The South Korean Horn Wants a Nuclear Bomb: Daniel 7

South Korea’s President Yoon (left) with US President Biden
Image caption,South Korea’s President Yoon will be visiting Washington for talks with Mr Biden

Nuclear weapons: Why South Koreans want the bomb

  • Published22 April

By Jean Mackenzie

Seoul correspondent

Hidden away in the private room of an underground restaurant in Seoul, a disparate group of South Koreans have gathered for a clandestine lunch. Among the mix are politicians, scientists, and military people, some of whose identities are too sensitive to reveal. This is the meeting of the newly formed Forum for Nuclear Strategy, and their lunchtime agenda is ambitious – to plot out how South Korea can develop nuclear weapons.

This once-fringe idea has exploded into the mainstream over the past months. Even South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol raised the possibility during a defence meeting, making him the only president to have put this option on the table in recent times. Now newspaper columns trumpet the idea daily, while a staggering three-quarters of the public support it. South Koreans have grown anxious about their nuclear-armed neighbour to the north, and on Wednesday Mr Yoon is heading to the White House, seeking President Joe Biden’s help.

South Korea previously flirted with the idea of developing nuclear weapons in the 1970s, when it ran a secret programme. But when the United States found out, it issued an ultimatum: Seoul could carry on, or have the US defend it, with the full force of its existing nuclear arsenal. It picked US support, and to this day tens of thousands of US troops remain stationed on the Korean peninsula.

Since then, the geopolitical situation has shifted dramatically. North Korea is building ever-more sophisticated nuclear weapons that can target cities across the US, leaving people to question whether Washington would still come to South Korea’s defence.

Here is the scenario they chew over: a belligerent Kim Jong-un attacks South Korea, forcing the US to intervene. Mr Kim then threatens to detonate a nuclear bomb over the US mainland unless it withdraws from the war. What does Washington do? Does it risk having San Francisco reduced to rubble to save Seoul? Probably not, is the conclusion those at the secret lunchtime meeting have come to.

“It is irrational to think another country should protect us. This is our problem and our responsibility,” said Choi Ji-young, a forum member and member of South Korea’s ruling People Power Party.

Members of South Korea’s new Nuclear Policy Forum at a table
Image caption,The members of South Korea’s new Nuclear Policy Forum want the country to go nuclear

The chairman of the forum, academic Cheong Seong-chang, presented their suggested plan. The next time the North tests a nuclear weapon, Seoul would withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). If, within six months, Mr Kim has not agreed to discuss giving up some of his weapons, Seoul would start building its own. Mr Cheong argues that this would reduce the probability of a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula, as Mr Kim would be less likely to attack, knowing the South could strike back.

But Jenny Town, from the US-based think tank 38 North, challenges the assumption that a nuclear-armed South would make the North less adventurous. “More nuclear weapons does not make the world safer from nuclear use,” she said. “If you look at India and Pakistan as an example, this is not what we have seen. If anything, being nuclear-armed has sort of given them both the green light to go a little further.”

A nuclear-armed South Korea is absolutely not what Washington wants. Yet, this beast is partly of America’s making. In 2016, then-President Donald Trump accused South Korea of free-riding. He threatened to make Seoul pay for the US troops stationed on its soil, or else he would withdraw them. The fear those words instilled in people has not lessened with time. An increasing number of South Koreans, acutely aware that America’s promises are only as good as its next leader, now favour building the bomb.

On a recent Sunday afternoon, at a local sauna in Seoul, people young and old from all backgrounds gathered to ease their weekly aches, while indulging in beer and fried chicken. While it might seem strange to discuss nuclear proliferation in such a setting, these days, it is almost in the realm of small talk.

“The US is not going to use its nukes to defend us, so we should be in control of our own defence,” said 31-year-old Koo Sung-wook, who swayed this way during his time in the military. He served in 2010, during a major crisis when North Korea shelled a South Korean island, killing four people.

“It felt like a total emergency. Units were calling their parents and writing wills,” he recounted. Now he worries not just about North Korea, but China too. “We are surrounded by these great powers and walking on eggshells around them. To be competitive, we need to have nukes.”

Almost everyone at the sauna agreed, even 82-year-old Hong In-su. A child during the Korean War in the 1950s, she said she was anti-nuclear weapons, before reluctantly concluding they were a necessary evil: “Other countries are developing theirs, so I don’t see how we can go on without them. The world is changing.”

Hong In-su at the sauna
Image caption,Hong In-su is wary of South Korea getting nuclear weapons but thinks the country needs them

Another woman was torn over whether the US would defend South Korea, and thought it “better to have nukes just in case”, while a young mother worried that Seoul’s current relationship with the US could change at any moment.

Washington is now scrambling to reassure its ally of its “iron-clad” commitment to its defence. Earlier this month it stationed a gigantic nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the southern port of Busan. But to the frustration of US policymakers, such reassuring gestures no longer seem to be working.

Seoul’s politicians have grown wary of being kept in the dark, unclear about what would trigger the US president to push the nuclear button on their behalf. Currently, there is no requirement for Mr Biden to even tell Mr Yoon before doing so. “At the very least we could build in a mandatory phone call, so long as it is understood that this is still the US president’s decision,” Ms Town said.

