Category: australia

The Australia Nuclear Horn Enables India


First Australian Uranium shipment is on its way to India: Julie Bishop
External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj shakes hands with her Australian counterpart Julie Bishop
NEW DELHI: The first ever shipment of uranium from Australia — having world’s biggest reserves of yellow cake — is on its way to India elevating strategic partnership to a new level, informed visiting foreign minister Julie Bishop.
She also suggested that China, pursuing an aggressive foreign policy, must adhere to international norms amid Sino-Indian border standoff.
“The first shipment of uranium under the commercial arrangement is on its own way to India. The parliamentary clearance for uranium supplies was approved in Australia.India and Australia have also agreed on nuclear safeguards agreement,” the Minister told a select group of reporters here on Tuesday after her meeting with the PM, Foreign Minister and Defence & Finance Minister.
India and Australia signed a civil nuclear pact in 2014 and Canberra has been a supporter of India’s entry into the NSG besides other export control regimes. Besides expansion of defence and security partnership, the ongoing standoff in Dokalam figured high on the agenda of Bishop’s meetings with PM and the two key Ministers.
“This is long term dispute. While maritime border disputes should be settled based on UNCLOS, land boundary disputes should be settled peacefully. We don’t want to see an escalation. Any miscalculation could lead to tensions,” Bishop remarked.
The visiting Minister was of opinion that China has an increasingly assertive foreign policy and it should adhere to international norms and order.
“India and Australia have a growing strategic and economic partnership to provide stability in the Indo-Pacific region. We hope to expand defence partnership besides working on counter-terror and countering violent extremism.”
When asked about India’s reluctance to include Australia in the Malabar Naval exercise, the Minister avoided a direct reply and said, “The matter is not upsetting.
Each country has different priorities. India and Australia have had bilateral Naval exercises. And Australia have series of bilateral military exercises and remain keen for more such exercise.”‘
“There are all indications from the top leadership of US that it is continuing with its pivot to Asia-Pacific. Besides President Donald Trump will attend East Asia Summit,” the Australian Foreign Minister pointed out.

The Australian Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

Australia-India+Uranium+Deal+Under+Scrutiny+For+'Lack+of+Safeguards'First Australian Uranium shipment is on its way to India

By Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury

NEW DELHI: The first ever shipment of uranium from Australia — having world’s biggest reserves of yellow cake — is on its way to India elevating strategic partnership to a new level, informed visiting foreign minister

Julie Bishop
She also suggested that China, pursuing an aggressive foreign policy, must adhere to international norms amid Sino-Indian border standoff.
“The first shipment of uranium under the commercial arrangement is on its own way to India. The parliamentary clearance for uranium supplies was approved in Australia.India and Australia have also agreed on nuclear safeguards agreement,” the Minister told a select group of reporters here on Tuesday after her meeting with the PM, Foreign Minister and Defence & Finance Minister.
India and Australia signed a civil nuclear pact in 2014 and Canberra has been a supporter of India’s entry into the NSG besides other export control regimes. Besides expansion of defence and security partnership, the ongoing standoff in Dokalam figured high on the agenda of Bishop’s meetings with PM and the two key Ministers.
“This is long term dispute. While maritime border disputes should be settled based on UNCLOS, land boundary disputes should be settled peacefully. We don’t want to see an escalation. Any miscalculation could lead to tensions,” Bishop remarked.
The visiting Minister was of opinion that China has an increasingly assertive foreign policy and it should adhere to international norms and order.

“India and Australia have a growing strategic and economic partnership to provide stability in the Indo-Pacific region. We hope to expand defence partnership besides working on counter-terror and countering violent extremism.”

When asked about India’s reluctance to include Australia in the Malabar Naval exercise, the Minister avoided a direct reply and said, “The matter is not upsetting.
Each country has different priorities. India and Australia have had bilateral Naval exercises. And Australia have series of bilateral military exercises and remain keen for more such exercise.”‘
“There are all indications from the top leadership of US that it is continuing with its pivot to Asia-Pacific. Besides President Donald Trump will attend East Asia Summit,” the Australian Foreign Minister pointed out.

