WAR 03-26-2016-to-04-01-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://theweek.com/speedreads/615988/north-korea-threatens-china-nuclear-storm

North Korea threatens China with a 'nuclear storm'

2:17 p.m. ET

The United Nations' recently implemented sanctions against North Korea are already driving a wedge between longtime allies North Korea and China, a document from the Workers' Party of North Korea reveals. In the document, the Workers' Party condemns Beijing for partaking in the sanctions aimed at curbing North Korea's nuclear program and urges its people to confront China with a "nuclear storm" for its alleged "betrayal of socialism," Daily NK reports.

"We must no longer go easy on the Chinese and instead deal with them equally in order to change their attitude of taking us lightly," the document reportedly reads, declaring China an "enemy state." Up until this point, the two nations had kept close ties since signing the Sino-North Korean Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance in 1961.

With North Korea's dismay at China's "eager" participation — which it says is a ploy to protect its "status of dominance in Northeast Asia" — the key relationship could meet its demise, Sino-North Korea relations expert Lee Young Hwa, a professor at Kansai University, told Daily NK. "There is a high possibility that Sino-North Korea relations will not only deteriorate," he said, "but lead to tensions as well." —Becca Stanek
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.emergencymgmt.com/safety/Nuclear-security-summit-to-focus-on-dirty-bomb-scenario.html

Homeland Security and Public Safety

Nuclear Summit to Focus on Dirty Bomb Scenario

President Obama to host world leaders for a Nuclear Security Summit in an effort to stop potential attackers from using radioactive material to outdo the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

James Reinl, Al Jazeera, Doha, Qatar | March 31, 2016

(TNS) - When it comes to nuclear attacks, there is no shortage of nightmare scenarios.

Saboteurs could breach a nuclear power station and start a reactor meltdown. A renegade Pakistani general could seize tactical nuclear weapons and blow up a city. Radioactive materials, which are found in many hospitals, could cause dirty bomb mayhem at an airport.

Against this backdrop, President Barack Obama will host world leaders for a Nuclear Security Summit on Thursday, in an international effort to stop possible assailants from using radioactive material to outdo the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

The leaders may not be doing enough. Analysts point to big gaps in the global security architecture, dozens of atomic power plants coming online in developing regions and new threats, such as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL also know as ISIS), on the scene.

"The world has drastically improved nuclear security these past 25 years but significant gaps remain and the government structure for nuclear security is a patchwork," former White House science adviser Matthew Bunn told Al Jazeera.

"The key question for this summit is: will leaders take enough action to put the world on a path of continuous improvement and steadily reducing the risk of nuclear terrorism, or will attention turn elsewhere, progress stall, and complacency return?"

A psychological weapon

Fears of attacks with nuclear materials resurfaced after the March 22 bomb attacks at a Brussels airport and on a packed metro, which killed 35 people and injured more than 300, and indications that the ISIL-linked attackers had nuclear ambitions.

The suicide bombers may have originally planned to hit a nuclear site, according to reports. Last year, it emerged that those behind ISIL's November 13 attack on Paris, which killed 130 people, had been video-recording a high-ranking Belgian nuclear official.

These revelations stoked fears that ISIL sought radiological material to wrap around explosives and yield a dirty bomb that, if detonated, would cause alarm, even if the radioactivity itself was not life-threatening.

"It's a psychological weapon that causes economic damage," Kenneth Luongo, president of the Partnership for Global Security, a think-tank, told Al Jazeera.

"If those two bombs in the Brussels airport had any radioactive material in them, you would not be cleaning that airport so it reopens within in a week, you would be building a new airport."

The problem for summit envoys is that a dirty bomb's radiological ingredients are found in many hospitals and industrial sites around the world. Despite efforts to secure them, they go missing at a worrying rate.

"This is not science-fiction. Creating a dirty bomb is not difficult. Every piece of food sold in a supermarket has a barcode on it, but these radioactive sources don't. We don't have a good tracking system," added Luongo.