Yang Uk, a defence analyst with the Seoul-based Asan Institute, was in the room with President Yoon when he made his remarks about South Korea going nuclear. He claims Mr Yoon was indirectly pressuring the US. “The US is so reluctant to discuss its nuclear policy with South Korea and yet if a nuclear war broke out on the peninsula we are the ones who would suffer the most,” he said.

Seoul is pushing to be more involved in the planning and execution around nuclear use. That could mean having US nuclear weapons stationed in South Korea, or to have a nuclear sharing arrangement, similar to that in Europe, where South Korea is able to use US weapons in the event of a war. A less drastic option would be to create a joint nuclear-planning group.

US forces practice defending South Korea from a North Korean attack
Image caption,US forces practice defending South Korea from a North Korean attack

The US is unlikely to offer up much, but knows it must deliver something concrete that President Yoon can chalk up as a win, and sell to the South Korean public. Even so, it may prove too late. This once inconceivable idea is now so firmly planted in the South Korean psyche, it is difficult to see how it can be uprooted.

Going nuclear is a mammoth decision. The current international order is built on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and those that threaten this order, such as Iran and North Korea, have paid a high price. Analysts say the South Korean public has probably not considered the consequences. The US could pull out of its defence commitment, China might retaliate ferociously by hounding South Korea with sanctions, and their country could end up isolated, another failed pariah state, its dazzling international reputation in tatters.

At the sauna, people seemed unperturbed by these scenarios. Only one woman conceded that if it meant South Korea becoming “an axis of evil” then it was probably not worth it.

But that is unlikely to happen. South Korea is too strategically and economically important for it to be shunned like North Korea. Most analysts do not even believe the US would end its decades-long military alliance. Instead, the concern is that a potential South Korean nuclear armament would create such a crack in the non-proliferation regime, it would cause other countries to follow.

Only 82-year-old Hong In-su seemed to grapple with the dangers ahead. She quoted a Korean proverb that roughly translates to “you fall in your own poop”, or in other words, this could seriously backfire.

“I do think nuclear weapons will come back to harm us,” she said. “I feel bad for the next generation.”

Nuclear War Cometh: Revelation 16

We are now dangerously close to nuclear war

Story by Hamish de Bretton-Gordon • Yesterday 8:29 AM

A Russian Yars intercontinental ballistic missile being launched from an air field during military drills© Provided by The Telegraph

The blowing of the dam at the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (KHPP) by the Russian state is, quite simply, an act of terror by this terrorist state. With his army failing, his air force stuck in its hangars, it would appear Putin is prepared to do almost anything to cling on to the Russian occupied areas of Ukraine and his throne in the Kremlin. This is another war crime to add to the growing list, a list that includes the unlawful deportation of children – something that led to the International Criminal Court to issue a warrant for his arrest. 

The Russian military motivation behind the blast is clear and not unexpected. The vast area to the west of the dam is a ‘tank’ highway to Crimea, and Putin knows his demoralised forces are likely to collapse in the face of Challenger and Leopard tanks charging towards them. The flooding will likely block this axis for many weeks. The ecological and agricultural damage alone will be legion, and with no power coming out of KHPP or Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant (ZNPP), Ukraine is going to be short on electricity for a while.

This type of terrorism is not new and is to be predicted from the tyrant. I had the honour to be one of the Peshmerga’s chemical weapons advisors in the fight with another terror state: IS. In 2017, as the Islamic State was falling in Iraq, they blew up the Al Mishraq sulphur mine south of Mosul. From a tactical perspective this had the same effect as blowing the dam at KHPP. The 400,000 tonnes of very toxic sulphur dioxide went across the route of the advancing Iraqi army’s direct approach to Mosul and delayed them for several days, allowing IS to dig deeper into the city. At one point the toxic cloud was heading to the Kurdistan capital Erbil, with over one million people in mortal danger. Thankfully the ‘gods’ intervened, and the poison dissipated in the high atmosphere. When you have no limits or concern for civilian casualties like IS and Putin, sadly virtually nothing is off limits.

But the Ukrainians are canny, very canny.  No doubt the Ukrainian high command will have planned for such an eventuality and will have numerous lines and methods of attacks to rid themselves of this evil scourge. At the early stages it also looks as though the Russian plan may have backfired, with Russian troops defending this sector scrabbling for high ground and the water needed for Crimea disappearing into the Black Sea.

Zaporizhia is Prepped for a Nuclear Meltdown: Jeremiah

Ukraine Launches ‘Full Scale Offensive’ in Zaporizhzhia

BY BRENDAN COLE ON 6/8/23 AT 4:11 AM EDT

Kyiv’s forces have started their long-awaited counteroffensive to recapture occupied territory, according to Russian sources on social and state media.

Andrey Rudenko, a correspondent for Russian state television channel Rossiya 24, said that Ukraine had launched a tank offensive in the direction of Zaporozhzhia that was repelled by Russian troops. He added that Ukraine had “many seriously wounded troops lying on the battlefield.”