The Australian Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

Australia for many reasons is an exceptional country, including in the nuclear policy area: Nuclear weapons were tested on Australian territory, Australia owns intellectual property for enriching uranium, and uranium mined in the outback today fuels the world’s peaceful nuclear applications, but Australia has no nuclear weapons and it produces no nuclear electricity. And so far, Australia has no nuclear submarines.
This morning in Berlin the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung brought to my breakfast table a tempest in a teapot that was brewed down under last week. Tony Abbott, a member of the Australian Parliament who served as Prime Minister for a Liberal government from 2013 through 2015, on June 29 and thereafter told anyone willing to listen that Australia should think hard about building nuclear-driven submarines in its ongoing effort to upgrade its naval defenses. That probably won’t happen anytime soon, but Australia’s discussion about its submarines including last week should remind anyone who has forgotten it that nuclear fission reactors fueled with uranium are “strategic” technology, and that a changing geostrategic environment will put time-honored non-proliferation policies under pressure.
Germany’s leading serious newspaper today reported on Abbott’s comments because back in April 2016 Thyssen Krupp Marine Services (TKMS) had lost out in a competition to Naval Group  a.k.a. DCNS of France; the Australian government picked the French firm to build 18 submarines for the price of 50 billion dollars. Australia chose the French to build conventional submarines. But, according to the FAZ, “the order could be redefined at any time” to specify nuclear-powered craft. When the German firm dropped out of the race to build Australian boats, it asserted darkly, “behind the scenes it was suspected that that had happened because the Germans offer no nuclear option.” (The above-linked article from 15 months ago in fact mentioned the French vendor’s atomic advantage over TKMS.)
Instead, Abbott said in a statement flavored with skepticism, Australia will “take a French nuclear submarine and completely redesign it to work with conventional propulsion.” He urged Australia to reconsider the case for nuclear-propelled vessels in the country’s long-term interest, especially given Australia’s marine security environment and naval technology developments in China, India, Japan, Russia, and the United States.
Discussion of a possible Australian nuclear navy follows upon previous protracted debate in Australia about whether to generate electricity with nuclear reactors. Abbott has elsewhere elaborated on this theme, regretting that Australia, including under his tenure as Prime Minister, has repeatedly brushed off nuclear power, and asserting that “Australia could develop a nuclear servicing industry from scratch within about 15 years,” in time to commission nuclear-propelled submarines that could be built by French or U.S. firms. That of course would beg the hypothetical question whether Australia would finally dust off its nearly half-century-old gas centrifuge blueprints, or instead use laser technology it more recently pioneered, to enrich Australian uranium needed to fuel future fission-powered vessels. It also would raise the (still more-hypothetical) question whether the fuel for such submarines would be under IAEA safeguards 24/7 (it was Australia that in 1978 prompted the IAEA Director General to establish for the record that a state with safeguards obligations couldn’t decide that sensitive matter by itself).
In recent years Australian federal and state governments have carried out very transparent and visible investigations of the country’s various nuclear “options,” including nuclear power generation, commercial uranium enrichment, and disposal of highly-active nuclear waste and spent fuel.  Australia has the world’s largest reserves of uranium, and is the world’s third leading uranium producer after Kazakhstan and Canada, but Australians appear to remain profoundly disinclined to use the uranium they produce on their territory–to say nothing about ships patrolling international waters in the Pacific and Indian oceans.
The question raised by Abbott last week re-litigates a debate that got underway over a decade ago even before Australia prepared to upgrade its naval defenses. The above-linked 2006 government report on nuclear energy included a submission from the Submarine Institute of Australia. When Australia began preparing to beef up its naval might, in 2013, predictably, nuclear nonproliferators warned of the governance perils an Australian nuclear navy would unleash, while defense strategists countered that nuclear-propelled submarines would protect Australia best. In fact Abbott’s own government in 2015 was itself not prepared to champion the case for a nuclear navy–a point that Abbott’s critics now raise in the wake of his remarks.
Abbott said on June 29 that while “conventional subs need to surface frequently to recharge their batteries, need to refuel every 70 days, and can only briefly maintain a top speed of about 20 knots, nuclear powered submarines can stay submerged as long as the crew can endure, never have to refuel, and can travel at nearly 40 knots.” Even if Australian military leaders beset with the future consequences of China’s naval buildup were to conclude that these were decisive advantages, Abbott’s previous lack of enthusiasm would suggest that the road toward a nuclear navy might be paved with political risks including for Australia’s strategic community; what’s in print suggests there may be no internal consensus on this issue. Following from Canberra’s firm and longstanding nuclear non-proliferation commitment, as the above-cited 1978 interaction with the IAEA bears witness, Australia today would not welcome the emergence of navies powered by uranium withdrawn from IAEA safeguards. Ultimately, it is hard to believe that Australians who until now have been wary of deploying climate change-mitigating power reactors at home would in the near term favor using the same technology to propel their country’s navy on the high seas.

