that your top priority was to track down thousands of nukes – the so-called loose nukes problem — in the former Soviet republics. Did you succeed?

Besides Russia, which had the capability of taking care of those weapons adequately, there were now nuclear weapons and a good many nuclear weapons in Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine. In total, there were several thousand nuclear weapons. These were not under any adequate control. That was my top priority when I became secretary. That problem had arisen a year earlier than that.

We got rid of all of those. Every one of them. All of those nuclear weapons were dismantled … and in fact, that uranium is being used in American reactors through General Electric.

What has happened since then?

Since then India and Pakistan have built nuclear arsenals and North Korea has built a nuclear arsenal. Iran has had a nuclear program, which fortunately was short-stopped before it got to a nuclear arsenal.

But that presents many more opportunities for a terror group to get access, if not to a bomb itself, at least the fissile material from which they could perhaps make a bomb. It’s much more dangerous now, because of the proliferation to those countries, particularly to Pakistan and North Korea, the ones I worry most about.

Specifically, what threat do these new national arsenals pose?

The more (nukes) there are in the world, the harder it is to keep track of for sure. But I worry about some countries more than others. I worry about Pakistan because we know there are within the Pakistani military, you might say renegade groups, who owe an allegiance to radical jihad and not to the government.

To this point, the government has kept that under control, but that is a particular danger that doesn’t exist in other countries. In the case of North Korea, the danger is, this is a country that for a number of reasons, not the least the sanctions we imposed on them, is desperately poor. They might try to sell their fissile material or even bombs if somebody can pay them enough for it.

There are two very different dangers there, but they’re both very real.

In the early decades of the Cold War, we heard a lot about so-called tactical nuclear weapons. We are hearing more about that now, again. Can you talk about that?

I am very much concerned about that. The idea that you can use a little bit of nuclear weapons, as a small-yield nuclear weapon, and contain it at that point, is extremely dangerous. Nobody that I know of, no government that I know of, has a credible strategy for preventing the escalations for a full-scale nuclear war. Any use of nuclear weapons has a very high danger of escalating to full use of nuclear weapons…

Many of these tactical nuclear weapons have the yield of the Hiroshima bomb. It’s a confusing point to really refer to them as tactical when you consider the enormous damage they do. Even the lower-yield ones can do an enormous amount of damage.

This is a very dangerous idea. I’m very much opposed to the use of tactical weapons, most importantly to a policy by which we might purport to use tactical nuclear weapons, on the unproven theory that they would not escalate to a major war.

How did the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons — raised again during the George W. Bush administration — first gain traction?

I’m sorry to say the United States was the one who really introduced the idea of tactical nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, we were confronted in Europe from the Soviet Union that had about three times the size of the conventional military forces that we did.

As we thought, they had aggressive ambitions. Therefore, we believed our NATO forces would be swept right back to the Channel if the Russian forces moved in. We developed tactical nuclear weapons and we deployed them in Europe and we had a policy that if the Soviet Union attacked in Germany, we would use them…

We no longer have a policy of using tactical nuclear weapons to defend Europe…

When I was the Undersecretary of Defense in the late ’70s, my primary focus was developing a set of conventional weapons, stealth and precision munitions and precision reconnaissance systems so that our conventional forces, even though smaller than those of the Soviet Union would be able to adequately defend without nuclear weapons.

That program was successful and the demonstrations are successful of the program was made in Iraq, where those new highly effective conventional weapons in three or four days time defeated quite a large and well-equipped army, the Iraq Army.

So we have long since abandoned this policy ourselves. But the really bad news is that today Russia seems to have embraced a policy of using tactical nuclear weapons for that same purpose. If they feel their conventional forces are inferior or being overwhelmed by opposing forces, they would then use tactical nuclear forces to offset the other side’s damage.

President Obama has recently proposed a massive overhauling of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. What does he have in mind? Does it make sense to you?

As long as Russia is adopting belligerent and aggressive policies in Europe against our allies, in which they see nuclear weapons as a part of that policy, then we have to maintain a strong deterrence…

So we will have some modernization program. I’m questioning the nature of the program. I do not think we should simply reproduce what we did during the Cold War, because that was 30 or 40 years ago when you conceived, designed and built other weapons and a lot has changed since then.

What do you make of the nuclear threat with North Korea?

We had an opportunity, I believe, to stop the North Korean nuclear program before they built an arsenal. That was back in 1999 and 2000…. [But] During the time of [George W.] Bush’s presidency, they developed a nuclear weapon capability and actually tested a couple of nuclear weapons. In the last eight years under President Obama, they’ve tested more nuclear weapons and started building an arsenal.

I don’t think we’re going to be able to get an agreement now. It was one thing getting them to agree not to build an arsenal, but it’s a much, much harder task to get them to agree to give up an arsenal they all ready have.

This Q&A was conducted, edited and condensed by Dallas Morning News editorial board member Michael Lindenberger. Email: mlindengerger@dallasnews.com

Babylon Prepares For Nuclear War

Hundreds of troops train in nuclear bomb scenario

Friday, August 26th 2016, 10:47 am MDTFriday, August 26th 2016, 11:17 am MDT

By Pattrik Simmons, Reporter

Hundreds of troops from across the country trained on Fort Hood early Friday morning to prepare in the event of a nuclear explosion.

“It’s important to train for this because, while this seems something out of our nightmare, this is a potential threat that we could possibly have to respond to. In an event like this, this could potentially be America’s worst day,” Staff Sgt. Steven Cushman with Joint Task Force Civil Support said.
The troops pretended a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb had gone off in Houston. A bomb of that magnitude could destroy buildings, kill hundreds and injure thousands more. The radiation is another problem.
“There is going to be a lot of contaminants in the air and a lot of contamination people are going to come in contact with,” Cushman said.

Joint Task Force Civil Support organizers gave troops several search-and-rescue missions, like saving a person dangling from a building or someone stuck under debris.

“What we did was…we had a block that was laying literally on our victim. We had to go ahead and find a way uniquely to keep the victim from getting further crushed without that block rolling back to create further damage,” Christopher Acevedo with the 92nd Engineer Battalion in Fort Stewart, GA, said.

Acevedo said it’s not a run-of-the-mill training.

“It’s not easy. It requires a lot of you, physically, mentally. It requires you to be focused. It requires you to work as a team,” he said.

As part of the training, dozens of people dressed up as victims of the nuclear explosion. Many of them wore torn-up clothing and fake blood.

One of the biggest concerns after a nuclear explosion is dealing with what officials call “mass-casualty decontamination.”

“There’s a process that’s very serious and very involved that’s trained to standard to take survivors that have been exposed to radiation to decontaminate them,” Lt. Col. Steve Kolouch, Commander of the 62nd Engineer Battalion in Fort Hood, said.

Those survivors were taken to a decontamination tent, where they were stripped of their clothes and washed down.

Friday’s training was part of a bigger six-day training. It’s a training Kolouch said prepares troops to save lives and mitigate suffering.

“If called upon for this mission, it’s going to be a serious day for America,” he said. “It makes it real for the soldiers, real for the leaders to know that what we’re training for is important enough for us to get it right.”

Copyright 2016 KXXV. All rights reserved.