Vladimir Rogov, an official in the Russia-backed administration of the partly occupied oblast, told the Solovyov Live programme: “In my opinion, there has been an attempt at a full-scale offensive for three days, even four” in the Zaporizhzhia region.

Ukrainian soldiers
Ukrainian soldiers sit on infantry fighting vehicle during military training on May 29, 2023, in the Donetsk Oblast. Russian sources have said that Ukraine’s counteroffensive has begun.GETTY IMAGES

He said that overnight on Wednesday Ukrainian forces had probably used U.S-supplied HIMARS systems to open fire on the city Tokmak, the Tass news agency reported.

Russian sources on Telegram also noted there had been an increase in fire and assault positions in the Zaporizhzhia direction, with Ukrainian tanks attacking Moscow’s positions and reports of non-stop shelling, according to the Twitter account of War Translated.

Another milblogger said: “We can already talk about the beginning of the offensive announced by Ukraine for so long.”

Russian state media war correspondent Alexander Sladkov wrote on Telegram on Thursday that it was difficult for Ukrainian soldiers to accept the signal to attack “with the knowledge that there are mines ahead, impregnable trenches” as well as Russian soldiers “who are not going to retreat.”

The Russian Storm Z unit with the call sign Ali told Tass that Ukrainian forces had tried an advance on the village of Lobkove with at least at least 20 military vehicles and 100 infantry, but were “driven back” and suffered losses.

Newsweek has contacted the Ukrainian defense ministry about the Russian claims. On Wednesday, Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of Ukraine’s national security and defense council, said Moscow’s claims that the counteroffensive had started were “not true.”

Danilov said Russian officials had mistaken Ukrainian advances in some frontline areas for the start of the larger operation and that when Ukraine does launch its push, “everyone will know about it.”

Following the pledges of military support from the West, much is riding on the counteroffensive, although Kyiv is playing its cards close to its chest about the push.

Former Australian army general Mick Ryan said in a Substack post on Thursday that the Ukrainian operations being undertaken around Bakhmut and in southern Ukraine “appear to confirm that H-Hour for the 2023 Ukrainian offensive has probably arrived.”

In comments emailed to Newsweek, Atlantic Council fellow and a former Ukrainian defense minister, Andriy Zagorodnyuk, said early actions by Ukrainian forces have centred on Bakhmut, which Russia has claimed control over.

Zagorodnyuk said that Ukraine encircling the Donetsk city would “deny the Russians an opportunity to use any benefits of capturing the territory, and set themselves up to eventually recapture it.”

When Kyiv’s counteroffensive starts, Zagorodnyuk said: “We will see a full use of the brigades trained and equipped for that operation and, of course, the magnitude of the operational activities will be much higher.”

New Worries About the Iranian Nuclear Horn: Daniel 8

PHOTO/TWITTER/@elicoh1 - ministro de Asuntos Exteriores de Israel, Eli Cohen
photo_cameraPHOTO/TWITTER/@elicoh1 – Israel’s Foreign Minister Eli Cohen

New warnings from Israel about nuclear Iran

Pedro González

06/JUN./23

“If we delay in regaining unity in the face of Iran’s nuclear threat, we are likely to be too late”. This is the latest warning from Israel, this time from its Foreign Minister, Eli Cohen, who has just concluded a tour of Central Europe in which, in addition to visiting Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary and the Czech Republic, he was able to speak at the Slavkok/Austerlitz Forum, in which Bratislava, Prague and Vienna are cooperating.  

Like his predecessors at the helm of Israeli diplomacy, Cohen warned his interlocutors, and indeed the entire European Union, that “we are very close to the point of no return” with respect to Tehran’s nuclear weapons capability. A warning that is not new, and that both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and all the members of his extensive and more than motley coalition government repeat insistently from every platform they are given. This time, however, the warning comes from Israel’s concern over reports of an imminent US-Iran deal, the fine print of which they allegedly do not yet know.  

According to the Israeli channel Kan News, Washington has reportedly offered Tehran to unfreeze financial assets held by the Ayatollahs’ regime in Iraq and South Korea in exchange for a halt to “some of its nuclear activities”. This information coincides with another published by Iran International, which also admits such an exchange, although it does not speak of halting the nuclear programme but of “flexibility” in the negotiations on this programme, although it adds that in such a hypothetical pact Iran would release the five US citizens it is holding hostage.  

The financial assets to be unfrozen would exceed $10 billion, including $7 billion held by South Korea, which Seoul owes Tehran for unpaid oil imports when then-President Donald Trump enacted sanctions in 2019. The sanctions also stipulate that Iraq will not pay Iran the more than $3 billion it owes it for its electricity and gas imports.  

On his tour of Central Europe, Cohen has stressed to his interlocutors Israel’s determination to strengthen the development of the Abraham Accords with its allies, hinting that the acceleration of such a strategy would be motivated by the resumption of diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two great leaders of Shia and Sunni Islam, respectively.  