Australia Will Become A Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7)

8424941030_22c5ba1709_h
Australia and nuclear weapons
1 Dec 2015|In late October, Christine Leah and Crispin Rovere published a provocative piece on the War is Boring blog. Titled ‘Australia needs nukes’—and the Twitter accounts of the authors suggest it wasn’t their title—the piece argued not merely that Australia would benefit from having its own nuclear deterrent but, more audaciously, that Australia might properly be seen as a legitimate nuclear weapon state under the NPT. That second claim’s a bridge too far for me, and a rebuttal published on Arms Control Wonk suggests it was a bridge too far for others as well. Notwithstanding the rebuttal, the National Interest Buzz subsequently republished the original Leah-Rovere piece, from where it was picked up and republished by the Asia Times.
Since the piece refuses to die—despite Dr Leah’s acceptance of the criticisms on Arms Control Wonk—I want to offer a brief commentary here on the original argument. To get the specific out of the way of the general, let me say that I don’t believe the Australian government ever gave much consideration to the option of seeking nuclear-weapon-state status under the NPT. We know for a fact that some officials considered the option. But I’m not aware of ministerial weight ever being put behind the idea. And, as Hassan Elbahtimy and Matthew Harries argue in their rebuttal, it would involve some heavy-duty lifting to make the claim now, 45 years after Australia signed the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.
Let’s start with some basic facts. First, Australia is a signatory of the NPT and it’s not a repentant state. It doesn’t regret the choice of nuclear identity it made by its signature. That choice wasn’t made on a sudden whim. Australian thinking about nuclear weapons, since at least 1957, has been dominated by a ‘Menzian’ vision—that such weapons could make a positive contribution to global security as long as they are held by responsible great powers sufficiently aware of the awful consequences of use as to be self-deterred. The two competing visions of nuclear weapons—Gortonians who wanted Australia to have its own arsenal, and disarmers who favoured universal disarmament—represented distinct minorities on the Australian strategic spectrum, albeit long-lived ones. True, the Gortonians enjoyed their best years in the late 1950s and through the 1960s. But it would be wrong to think that by 1970 Australia stood committed to a nuclear weapons program abruptly and reluctantly terminated by signature of the NPT.
Still, that doesn’t mean the Menzian vision is destined to rule forever. The vision turns upon two assumptions: that nuclear weapons remain confined to responsible great powers, and that the Asian strategic environment doesn’t slide towards a darker future. Both of those assumptions are eroding—although we might argue amongst ourselves about how much and how quickly. Nuclear weapons are gradually spreading to states that we wouldn’t usually think of as responsible great powers. And the pace of proliferation would quicken sharply if status quo powers—like Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey—were to withdraw from the NPT and begin manufacture and deployment of their own arsenals.
The darker future in the Asian strategic environment has two, possibly related, forms. The first form would involve loss of credibility in the US’s extended nuclear assurances to its regional allies. That might seem unlikely, but it certainly isn’t impossible. As the region becomes more multipolar, relative US strategic weight is going down—meaning the credibility of US assurances faces a more challenging structural environment. Moreover, if credibility breaks at one point a ripple effect could easily ensue.
The second form of the darker future would involve the return of revisionist powers in Asia. In a regional strategic environment where coercive powers enjoyed greater freedom to coerce, other states would start looking for game-changers of their own. Part of that search might well involve the re-consideration of serious options set aside in more benign times. The notion that deterrence should become a national enterprise rather than an international one—a core tenet of the Gortonian vision, but one disabled by signature of the NPT—might well grow a new set of legs in such circumstances.
Where does all that leave us? Australia isn’t a nuclear weapon state under the NPT. And its dominant view of nuclear weapons is one under which Australia doesn’t need an arsenal of its own. Australia’s strategic preference would be for that status, and the permissive conditions which enable it, to continue. We just can’t be sure they will.