"All we have is a completely voluntary international system and national regulations. We must improve the way we secure, track and dispose of high-intensity radiological sources."

'An apocalyptic ideology'

Most "insurgents" are content with AK-47s, Semtex and other conventional arms, said Victor Asal of New York State University. In recent years, only about two dozen groups have upped the ante with chemical, biological and other mass-casualty weapons.

According to Bunn, a Harvard University scholar, ISIL's known efforts in the nuclear field fall short of its forebear, al-Qaeda, which sought highly enriched uranium (HEU) and hatched plans for a crude nuclear device akin to those dropped on Japan in 1945.

"There's no public evidence of a focused ISIL nuclear programme, as al-Qaeda had back in the day. But ISIL has an apocalyptic ideology that envisions a total war with crusader forces, including the US, a nuclear-armed superpower," Bunn said.

"If ISIL does turn to nuclear pursuits, they have more money, people, territory and a greater ability to recruit experts globally than al-Qaeda at its strongest ever had. And they've shown an ability to manage and implement long-term projects."

Other dangers are growing too, analysts say. Pakistan has embraced smaller, tactical nuclear weapons that can be deployed on the battlefield. Islamabad insists they are secure; the US and others worry they could fall into the wrong hands.

An uptake in atomic power has seen Northeast Asia become a "thicket of nuclear facilities" in the neighbourhood of North Korea's volatile regime, and where the security of fissile material is imperfect, said Luongo.

Plans for new plutonium-yielding plants in China, India and Japan will increase the global stockpiles of bomb-making fuel, which currently amounts to about 2,000 metric tonnes.

A serious threat

US officials point to improvements since Obama launched the first nuclear security confab in 2010. Stockpiles of HEU and plutonium have been removed or downblended from more than 50 facilities in 30 countries.

Japan and Ukraine are ditching much of their fissile material. Hospitals and industrial plants have stricter rules on radioisotopes nowadays. Borders are better guarded. Nuclear workers are more vetted and better trained, US officials said.

Delegates have made more than 260 pledges over the course of three summits. More are expected at the fourth meeting, which begins in Washington on March 31 - the last in the series, before the UN, Interpol and other multination organs assume the watchdog role.

Some 50 countries will take part, but Russia - a key nuclear power - will stay away.

Governments have shown willingness to act, but not enough for more sweeping controls, said Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser.

"In an ideal world, a treaty, for instance, related to fissile material is something that we have expressed support for in the past, but there is not sufficient international buy-in to advance at this time," Rhodes told Al Jazeera.

Over two days, Obama will meet the leaders of South Korea and Japan to discuss Pyongyang's recent atomic tests, and privately with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Separate sit-downs will cover ISIL and a nuclear deal with Iran.

Carl Robichaud, of the Carnegie Corporation think-tank, warned that leaders may still be complacent.

Governments have resisted tough curbs on plutonium activity, which has commercial uses, and fissile material for weapons, submarine engines and other military uses - which account for 85 percent of global stockpiles, he said.

"It's hard to muster the political will to take steps," Robichaud told Al Jazeera. "It's either going to be a serious incident or a very close call that drives people to take this threat seriously."


———

©2016 Al Jazeera (Doha, Qatar)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/world/nuclear-security-summit-obama.html?_r=0

World

As Obama Hosts Summit, China Overshadows Nuclear Talks

By MARK LANDLER
MARCH 31, 2016

WASHINGTON — President Obama gathered more than 50 world leaders here on Thursday to discuss one of his favorite topics: locking down nuclear weapons. But it was Mr. Obama’s meeting with one of the less friendly of those leaders, President Xi Jinping of China, that captured most of the attention.

The leaders announced that the United States and China would sign a climate change accord later in April, a show of unity on an issue that has become a bright spot in the tangled relationship between the two countries. But they quickly moved on to more contentious issues, with Mr. Obama pressing Mr. Xi on China’s construction of military facilities in the South China Sea, actions that a White House official said belied a pledge the Chinese president had made last fall not to militarize those waters.