Cohen had already expressed practically the same points to his Spanish counterpart, José Manuel Albares, during his recent visit to Madrid and in view of Spain’s assumption of the rotating presidency of the European Union as of 1 July, an event whose main thrust and planned initiatives have been considerably reduced due to the call for early general elections.  

On his return to Jerusalem, Cohen also took with him the Hungarian government’s agreement to make Hungary the first EU country to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Orban would thus once again break the unity of the EU-27, and Hungary would be the fifth country to execute a move that is symbolically much more than a simple relocation of a diplomatic representation. Only four countries have so far done so: the United States, Guatemala, Honduras and Kosovo, although several others have also pledged to do so, the latest being Paraguay, which would join African countries Malawi, Togo and UgandaThe Israeli Foreign Minister was quick to emphasise in reporting the news that “Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people for 3,000 years”.  

Cohen also sought and obtained from his Magyar counterpart, Peter Szijjartó, that he would agree to denounce the Palestinian Authority before the International Court of Justice, “for paying terrorists to attack Israeli citizens”. 

China urges U.S., UK, Australian Nuclear Horns to stop: Daniel 7

China urges U.S., UK, Australia to stop acts of nuclear proliferation

Xinhua, June 06, 2023

BEIJING, June 6 (Xinhua) — China called on the United States, Britain and Australia to heed the concerns of the international community and stop acts of nuclear proliferation such as their nuclear submarine cooperation, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin said here Tuesday.

According to reports, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen said in a speech on Monday that “the small-scale alliance relevant to nuclear-powered submarines among the United States, Britain and Australia is becoming a concern for ASEAN and countries in the region because ASEAN is a nuclear weapon-free zone, and we oppose nuclear weapon proliferation.” He said the military alliance is the “starting point of a very dangerous arms race” and “if this situation continues, the world will face a bigger danger.”

Wang told a daily news briefing that Prime Minister Hun Sen’s remarks speak to the concerns widely shared by regional countries, including the ASEAN nations.

The AUKUS security partnership and related nuclear submarine cooperation creates nuclear proliferation risks, threatens the international nuclear non-proliferation system, undermines the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, and undercuts ASEAN countries’ efforts to establish a Southeast Asia nuclear weapon-free zone, Wang said.

According to estimates by international arms control experts, the weapons-grade nuclear materials the United States and Britain plan to transfer to Australia would be sufficient to build as many as 64 to 80 nuclear weapons, Wang said.

He added that if the three countries are set on advancing their nuclear submarine cooperation, it is bound to deal an irreversible heavy blow to the integrity, efficacy and authority of the international nuclear non-proliferation system and trigger similar behavior in other non-nuclear-weapon states, thus turning the region into an arena of arms race.

“Such practice of seeking one’s own security at the expense of other countries’ security and plunging other countries into ‘security anxiety’ is extremely irresponsible and dangerous,” he said.

Wang said as ASEAN’s comprehensive strategic partner and friendly neighbor, China firmly supports ASEAN nations’ efforts to establish the Southeast Asia nuclear weapon-free zone.

He added that China is the first nuclear-weapon state to openly support the Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone and have expressed readiness to sign the Protocol to the Treaty.

“We once again call on the United States, Britain and Australia to heed the concerns of the international community, stop acts of nuclear proliferation such as their nuclear submarine cooperation, stop undermining the international nuclear non-proliferation system by applying double standards, and stop brewing storms over the Pacific Ocean,” he said. Enditem

We really are due for the sixth seal: Revelation 6:12

Opinion/Al Southwick: Could an earthquake really rock New England? We are 265 years overdue

On Nov. 8, a 3.6 magnitude earthquake struck Buzzard’s Bay off the coast of New Bedford. Reverberations were felt up to 100 miles away, across Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and parts of Connecticut and New York. News outlets scrambled to interview local residents who felt the ground shake their homes. Seismologists explained that New England earthquakes, while uncommon and usually minor, are by no means unheard of.

The last bad one we had took place on Nov. 18, 1755, a date long remembered.

It’s sometimes called the Boston Earthquake and sometimes the Cape Ann Earthquake. Its epicenter is thought to have been in the Atlantic Ocean about 25 miles east of Gloucester. Estimates say that it would have registered between 6.0 and 6.3 on the modern Richter scale. It was an occasion to remember as chronicled by John E. Ebel, director of the Weston observatory of Boston College:

“At about 4:30 in the morning on 18 November, 1755, a strong earthquake rocked the New England area. Observers reported damage to chimneys, brick buildings and stone walls in coastal communities from Portland, Maine to south of Boston … Chimneys were also damaged as far away as Springfield, Massachusetts, and New Haven, Connecticut. The earthquake was felt at Halifax, Nova Scotia to the northeast, Lake Champlain to the northwest, and Winyah, South Carolina to the southwest. The crew of a ship in deep water about 70 leagues east of Boston thought it had run aground and only realized it had felt an earthquake after it arrived at Boston later that same day.