Why Australia Will Soon Become Nuclear (Daniel 7)

Over the past century, Australia has been America’s most dependable military ally. In every major U.S. conflict, including World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, Australians have fought alongside.
Yet as competition between China and the United States heats up in the Western Pacific, Australia is cautious not to provoke its greatest trading partner. When it comes to a potential U.S.-China conflict, Australia is doing all it can to keep its options open – and with good reason.
Australia is highly vulnerable to long-range missile attack, including those carrying nuclear payloads. Despite Australia being a continental power, almost all its population is concentrated in a half-dozen major cities — easy targets for small numbers of warheads.
In a high-intensity conflict between the United States and China, it is conceivable that China may target Australia with long-range nuclear missiles as a step up the escalation ladder, demonstrating to the United States its capacity, and willingness, to conduct nuclear strikes over intercontinental ranges.
In this eventuality, extended nuclear deterrence would hardly be credible. Retaliating on Australia’s behalf would demonstrably mean accepting large-scale nuclear attack by China on the continental United States.
For this reason, many Australians believe entering into conflict with the world’s most populous nuclear power, for any reason and under any circumstance, is unthinkable – despite very strong support for the Australia-U.S. alliance overall. The most effective means for Australia to insulate itself from long-range nuclear attack is to develop or acquire its own reliable long-range nuclear deterrent.
Many would consider this a bad idea. If Australia (a non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT) went nuclear, conventional wisdom suggests it very difficult to dissuade Japan, South Korea and others from following suit, critically threatening the nuclear non-proliferation regime as a whole.
This view is fundamentally flawed. In actuality, Australia has a very unique legal status with regard to nuclear weapons.
At present, there are five Nuclear-Weapon States under the NPT (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China). Under Article IX.3 of the NPT, a country may accede to the treaty as a Nuclear-Weapon State if that state “manufactured and exploded a nuclear device prior to January 1, 1967”.
Australia qualifies. In the 1950s and ’60s, Australia hosted a series of nuclear tests conducted by the United Kingdom. These nuclear explosions were conducted on Australian sovereign territory with the active participation of Australian scientists and military personnel.
These tests received financial support direct from the Australian government, with at least some explosions likely to have used fissile material that had been sourced locally from within Australia. No other non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT is in this category.
As Rod Lyon of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute sharply has observed from recently declassified documents, Australian negotiators were very much cognizant of this legal basis prior to Australia joining the treaty. In sum, if Australia determined it was a national security imperative to develop an independent nuclear deterrent, it would be legally entitled to do so.
As this legal status does not apply to America’s other allies in the Asia-Pacific, a changed nuclear status by Australia under the NPT would not automatically undermine the treaty as a whole.
A nuclear-armed Australia is likely to confer a number of strategic advantages upon the United States. It strengthens Australia’s resolve in supporting the United States in a potentially open-ended strategic contest in the Asia-Pacific. It supports extended nuclear deterrence by removing a potentially vulnerable element of the policy, and the nations in Southeast Asia will see Australia as a more capable strategic partner and deepen cooperation.
There’s more. A nuclear-armed Australia makes drawing the country into a broader collective defense architecture much more feasible. Having a reliable U.S. ally in the Asia-Pacific with an independent nuclear deterrent strengthens nuclear deterrence in the Asia-Pacific overall. And it achieves these objectives without fatally weakening nuclear non-proliferation efforts more broadly.
The United States should publicly recognize Australia’s right to nuclear weapons under the NPT. This does not mean that Australia will immediately seek to acquire such weapons.
Australia has a strong non-proliferation record and a long history of disarmament activism. In the short-term, Australia would use this recognition to leverage its position in present nuclear arms control negotiations, further persuading countries in the region to exercise nuclear restraint.
Regardless of Australia’s future nuclear choices, just acknowledging the legal reality of Australia’s unique status under the NPT supports America’s long-term strategy in the Asia-Pacific. The U.S. government should do so as a matter of priority.