“Like China and other countries, the United States has significant interests in the Asia-Pacific region,” Mr. Obama said to Mr. Xi before the meeting, his only extended encounter with a visiting leader at the Nuclear Security Summit, which will conclude on Friday.

“Our two countries have some disputes and disagreements,” Mr. Xi replied. He called for both sides to “avoid misunderstanding and misperceptions,” and to respect each other’s core interests — a polite warning not to meddle in the South China Sea, which Beijing regards as a core interest.

China’s neighbors dispute its claims to reefs and shoals, and fear that it is colonizing one of the world’s most strategic waterways. The United States has dispatched Navy ships to guarantee that the sea lanes remain unobstructed, but that has raised the risk of a confrontation with Chinese warships.

During a visit to Washington in September, Mr. Xi declared that China would not “pursue militarization” of the South China Sea. But since then, it has installed surface-to-air missile batteries and military radar on reefs and newly reclaimed islands hundreds of miles from the Chinese mainland.

“We have seen developments and reports that are not consistent with the commitment not to militarize the South China Sea,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser.

Mr. Xi and Mr. Obama found more common ground on confronting the nuclear threat posed by North Korea. China supported a new round of United Nations sanctions against the Pyongyang government after it tested a nuclear device and fired ballistic missiles.

To reassure America’s allies in the face of their rogue neighbor, Mr. Obama also met with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan and South Korea’s president, Park Geun-hye.

Those countries were thrust into the American political campaign in recent days after the Republican front-runner, Donald J. Trump, proposed they acquire nuclear weapons to deter the threat from North Korea. A senior Japanese official quickly reaffirmed Japan’s commitment to remain nuclear-free.

Mr. Trump’s comments did not come up in the three-way meeting with Mr. Obama, according to American officials. But Mr. Rhodes issued a withering response to the proposal, saying it would undercut decades of nonproliferation policy.

“It would be catastrophic were the United States to shift its position and indicate that we somehow support the proliferation of nuclear weapons,” he said.

0330-web-LOOSENUKES-720.png

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgr...1c81ca42cb8c2cffe/0330-web-LOOSENUKES-720.png

“The entire premise of American foreign policy as it relates to nuclear weapons for the last 70 years has been focused on preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons,” he continued. “That has been the position of bipartisan administrations, of everybody who has occupied the Oval Office.”

Domestic politics and regional concerns both seemed to crowd out any discussion of global efforts to secure nuclear materials. And for all the hubbub — the intense security; the motorcades snarling traffic in downtown Washington — the meeting opened on a subdued note.

Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, was a no-show, which made breakthroughs on security unlikely, given his country’s vast nuclear stockpile. The terrorist attack in Belgium last week also cast a shadow over the gathering, particularly after reports that fighters for the Islamic State were seeking to penetrate a nuclear facility to obtain material for a so-called radioactive dirty bomb.

Mr. Obama has added a session to discuss the campaign against the Islamic State, in which the administration continues to claim gains. He met on Thursday with President François Hollande of France, his only one-on-one session with a leader aside from Mr. Xi. Mr. Obama praised Mr. Hollande for “galvanizing the European community” in the fight against terrorism.

The president’s refusal to meet with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey roiled the diplomatic waters, suggesting that Mr. Obama was displeased with Mr. Erdogan’s authoritarian bent. But White House officials said Mr. Obama planned to spend a few minutes with him at a White House dinner for the leaders on Thursday evening.

Mr. Putin’s snub was not unexpected, given the rift between Russia and the United States over Syria and Ukraine. But the White House pointed out that Russia has nevertheless cooperated on nuclear issues, not least its role in the talks with Iran over curbing its nuclear program. (Iran was not invited to attend the summit meeting.)

“You want Russia at the table on issues of nuclear security,” Mr. Rhodes said. “They only isolate themselves by not attending summits like this.”

This was the fourth and final Nuclear Security Summit of Mr. Obama’s presidency, and with Mr. Obama — who conceived and championed these meetings — leaving office next year, several experts said this was likely to be the last.