“The 1755 earthquake rocked Boston, with the shaking lasting more than a minute. According to contemporary reports, as many as 1,500 chimneys were shattered or thrown down in part, the gable ends of about 15 brick buildings were broken out, and some church steeples ended up tilted due to the shaking. Falling chimney bricks created holes in the roofs of some houses. Some streets, particularly those on manmade ground along the water, were so covered with bricks and debris that passage by horse-drawn carriage was impossible. Many homes lost china and glassware that was thrown from shelves and shattered. A distiller’s cistern filled with liquor broke apart and lost its contents.”

We don’t have many details of the earthquake’s impact here, there being no newspaper in Worcester County at that time. We do know that one man, Christian Angel, working in a “silver” mine in Sterling, was buried alive when the ground shook. He is the only known fatality in these parts. We can assume that, if the quake shook down chimneys in Springfield and New Haven, it did even more damage hereabouts. We can imagine the cries of alarm and the feeling of panic as trees swayed violently, fields and meadows trembled underfoot and pottery fell off shelves and crashed below.

The Boston Earthquake was an aftershock from the gigantic Lisbon Earthquake that had leveled Lisbon, Portugal, a few days before. That cataclysm, estimated as an 8 or 9 on the modern Richter scale, was the most devastating natural catastrophe to hit western Europe since Roman times. The first shock struck on Nov. 1, at about 9 in the morning.

According to one account: ”Suddenly the city began to shudder violently, its tall medieval spires waving like a cornfield in the breeze … In the ancient cathedral, the Basilica de Santa Maria, the nave rocked and the massive chandeliers began swinging crazily. . . . Then came a second, even more powerful shock. And with it, the ornate façade of every great building in the square … broke away and cascaded forward.”

Until that moment, Lisbon had been one of the leading cities in western Europe, right up there with London and Paris. With 250,000 people, it was a center of culture, financial activity and exploration. Within minutes it was reduced to smoky, dusty rubble punctuated by human groans and screams. An estimated 60,000 to 100,000 lost their lives.

Since then, New England has been mildly shaken by quakes from time to time. One series of tremors on March 1, 1925, was felt throughout Worcester County, from Fitchburg to Worcester, and caused a lot of speculation.

What if another quake like that in 1755 hit New England today? What would happen? That question was studied 15 years ago by the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency. Its report is sobering:

“The occurrence of a Richter magnitude 6.25 earthquake off Cape Ann, Massachusetts … would cause damage in the range of 2 to 10 billion dollars … in the Boston metropolitan area (within Route 128) due to ground shaking, with significant additional losses due to secondary effects such as soil liquefaction failures, fires and economic interruptions. Hundreds of deaths and thousands of major and minor injuries would be expected … Thousands of people could be displaced from their homes … Additional damage may also be experienced outside the 128 area, especially closer to the earthquake epicenter.”

So even if we don’t worry much about volcanoes, we know that hurricanes and tornadoes are always possible. As for earthquakes, they may not happen in this century or even in this millennium, but it is sobering to think that if the tectonic plates under Boston and Gloucester shift again, we could see a repeat of 1755.

We are now dangerously close to nuclear war: Revelation 8

We are now dangerously close to nuclear war

Story by Hamish de Bretton-Gordon • 3h ago

A Russian Yars intercontinental ballistic missile being launched from an air field during military drills© Provided by The Telegraph

The blowing of the dam at the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant (KHPP) by the Russian state is, quite simply, an act of terror by this terrorist state. With his army failing, his air force stuck in its hangars, it would appear Putin is prepared to do almost anything to cling on to the Russian occupied areas of Ukraine and his throne in the Kremlin. This is another war crime to add to the growing list, a list that includes the unlawful deportation of children – something that led to the International Criminal Court to issue a warrant for his arrest. 

The Russian military motivation behind the blast is clear and not unexpected. The vast area to the west of the dam is a ‘tank’ highway to Crimea, and Putin knows his demoralised forces are likely to collapse in the face of Challenger and Leopard tanks charging towards them. The flooding will likely block this axis for many weeks. The ecological and agricultural damage alone will be legion, and with no power coming out of KHPP or Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant (ZNPP), Ukraine is going to be short on electricity for a while.

This type of terrorism is not new and is to be predicted from the tyrant. I had the honour to be one of the Peshmerga’s chemical weapons advisors in the fight with another terror state: ISIS. In 2017, as the Islamic State was falling in Iraq, they blew up the Al Mishraq sulphur mine south of Mosul. From a tactical perspective this had the same effect as blowing the dam at KHPP. The 400,000 tonnes of very toxic sulphur dioxide went across the route of the advancing Iraqi army’s direct approach to Mosul and delayed them for several days, allowing ISIS to dig deeper into the city. At one point the toxic cloud was heading to the Kurdistan capital Erbil, with over one million people in mortal danger. Thankfully the ‘gods’ intervened, and the poison dissipated in the high atmosphere. When you have no limits or concern for civilian casualties like ISIS and Putin, sadly virtually nothing is off limits.

But the Ukrainians are canny, very canny.  No doubt the Ukrainian high command will have planned for such an eventuality and will have numerous lines and methods of attacks to rid themselves of this evil scourge. At the early stages it also looks as though the Russian plan may have backfired, with Russian troops defending this sector scrabbling for high ground and the water needed for Crimea disappearing into the Black Sea.