Australia Is One of the Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7:7)

With a nuclear waste dump in South Australia that accepts international shipments, the full range of the “nuclear industry” in the state would be complete, truly making it the “Defense State” that has become the state motto.[9]

SOUTH AUSTRALIA’S NUCLEAR MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX: THE GLOBAL CONTEXT, Spirit of Eureka ,Talk by David Palmer at “SA  The Nuclear State” forum 03 May 2017   “……..If citizens – the people – whether they are in the Fukushima region of Japan or in Adelaide, South Australia – have a right to speak out on the dangers of the nuclear industry, then who are the elites promoting the nuclear industry? If we look at prominent figures in government the institutional linkages become all too clear. Consider the example of Kevin Scarce, Governor of South Australia until 2014, a Rear Admiral retired from the Royal Australian Navy, current Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, and Deputy Chairman of Seeley International, the largest air conditioning company in Australia that is known for energy-efficiency. Scarce led the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission and was the primary author of the report that recommended the South Australian government accept a nuclear waste dump. All the links are there in Scarce’s connections and positions: military, university, corporate, and government.
Furthermore, the Royal Commission did not focus solely on a nuclear waste dump. It considered possible expansion of nuclear industries in the state that encompassed mining, enrichment, and power generation. The Royal Commission report states that “The activity under consideration is the further processing of minerals, and the processing and manufacturing of materials containing radioactive and nuclear substances (but not for, or from, military uses) including conversion, enrichment, fabrication or reprocessing in South Australia.”[3]
But during the time this Royal Commission report was being prepared and finally delivered, Adelaide became the focal point for naval shipbuilding contracts, particularly submarines. Both Labor and Liberal politicians  sought to outdo each other in pushing for submarines to be built in Adelaide. They will be diesel powered, but the majority of submarines internationally use nuclear power propulsion. Potential overseas contractors also use designs geared for nuclear power. There are those in Australian naval circles who would like to see these Australian subs with nuclear, not diesel, power. And where will these submarines be used, and with what international interests? We know the answer to that question, as recent events in the Western Pacific have confirmed. The USS Carl Vinson, the nuclear powered air craft carrier, was on exercises in the Indian Ocean in early April with Australia’s HMAS Ballarat, when it was ordered to the Korean peninsula this month in response to the North Korean threat to explode a nuclear bomb.[4] This latest development is just one example of the escalating naval tensions on our side of the Pacific. Crises like this will potentially increase pressure for Australia to build submarines – and possibly other naval vessels – that are nuclear powered.
What does the corporate profile of the “nuclear industry” look like? Consider this list from the 2015 “Top 100 Global Defense Companies.”[5] Of 100 listed, 41 are based in the United States. Seven of the top ten are American: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman, United Technologies, and L-3 Communications. Five of these seven corporations in the top ten have products related to nuclear military technology or applications, such as guidance systems and missiles for warheads. United Technologies and L-3 Communications have divisions related to civilian nuclear power, beyond their military contracts. All these seven corporation have operations in Australia, and five have operations in South Australia (Raytheon, United Technologies, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Lockheed Martin). I’ve only considered the top seven US companies in the top ten of this list. Further investigation into other companies on this list, US and international, will tell us more.
South Australia Premier Wetherill’s rationale for the nuclear waste dump obviously is related to the mining industry in the state. The Royal Commission report called for “the expansion of the current level of exploration, extraction and milling of minerals containing radioactive materials in South Australia,”[6] as well as a reduction in regulations over the mining industry. In this section of the report there is great detail on safety measures to be undertaken and environmental impact concerns, but the scope of this overall plan – from mining, to energy production, to waste storage – creates an entirely new level of South Australia’s dependence on the nuclear industry. Contrary to past Labor Party policy, particularly under former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, Premier Wetherill backed an expansion of uranium mining, using the Royal Commission’s recommendation as the basis for his advocacy. He dropped his proposal for the nuclear dump when the Liberal Party opposition refused to support it.[7] The Greens, of course, have criticised the entire scope of the initiative. In his earlier visit to Finland to inspect that country’s advanced nuclear waste storage operation at Okalo, near the town of Eurajoki, Wetherill emphasized that South Australia had 25 per cent of the world’s uranium reserves. But when he met with Eurajoki Municipal Council president Vesa Jalonen near the Okalo site, Jalonen rejected Wetherill’s “moral argument” that South Australia should accept nuclear waste as a responsibility to the over 400 nuclear plants around the world that have used uranium from South Australian mines. According to The Australian, “Mr Jalonen said the local economy had benefited from the nuclear industry after moving away from agriculture, but [added] … ‘[i]t is impossible to say what is right, but I think you don’t have to think in that (moral) way about taking responsibility for uranium … ‘Of course there are big questions of the (economic) benefits you can get.’”[8] Jalonen’s comment exposed Premier Wetherill’s evasion of his real motives: economic, not ‘morality.’ The Okalo site, deep underground, is the most advanced nuclear waste storage facility in the world, and it is technologically far superior to what was proposed for South Australia. It also is only a tenth of the size of the operation pushed by South Australian nuclear waste storage advocates. The Finnish site does not accept any waste except from Finnish sources. The South Australian facility would accept international waste, far beyond realistic capacity.
Mining clearly is driving much of this nuclear waste dump agenda. BHP Billiton, the world’s largest mining corporation, operates Olympic Dam Mine in Roxby Downs, which holds the largest deposit of uranium in the world but currently only has 25 percent of its mining there based on uranium. The demand for building new nuclear power plants has decreased dramatically since the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster of 2011. China stopped all new nuclear power plant construction after the 2011 Fukushima disaster; Japan shut its reactors, with only one up again as of April 2017; and ratings agencies such as Standard and Poors have substantially cut credit ratings of energy companies that concentrate on nuclear power.
Nevertheless, other uses, particularly related to military applications, have increased. With a nuclear waste dump in South Australia that accepts international shipments, the full range of the “nuclear industry” in the state would be complete, truly making it the “Defense State” that has become the state motto.[9]