When Mr. Obama departs in January, it is not clear who will keep the momentum going. While the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, supports Mr. Obama’s nonproliferation policies, she has evinced little of his fervor for a nuclear-free world.

But as the leaders arrived for the dinner past an honor guard lined up along the South Lawn, Mr. Obama could claim one achievement: An amendment to a treaty that stiffens standards for protecting nuclear materials was signed by 102 nations.

The original protection agreement dates to 1987, but it has long been considered weak. The amendment, proposed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, specifies minimum requirements for physical protection of civilian nuclear stocks, and for securing them when they are transported.

As part of an effort to be more open about its nuclear inventory, the United States announced that its stockpile of highly enriched uranium declined 20 percent, to 585.6 metric tons in 2013 from 740.7 metric tons in 1996. The decline was modest, but it was the first time in 15 years that the government released these numbers.

A senior administration official, who declined to speak on the record ahead of the president’s announcement, said that the amendments to the physical protection agreement are “the closest thing we have to legally binding standards for nuclear security.”


David E. Sanger contributed reporting.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Amerika ... Next Stop Berlin? Moscow's Nazi-Killing Tank Unit is Back
Started by skip1ý, Today 06:15 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...erlin-Moscow-s-Nazi-Killing-Tank-Unit-is-Back

:dot5::dot5::dot5:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...-switch-assurance-deterrence-europe/82495752/

US General: NATO To Switch ‘Assurance To Deterrence’ in E. Europe

Agence France-Presse 9:19 p.m. EDT March 31, 2016

RIGA, Latvia — NATO and the United States are switching their defense doctrine from assurance to deterrence in Eastern Europe in response to a “resurgent and aggressive Russia,” the top US general in Europe said Thursday.

The comments by Gen. Philip Breedlove in the Latvian capital Riga come a day after the Pentagon said it would begin continuous rotations of an additional armored brigade of about 4,200 troops in Eastern Europe beginning in early 2017.

“We are prepared to fight and win if we have to ... our focus will expand from assurance to deterrence, including measures that vastly improve our overall readiness,” Breedlove said following talks with Baltic region NATO commanders.

“To the east and north we face a resurgent and aggressive Russia, and as we have continued to witness these last two years, Russia continues to seek to extend its influence on its periphery and beyond.”


ARMY TIMES
Army plans 9-month deployments for armored brigades in Europe


Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and has been supporting a pro-Moscow separatist conflict in eastern Ukraine.

Eastern NATO members including the formerly Soviet-ruled Baltic states and Poland have since lobbied the alliance to increase its presence in the region.

“In the spring of 2017 what we will bring to Europe, and then again put into the three Baltic nations, is an armored brigade fully enabled with command and control and all of the supporting equipment required,” Breedlove said.

Asked by AFP whether he expected other NATO members to match the upped US troop commitment, Breedlove said: “We would hope (so).”

“What we have seen is that when we led by coming here with company-sized formations after (Russia’s actions in) Crimea and Donbas, other nations have shown up now with company-sized formations.”

Russia has repeatedly warned against the permanent positioning of substantial forces from NATO along its border.

And some NATO members, like Germany, have been skeptical about any substantial permanent deployment, saying it could breach a 1997 agreement between the military alliance and Russia.

But the new US deployment avoids the issue because it is not technically permanently stationed in Eastern Europe, with brigades rotating in and out, US officials say.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Well Beijing stepped in it this time.....As an aside, the F-16Cs (Block 32+) the Indonesians are flying are carrying AIM-120Cs....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-f-16s-to-guard-its-south-china-sea-territory

Indonesia Will Defend South China Sea Territory With F-16 Fighter Jets

by Chris Brummitt t cjbrummitt, Rieka Rahadiana t riekarahadiana

March 31, 2016 — 3:00 PM PDT
Updated on March 31, 2016 — 5:14 PM PDT

- Defense minister Ryacudu comments after incident with China

- Minister confirms country intends to buy up to 10 Sukhoi jets

Indonesia will deploy U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets to the Natuna islands to ward off “thieves”, the defense minister said less than two weeks after Chinese coast guard vessels clashed with an Indonesian boat in the area.