With no power and no water at this huge nuclear power plant, the chance of the meltdown of reactors and spent nuclear fuel starts to become plausible. Putin has threatened the West with nuclear weapons since the beginning of this war, but even if this is a hollow threat, ZNPP could still be used as an improvised nuclear weapon, with plausible deniability. It is uncertain what contamination would ensue or where it would go, but it would be a global humanitarian and environmental disaster.

The “Special Military Operation” is now in its death throes, with a rampant, confident, well-trained and equipped Ukraine army on the march.  It is becoming clearer that the Russian military will hit a speed bump conventionally, and with a leader and army commanders with no morals or scruples we must brace ourselves for further unconventional violence. The attacking of schools and hospitals was a portent of the evil of Putin’s regime, and blowing the dam is another move of truly terrible intent. 

Whatever it takes, we must ensure Ukraine prevails as quickly as possible, as there is still the spectre of escalation to chemical, biological and – terrifyingly – nuclear war.

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon OBE is former commander of UK and Nato CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear) Forces

Russia prepares to use nuclear weapons: Daniel 7

Yevgeny Prigozhin
Wagner Group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin said he is “afraid” the Kremlin may deploy tactical nuclear weapons on Russian soil. 

Wagner boss ‘afraid’ Russia may use nuclear weapons on its own territory

Snejana Farberov

The head of the Wagner mercenary group admitted that he is “afraid” Vladimir Putin may deploy nuclear weapons in a Russian border region that has been repeatedly raided by pro-Ukrainian rebels.

In an interview with the pro-Moscow Telegram news channel “Donbas Now,” the notoriously outspoken paramilitary leader aired his concerns about the chilling prospect of the Kremlin using tactical nuclear weapons on Russian soil.

“I’m afraid they might get the vile idea of throwing a small nuclear bomb on their own territory,” Prigozhin said, referring to the troubled Belgorod region on the border with Ukraine.

Pro-Kyiv partisan groups of Russians who have been fighting alongside Ukrainian armed forces have launched a series of raids over the border into Belgorod that have infuriated Moscow. 

The village of Sobolevka in the Belgorod region came under fire from Ukrainian forces on June 2
Prigozhin said the embattled Russian Belgorod region on the border with Ukraine might be the target. 

Advertisement

The armed forays, coupled with Ukrainian shelling, have obliterated several towns and villages and have triggered the evacuation of thousands of Russians.

“Isn’t it why we [Russians] are retreating in the Belgorod region, allowing Ukrainian forces to advance?” Prigozhin wondered. “Because throwing [a nuclear bomb] at a foreign territory is scary, but we can throw one at our own, show everyone that we are mentally ill knockouts.” 

Prigozhin described a scenario in which Kyiv’s soldiers would be stationed in some border village on Russian territory, and Moscow’s forces would blast them there with a tactical nuclear weapon. 

But the Wagner chief, who has gained notoriety for launching scathing attacks at Russia’s top military leaders over their handling of the war, darkly joked that the nuclear attack might fail.

“It’s a big question whether the [nuclear weapon] would even function properly, seeing how they maintain the rest [of their equipment],” Prigozhin noted. 

The threat of a nuclear attack has been hanging over Ukraine since the outbreak of the war in February 2022. 

Smoke rises over an area of Novaya Tavolzhanka, Belgorod Region, Russia, in this screengrab taken from a social media video released on June 5, 2023
Ukraine has been shelling Belgorod and its surrounding areas, causing the evacuation of thousands of residents. 

Advertisement

Putin has made a series of contradictory pronouncements on the subject, saying the country has a right to use all weapons in its arsenal to protect its territory, but also denying that his regime plans to deploy nuclear warheads.

Speaking at a conference in October, the Russian president said it was unnecessary for Russia to strike Ukraine with atomic weapons.

“We see no need for that,” Putin said at the time. “There is no point in that, neither political, nor military.”

Russian rockets are launched against Ukraine from Russia's Belgorod region, seen from Kharkiv, Ukraine, late Sunday, June 4
Pro-Kyiv Russian partisans have been launching raids on Belgorod, which has infuriated Moscow. 

The threat of a possible nuclear deployment escalated last month, when Moscow announced it would be staging tactical nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus. 

The US believes Russia has about 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons — more than any other country — which include bombs that can be carried by aircraft, warheads for short-range missiles and artillery rounds.

Iran’s Enriched Uranium Stockpile Soars: Daniel 8

Iran’s Enriched Uranium Stockpile Soars: IAEA Concerns Grow

A recent confidential report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found that Iran now possesses 23 times as much enriched uranium as agreed in the 2015 international nuclear deal. In his latest report, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi discusses verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran and indirectly confirmed the concerns of the confidential report days earlier.

Since February 2021, Iran has not implemented its nuclear-related commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Grossi and Tehran’s leadership agreed in March to increase surveillance of nuclear facilities and investigate formerly secret nuclear sites. According to Mr. Grossi, Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium has increased by over a quarter in three months.