But is this really the direction that South Australian – and Australians nationally – want  their economy and their society to take? Is it consistent with, or a violation of, Aboriginal land rights and respect for the land? How dependent have we become on corporations that rely on military contracts and ties to US military interests? What role will the “nuclear industry cycle” play in this process? What are the dangers for us not just from potential radiation from a nuclear waste dump, but also from the broader possibilities of an expanding nuclear-based military-industrial complex in South Australia – and across Australia?

The debate about a South Australian nuclear waste dump needs to consider these broader ramifications. At the same time, refusing to agree to an international nuclear waste dump in South Australia is a crucial initial step toward turning away from the nuclear military-industrial complex toward a better, more productive economy and a safer environment for all.http://spiritofeureka.org/index.php/news-a-articles/255-south-australia-s-nuclear-military-industrial-complex-the-global-context

Australia Will Soon Join Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7:7)

US Vice President Mike Pence, left, and Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop pose for a photo during a visit to the Australian Museum in Sydney. Picture: David Moir/AP
North Korea threatens Australia with nuclear strike over US allegiance
April 23, 2017
AAP and staff writers News Corp Australia Network
NORTH Korea has bluntly warned Australia of a possible nuclear strike if Canberra persists in “blindly and zealously toeing the US line”.
North Korea’s state new agency (KCNA) quoted a foreign ministry spokesman castigating Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop after she “spouted a string of rubbish” against the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea (DPRK).
“If Australia persists in following the US moves to isolate and stifle the DPRK and remains a shock brigade of the US master, this will be a suicidal act of coming within the range of the nuclear strike of the strategic force of the DPRK,” the report said.
US Vice President Mike Pence, left, and Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop pose for a photo during a visit to the Australian Museum in Sydney. Picture: David Moir/AP
US Vice President Mike Pence, left, and Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop pose for a photo during a visit to the Australian Museum in Sydney. Picture: David Moir/APSource:AP
“The Australian foreign minister had better think twice about the consequences to be entailed by her reckless tongue-lashing before flattering the US.” Earlier this week Ms Bishop said on the ABC’s AM program that North Korea’s nuclear weapons program posed a “serious threat” to Australia unless it was stopped by the international community.
The KCNA report said that what Ms Bishop had said “can never be pardoned” as it was “an act against peace” and North Korea’s “entirely just steps for self defence”.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s regime has made the pointed threat towards Canberra. Picture: AP
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s regime has made the pointed threat towards Canberra. Picture: APSource:AP
It said Australia was shielding a hostile US policy of nuclear threats and blackmail against North Korea which was the root cause of the current crisis on the Korean Peninsula and encouraged the US to opt for “reckless and risky military actions”.
“The present government of Australia is blindly and zealously toeing the US line.” The report said the situation on the Korean Peninsula was “inching close to the brink of war in an evil cycle of increasing tensions”.
US Vice-President Mike Pence is in Australia and the threat of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missiles programs were high on the agenda in talks with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
US supercarrier Carl Vinson will arrive in the Sea of Japan in days, Mr Pence said. Picture: AFP
US supercarrier Carl Vinson will arrive in the Sea of Japan in days, Mr Pence said. Picture: AFPSource:AFP
Mr Pence would not rule out the use of military force in North Korea but said “all options are on the table” and he stressed the US was focused on diplomacy at this stage.
He continued the pressure on the rogue state during his visit saying the US supercarrier Carl Vinson will arrive in the Sea of Japan in days, after the mixed messages from Washington over the warship’s whereabouts.
The strike group was supposedly steaming towards North Korea last week amid soaring tensions over the rogue state’s apparent ramping up for a sixth nuclear test, with Pyongyang threatening to hit back at any provocation.
Experts told The Hill that the US is unlikely to have been behind North Korea’s botched missile launch last week, despite rampant speculation that the explosion was the result of an Obama-era cyber sabotage program.
“North Korea is pushing really hard to pursue ballistic missiles. Any accelerated program experiences many failures,” said Joseph Bermudez, an analyst for 38 North, a program of the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
“The probability is higher for this to be failures produced by an aggressive program with limited resources.”