The move is part of a military buildup on islands overlooking the South China Sea that will see a refurbished runway and a new port constructed, Ryamizard Ryacudu said in an interview on Thursday with Bloomberg News. The military will, or has already, stationed marines, air force special force units, an army battalion, three frigates, a new radar system and drones, he said.

The planned stationing of five F-16s reflects a new level of Indonesian concern about territorial disputes in the South China Sea that are pitting Beijing against several of its Southeast Asian neighbors. Indonesia is not a claimant, but the clash with the Chinese coast guard last month over the detention of a Chinese fishing boat showed the potential for it to be drawn into conflict.

“Natuna is a door, if the door is not guarded then thieves will come inside,” said Ryacudu, a former army chief of staff. “There has been all this fuss because until now it has not been guarded. This is about the respect of the country.”

The minister also said he was considering introducing military conscription in Natuna and other remote areas of the 17,000-island archipelago, “so if something happens people won’t be afraid and know what to do.”

‘Meaningless’ Show

China claims more than 80 percent of the South China Sea, bringing it into dispute with Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam and Taiwan. Beijing’s claims, which it has been pressing more assertively in recent years, are based on a so-called nine-dash line for which it won’t give precise coordinates. In passports issued in 2012, China’s line encroached on the exclusive economic zone that Indonesia derives from the Natuna islands.

The increased proximity of Chinese fishing boats and coast guard vessels to the ships of other countries has also caused unease in Malaysia. The country’s foreign affairs ministry summoned Chinese ambassador Huang Huikang to register concern over the alleged encroachment of Chinese-flagged boats in the South China Sea, it said late Thursday.

Aaron Connelly, a research fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney, questioned if stationing F-16s in the Natuna area would act as much of a deterrent or be of use combating illegal fishing.

“It looks like a show of force, but it’s a meaningless one,” he said. “Indonesia has diplomatic cards to play but it doesn’t have military ones. It’s not going to scare away the Chinese military by putting a few F-16s on Natuna. These are items that can’t be reasonably used to survey maritime activities.”

Sukhoi Jets

Ryacudu said he hoped to finalize a deal to buy between 8 and 10 Russian Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets in a trip to Russia in early April. The government had been considering purchasing Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-16V, BAE Systems Plc’s Eurofighter Typhoon or Saab AB’s Gripen.

He said Indonesia would continue looking to various countries for procurement.

“We will buy from Europe and America, from Russia also,” he said. “We don’t prioritize. The important thing is if we need them, and the research backs it up, we will buy. We are replacing old planes, not adding new ones.”


Read this next

- China Security Push Should Match Economic Model, Says Singapore
- Tiny Island at Center of South China Sea Tussle Seeks Status
- Frantic Phone Call Failed to Halt China-Indonesia Sea Spat
- Indonesia Detains Chinese Fishermen After S. China Sea Chase
- U.S. Military Buildup in Australia's North a `Natural Evolution'
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://abcnews.go.com/International...s-minister-resigns-presidents-office-38055272

Brazil Supreme Court Takes Over Probe Into Ex-President

By Jenny Barchfield, Associated Press · RIO DE JANEIRO — Mar 31, 2016, 10:34 PM ET

Brazil's Supreme Court handed former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva a victory on Thursday, ruling against returning a corruption investigation involving the ex-leader to a judge he accuses of unfairly targeting him.

Brazil's highest court voted 8-2 to take over the case, effectively removing the probe into Silva from Judge Sergio Moro, the lower court magistrate spearheading a corruption case centered on state-run oil company Petrobras.

Moro, a judge from the provincial backwater of Curitiba, has risen to prominence over the past two years while presiding over the Petrobras investigation that has ensnared some of Brazil's richest businessmen and top public figures from across the political spectrum.