According to the confidential report, the amount of weapons-grade uranium is estimated at 4.74 tons, which is significantly higher than the maximum amount of 202.8 kilograms stipulated in the agreement.

However, despite this alarming development, the IAEA has suspended its investigation into an undeclared nuclear facility in Iran, according to a separate report obtained by the AFP news agency, ORF reported. Regarding the Mariwan site in the southern province of Fars, the IAEA said it had “no further questions” and considered the matter “closed at this stage.” The agency said it had received plausible explanations from Tehran, however, Mr. Grossi stated, “The inventory of enriched uranium is growing at a very fast pace, and the activities are also growing. So, the presence of the IAEA should be commensurate with that.”

Ceilings defined by JCPOA

Under the 2015 International Nuclear Agreement, a 3.67 percent cap on uranium enrichment was established. However, this agreement was unilaterally terminated by former U.S. President Donald Trump in 2018, resulting in Iran’s gradual withdrawal of its obligations under the agreement.

Iran’s increased uranium enrichment and the fact that the IAEA has suspended its investigation into an undeclared nuclear facility raise renewed questions about Iran’s compliance with international agreements and its nuclear ambitions. The international community now faces renewed challenges in negotiating with Iran over its nuclear programs and ensuring security and stability in the region.

Multilateral nuclear disorder: Revelation 16

Nuclear launch button on gray background. 3D illustration.picture alliance / Zoonar | Cigdem Simsek©

Multilateral nuclear disorder: Let’s rock till we explode

6 June 2023

The global nuclear order has so far proven resilient in the face of Russia’s war on Ukraine. European engagement through the EU and NATO can help shore up this uneasy equilibrium

Russia’s war against Ukraine is intimately tied to the global nuclear order. The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has issued countless nuclear threats since February 2022: among other things, warning those who might consider coming to Ukraine’s defence of consequences “never seen in your entire history”; placing Russia’s nuclear forces on “enhanced combat duty”; and preparing to deploy Russian nuclear warheads in neighbouring Belarus.

The Kremlin has also conditioned arms control talks with the United States on Ukraine, stating that such discussions “cannot be isolated from geopolitical realities” in an attempt to blackmail Washington into giving up on Kyiv. Indeed, the very fact of Russia’s war could break the international non-proliferation regime – as countries facing threats to their security may be more likely to seek the bomb, and those that already have it will never give it up.

Yet, the global nuclear order has proven resilient to Putin’s challenge. The norms, practices, and institutions of the nuclear age – no matter how unjust – remain largely as they were before the war. Russia’s nuclear weapons may dissuade NATO countries from sending troops to fight alongside those of Ukraine. But the alliance’s nuclear weapons also deter Russia from attacking the supply hubs in Poland and elsewhere that facilitate Ukraine’s self-defence. The nuclear non-use norm remains unbroken, and no new countries have acquired nuclear weapons since Russia’s landgrab of Crimea in 2014. Multilateral engagement by Europeans through the EU and NATO can help to shore up this uneasy equilibrium.

Nuclear fissures

EU member states are deeply divided on nuclear matters. One EU country – France – commands a nuclear arsenal of its own. Most others benefit from the United States’ nuclear umbrella as members of NATO. Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands even host US nuclear weapons on their soil through the alliance’s nuclear sharing arrangements. Austria and Ireland, meanwhile, were instrumental in the drafting and adoption at the United Nations of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in 2017, which seeks to comprehensively ban nuclear weapons; Malta signed up too. Finland and Sweden, which were militarily non-aligned throughout the cold war and after, have now joined NATO, or, in the latter’s case, will do so imminently.

EU member states thus represent the full continuum of views towards nuclear weapons. Consequently, the EU’s position on nuclear weapons and how to address their risks, threats, and benefits reflects the three pillars of the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as the lowest common denominator: nuclear non-proliferation, access to civilian nuclear energy, and negotiated disarmament. NATO upholds that it will remain a nuclear alliance for as long as nuclear weapons exist. In private, some European leaders might even subscribe to the late British prime minister Margaret Thatcher’s view: “I want a war-free Europe. A nuclear-free Europe I do not believe would be a war-free Europe.” Their ranks might have swelled since February 2022. But this diversity of views across the EU also allows member state governments to credibly engage different global constituencies, as views around the world are no less diverse.

Nuclear treaty proliferation

From 2010 onwards, the “humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons” began to receive increasing attention in international discussions. Austria and others championed a “Humanitarian Initiative” and pledged to close the legal gap on prohibition that the NPT left open. Ban treaty sympathisers among EU member states have since tried to shift the bloc’s default position. Within the EU, this led to a crystallisation of two subgroups, which, according to one EU official, brought “the worst” out of supporters and opponents alike whenever the TPNW was on the agenda. The result has been an agreement to disagree among EU members, to avoid the elephant in the room and permit progress on other parts of the union’s common security and defence policy agenda.[1]

The TPNW has neither had quite the effect its proponents hoped for, nor that its opponents feared. Critics of the ban treaty had argued that it would undermine the NPT regime. But since its entry into force in 2021, no signatory of the TPNW has withdrawn from the 1968 treaty. To the contrary, many government statements have stressed the two treaties’ complementarity, as did the final declaration of the first meeting of parties to the TPNW in June 2022.