North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missiles programs were high on the agenda in talks between Mr Pence and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Saeed Khan/AFP
North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missiles programs were high on the agenda in talks between Mr Pence and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Saeed Khan/AFPSource:AFP
But the US Navy, which had earlier said the aircraft carrier would sail north from waters off Singapore as a “prudent measure” to deter the regime, admitted on Tuesday the ships were in fact sent away from Singapore and towards Australia to conduct drills with the Australian navy.
The aircraft carrier will arrive “in a matter of days”, Mr Pence said.
Also on Saturday North Korea appeared to take aim at China in a thinly veiled warning of catastrophic consequences to their bilateral relations, as it asked its historic ally not to step up sanctions.
A submarine missile is paraded across Kim Il Sung Square during a military parade in Pyongyang. Picture: AP
A submarine missile is paraded across Kim Il Sung Square during a military parade in Pyongyang. Picture: APSource:AP
The warning came in a commentary titled “Are you good at dancing to the tune of others”, released by the state-owned KCNA news agency. While the commentary did not mention China by name, Pyongyang expressed its criticism of “a country around the DPRK”.
“The country is talking rubbish that the DPRK has to reconsider the importance of relations with it and that it can help preserve security of the DPRK and offer necessary support and aid for its economic prosperity, claiming the latter will not be able to survive the strict ‘economic sanctions’ by someone,” the commentary said.
US President Donald Trump, left, has demanded Chinese President Xi Jinping use his nation’s clout with North Korea to rein in its nuclear and missile programs. Picture: Alex Brandon/AP
US President Donald Trump, left, has demanded Chinese President Xi Jinping use his nation’s clout with North Korea to rein in its nuclear and missile programs. Picture: Alex Brandon/APSource:AP
It added that if “the country” continues applying sanctions on Pyongyang, “it may be applauded by the enemies of the DPRK, but it should get itself ready to face the catastrophic consequences” in bilateral relations.
In February, Beijing announced that it would not buy coal – North Korea’s main export – from Pyongyang for the rest of the year in support of a United Nations resolution.
Official media in China have also suggested the possibility of suspending exports of hydrocarbons if North Korea conducts a new nuclear test. Pyongyang’s apparent criticism of its principal ally, although made indirectly, reflects an estrangement between Beijing and the increasingly isolated regime of Kim Jong Un.

Australian Horn To Nuke Up India

Australia-India+Uranium+Deal+Under+Scrutiny+For+'Lack+of+Safeguards'Australian uranium to arrive soon

Turnbull says working closely with India to meet its fuel requirements for civil nuclear programme

Australia will start supplying uranium to India “as soon as possible”, the visiting Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said here on Monday.
Australia’s promise on uranium was announced even as both countries signed six agreements, including one on countering terrorism.
“Our know-how and resources are already partnering with India’s 24×7 Power For All, Smart Cities and Make in India programmes, but there is room for further growth. We’ve worked closely with India to meet our respective requirements for the provision of fuel for India’s civil nuclear programme, and we look forward to the first export of Australian uranium to India as soon as possible,” Mr. Turnbull said in a press statement at Hyderabad House following bilateral talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Mr. Modi welcomed the passage of the Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Act in the Australian Parliament, opening up opportunities for Australia to support Indian energy generation. Australia has about 40 per cent of the world’s uranium reserves and exports nearly 7,000 tonnes of yellow cake annually. Both sides agreed to extend bilateral engagement to the Asia- Pacific region. In this context, a joint statement issued at the end of the meeting agreed to hold a bilateral maritime exercise named AUSINDEX in the Bay of Bengal in 2018 and also pledged to hold a joint exercise of the Special Forces later this year. Both sides welcomed the decision for the first bilateral Army-to-Army exercise later this year.
The bilateral discussion also hinted at a growing agreement to oppose China’s territorial claims over the South China Sea region.
Chinese presence
As part of the emerging Asia-Pacific focus of India-Australia ties, the joint statement took a firm position against China’s growing presence in the South China Sea region and said, “Both leaders recognised that India and Australia share common interests in ensuring maritime security and the safety of sea lines of communication. Both leaders recognised the importance of freedom of navigation and overflight, unimpeded lawful commerce, as well as resolving maritime disputes by peaceful means.