But he was accused of partisanship earlier this month after ordering police to take Silva in for questioning in connection with the Petrobras case.

Silva's supporters say Moro is waging a crusade against the former leader and fear he could order Silva detained, a step the Supreme Court is thought much less likely to take, at least in the short term.

The full court has not yet taken up appeals of a separate injunction that prevented Silva from taking office as President Dilma Rousseff's chief of state, a post that would give him greater legal protections. Under Brazilian law, only the Supreme Court can authorize the investigation, detention and indictment of Cabinet ministers and legislators.

Silva's appointment has remained in limbo for weeks, pending a decision by the Supreme Court. The former president, who served from 2003-2010, has denied all wrongdoing.

Meanwhile Thursday, demonstrators gathered in more than 20 states to support Silva and Rousseff, who is facing impeachment proceedings over accusations she violated fiscal laws. Thousands of demonstrators — many dressed in red, the symbol of Rousseff's left-leaning Workers' Party — converged in the capital, Brasilia, as well as the financial center of Sao Paulo and other cities throughout the country.

Rousseff's chance of surviving impeachment effort looked slimmer after the biggest party in her governing coalition decamped earlier this week — a move that also created confusion about the status of her Cabinet.

Leaders of The Brazilian Democratic Movement Party, known by the Portuguese initials PMDB, said Tuesday that all their Cabinet ministers, as well as hundreds of other federal government employees, would have to resign immediately.

But Agriculture Minister Katia Abreu, a close confidant of Rousseff, said on Twitter that she didn't plan on leaving either the government or the party. Her tweet suggested the other five PMDB Cabinet ministers held the same stand.

It wasn't immediately clear how the PMDB — Brazil's largest party — would respond to the minister's defiance.

Rousseff's office announced late Wednesday that Sports Minister George Hilton had asked to leave the position and would be temporarily replaced by a top ministry official.

Hilton's departure is unlikely to have much effect on preparations for the Aug. 5-21 Olympics as his role in the project was marginal. The presidential palace said in a statement that Hilton's replacement, 45-year-old Ricardo Leyser, had headed the agency responsible for coordinating the federal government's role in the Olympics.

Wednesday's announcement capped weeks of confusion about whether Hilton would stay on as minister. He left his party after it also pulled out of Rousseff's governing coalition in March, in an apparent bid to keep his job. But a top Rousseff aide said last week that Hilton would resign, although his ministry declined to confirm it at the time.

Brazilian news media have suggested Rousseff planned to offer the vacated ministries to the six smaller parties that remain in her coalition in a bid to help her secure their support against impeachment efforts. She needs 172 out of 513 votes in the lower house to bury the proceedings.

But the defection of the PMDB, which has been a key part of the governing coalitions since Brazil emerged from military dictatorship in 1985, appears to have made that more difficult.

Rousseff's approval rating has plummeted amid the worst recession in decades, rising unemployment and an outbreak of the Zika virus, which has been linked to a rare birth defect.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.enca.com/world/brazils-rousseff-warns-putsch-ahead-impeachment-vote

Brazil's Rousseff warns of putsch ahead of impeachment vote

World
Thursday 31 March 2016 - 6:26am

BRASILIA – Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff said on Wednesday she was the victim of a coup as her allies horse-traded frantically for enough votes to ride out an impeachment drive.

"Impeachment is a putschist process that is out of line with the country's trajectory since returning to democracy," Rousseff said in a speech in Brasilia, referring to the end of Brazil's two decades military dictatorship in 1985.

A months-long crisis reducing Latin America's biggest country to political paralysis ahead of the Rio Olympics deepened on Tuesday when Rousseff's Workers' Party lost its main coalition partner, the centrist PMDB.

That left Rousseff isolated as she tries to survive impeachment in congress against a background of punishing recession and a corruption scandal at state oil company Petrobras that has snared a cross-section of the country's elite.

A poll on Wednesday from Ibope showed approval for Rousseff's government remains at around record lows of 10 percent, while her personal approval rating was 14 percent.