Where the meeting fell short was in condemning Russia’s nuclear-backed invasion of Ukraine. For all their emphasis on humanitarian principles, ban treaty members’ solidarity with the attacked should have come almost naturally. After all, Ukraine is one of only four countries globally to have relinquished nuclear weapons (the others being Belarus, Kazakhstan, and South Africa). Yet, most delegations refrained from calling out Russia – albeit not all – and the final declaration effectively resorted to nuclear whataboutism, castigating “any and all” nuclear threats. This could turn out to be as much of a roadblock to expanding membership as the rejection of the ban treaty by the countries who would actually do the disarming. Compared to the TPNW, the participation of the US, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union in the NPT considerably boosted buy-in from other UN members.

The non-outcome of last year’s NPT review conference illustrates another way in which Russia’s war has affected consensus-based forums. Whereas the ban treaty meeting avoided taking a stand on the invasion to achieve consensus, a Russian veto on the final day of the NPT conference prevented a joint declaration and with it explicit condemnation of Russia’s occupationof the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Some delegates reported frustration that the war crowded out discussions on other critical issues, such as emerging and disruptive technologies and their effects on nuclear risks and stability.[2]Others were disappointed that language on disarmament in the draft did not go far enough. But most considered the conference a success – and none (bar Russia) threatened to block the final statement.

China has been notoriously unwilling to engage in discussions of its nuclear arsenal and doctrine

“Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here!”

Diplomatic discipline has allowed EU members and their partners to push for farther-reaching condemnation in majoritarian forums such as the International Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors, which adopted three resolutions in 2022 against Russian opposition. European diplomats need to be mindful of the decision-making mechanisms of the forums in which they operate, and acknowledge that the perception of their initiatives by countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America could evolve as Russia’s war drags on. If Europeans push the envelope too far, it could come at the cost of progress on other issues of importance to these countries. In some cases, assembling a coalition for a side statement may be more effective than insisting on specific language for a consensus document. This can also serve to put reluctant countries on the spot. China, for example, has been notoriously unwilling to engage in discussions of its nuclear arsenal and doctrine.

EU member states and NATO allies can adopt other measures to reduce nuclear risks. US-Russian arms control is now on life support, and China’s nuclear build-up is accelerating unchecked. Short of formal arms control agreements, the international community is rediscovering risk-reduction, transparency, and confidence-building measures as ways to close off the riskiest pathways for inadvertent and accidental escalation between the nuclear powers. Military-to-military communication channels, for example, can help to de-conflict activities and prevent misunderstandings. NATO allies have also demonstrated unilateral restraint in refraining from mirroring Russia’s nuclear bluster, to avoid normalising it.

But, even in an area as seemingly uncontroversial as nuclear risk reduction, not every conceivable measure actually enhances security. And, given Russia’s record of deliberate risk manipulation, some might even put Europeans at a distinct military disadvantage. Arguably, Russia has had a little too much confidence about what NATO countries would not do in support of Ukraine. Nevertheless, as NATO allies and their partners seek to promote a distinction between responsible and irresponsible – or to some: less and more irresponsible – nuclear behaviour, some risks associated with unilateral steps could still be worth accepting to gain broader international support in the narrative confrontation with Russia (and China).

Europeans should prepare for an era of intense nuclear competition. In addition to Russia’s heightened propensity for risk manipulation, there are also growing reasons to doubt Moscow’s commitment to non-proliferation: Russia’s plan to deploy nuclear warheads to Belarus turns on its head the Kremlin’s previous criticism of NATO nuclear sharing arrangements. The Kremlin might also come to believe that selective proliferation – or tacit support for others’ nuclear hedging – would create a bigger headache and distraction for the West than for itself. Already, Russia’s dependence on Iranian drones for strikes against Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure has led to a shift in Moscow’s position on negotiations to curb Teheran’s nuclear ambitions. Far from the post-cold war era of cooperative threat reduction, Russia is becoming a nuclear rogue.

It is crucial to condemn Russia’s behaviour in the broadest possible terms. However, it is the Kremlin’s disregard for humanitarian norms and violent rejection of the post-cold war European security architecture that requires Europeans and NATO allies to be able to deter, and if necessary, defeat Russian aggression. Beyond the requirements for effective conventional defence and deterrence, a competitive armaments strategywould give Russia a reason to take seriously Europeans as counterparts in arms control. This would also support the EU’s non-proliferation objectives by allowing Washington to shift resources and attention towards the assurance of allies in other regions – given that US nuclear backed security guarantees have long contributed to limiting the spread of nuclear weapons.

The US will in all likelihood follow through on its ‘Indo-Pacific pivot’ over the coming years, or be forced to do so suddenly in response to Chinese actions. In that scenario, it will only become more imperative for Europeans to present Russia with risks and challenges it would wish to negotiate away – rather than plead in vain for the Kremlin to come to its senses.