The Australian Nuclear Horn (Daniel 8)

 

NEW DELHI: Australia, the world’s biggest uranium producer, is likely to start supplying the metal to India’s nuclear power plants this year after visiting Premier Malcolm Turnbull helps put in place the mechanism governing the trade.
The two countries had signed a civil nuclear deal in 2014 when former Prime Minister Tony Abbott visited India. Thereafter, Australia put in place a safeguards agreement and last December passed the legislation to start supplying uranium to India, a trade viewed as the cornerstone of a bilateral strategic partnership.
The hint of uranium sales to India came from none other than Turnbull, who would be in the country between April 9 and 12.
“My first visit to India as Prime Minister is a chance to further cooperate across a wide range of sectors, including energy, education and trade. But there are many more opportunities. India wants to provide energy security through a range of technologies, including nuclear, clean coal, natural gas and renewable energy. Australia is well placed to provide many of the raw materials, and some of the latest technology,” Turnbull said in a Sydney Institute speech on Thursday ahead of his trip to India.
Besides nuclear energy, defence ties will be high on the agenda of the talks Turnbull will hold with his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi next Monday: Australia is willing to rejoin the Indo-USJapan trilateral Malabar Naval exercise, eyeing to play role of a stabiliser in the Indian Ocean Region, according to people familiar with the developments.
The second Indo-Australian bilateral Navy exercises will occur either later this year or the next year, according to one of the people quoted above. “Security ties will be the key pillar of Indo-Australian strategic partnership, and this visit of Turnbull will be a key step in that direction. Defence and counter-terror partnership are key elements of security ties,” an official explained.
“India is one of Australia’s most important international priorities. Our relationship has expanded dramatically since we established a Strategic Partnership in 2009, followed by two-way Prime Ministerial visits in 2014,” according to Australian High Commissioner to India Harinder Sidhu.

Why Australia is a Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7) Australian Uranium Mining Sites Australian Uranium Mining Sites

 

Global uranium production is expected to increase at a compound annual growth rate of 4.3 per cent, to reach 76,493 tonnes in 2020, research and consulting firm GlobalData revealed.
The company’s latest report states that growth in production is needed to meet upcoming demand from new reactors. It outlined that output at Four Mile increased from 750t in 2014 to 990t in 2015.
There are 22 new reactors scheduled for completion in 2017, with a total capacity of 22,444 megawatts (MW), according to GlobalData.
This includes eight reactors in China with a combined capacity of 8510 MW, two reactors in South Korea with a combined capacity of 2680 MW, two reactors in Russia with a combined capacity of 2199 MW, and four reactors in Japan with a combined capacity of 3598 MW.
Global uranium consumption is forecast to increase by five per cent, to reach 88,500t of triuranium octoxide (U₃O₈) in 2017.
The major expansions to nuclear capacity are projected to occur in China, India, Russia and South Korea over the next two years to 2018. The United States is forecast to remain the largest producer of nuclear power in the short term, with the recent completion of the 1200 MW Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor in Tennessee.
Cliff Smee, GlobalData’s head of research and analysis for mining, said: “Commercial operations at the Cigar Lake project in Canada commenced in 2014, with an annual uranium metal capacity of 6900t.
“The project produced 4340t of uranium in 2015, compared with 130t in 2014. Meanwhile, production at the Four Mile project in Australia rose from 750t in 2014 to 990t in 2015.
“By contrast, production from the US declined by 32 per cent in 2015, while in Namibia it decreased by 20 per cent. This was due to respective declines of 33 per cent each at the Smith Ranch-Highland and Crow Butte mines in the US, and falls of 20 per cent and 13.6 per cent at the Rossing and Langer Heinrich mines in Namibia.”