Rousseff faces impeachment over allegedly illegal budgetary manipulations to cover the extent of Brazil's recession during her re-election campaign in 2014.

According to Rousseff, she has broken no laws that meet the standards for impeachment, meaning that the campaign against her "is a coup".

The potentially lengthy process is already under way in a preliminary commission and the lower house of Congress could vote as early as mid-April on whether to send the case to the Senate for full trial.

Mathematical challenges

To survive, Rousseff needs 172 of the 513 votes in the lower house, or one-third of the deputies.

Until only recently that seemed doable, despite her massive unpopularity and the intense hostility of opponents in the increasingly divided country.

With the PMDB's exit, the maths gets far dicier, analysts say.

"The likelihood of impeachment has greatly increased," said political analyst Michael Freitas Mohallem of the Fundação Getulio Vargas in Rio de Janeiro.

Loyalists put a brave face on Tuesday's debacle, with chief of staff Jaques Wagner calling it an opportunity to "renew" the government.

Put another way, the government now has seven ministries and some 580 other posts to hand out and is ready to horse-trade for support.

Rousseff hopes her main weapon will be her predecessor in the presidency, the charismatic and authoritative Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva – a renowned wheeler and dealer.

However, after being accused in the Petrobras corruption scandal, Lula has also become a focal point for opposition attacks, making it questionable whether he helps or hinders Rousseff more.

The strategy will be to look beyond the PMDB to the multitude of smaller parties in the fractious Congress and even to individual deputies, regardless of their affiliation.

A Rousseff aide told O Globo newspaper on Wednesday that even with its heavy presence in the cabinet, the PMDB would only have delivered 25 to 30 votes against impeachment.

Now the aim is to entice new allies to come up with 80 anti-impeachment votes, the aide said. That, added to the 100 votes the government believes it has already guaranteed, would hit the magic one-third.

A parallel strategy, analysts say, is to persuade deputies to abstain, making it impossible for the opposition to get the necessary 342 votes.

"They're all on their computers counting votes, trading votes for jobs and ministries," Mohallem said.

Countdown and protests

A cross-party commission is hearing arguments and is expected to make its recommendation on impeachment on about April 12. Rousseff's defense is already expected to wind up on Monday.

The lower house would then debate and could vote between April 14 to 16, according to a preliminary estimate of the timetable.

If deputies do send the case onto the Senate, then a process possibly taking months begins. A two-thirds vote would again be needed to depose Rousseff.

While Congress fights, ordinary Brazilians are becoming increasingly angry over the dismal economy and the constant drip of corruption revelations.

Demonstrations both against and in favor of Rousseff and Lula are multiplying, with Workers' Party activists planning to hold rallies in major cities on Thursday.

On Wednesday, Rousseff supporters rallied in Brasilia, where the president was opening a new phase of the government's social housing programme known as "My House, My Life".

She accused opponents of stirring up "hatred between Brazilians".

Rousseff cancelled a trip to Washington for a nuclear safety summit on Thursday and Friday, the state news agency said.

A government spokesman said that in "the current political context", it was not advisable.

- AFP
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missile-idUSKCN0WY3GX

Business | Fri Apr 1, 2016 12:58am EDT
Related: World, Japan, South Korea, North Korea

North Korea appears to have fired missile into sea: South Korea military

North Korea fired a missile into the sea off its east coast on Friday, the South's military said, hours after the leaders of South Korea, Japan and the United States warned Pyongyang to end provocations or face more pressure.

The projectile was fired from a region near the North's east coast, a South Korean military official said by telephone.

It was a short-range surface to air missile, another official at the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, adding the military was trying to determine the range.

The launch at around 12:45 p.m. local time comes hours after U.S. President Barack Obama joined South Korean President Park Geun-hye and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe vowing to add pressure on the North for its recent activities.

Meeting on the sidelines of a global nuclear security summit in Washington, the three leaders recommitted their countries to each others' defense and warned they could take further steps to counter threats from Pyongyang.

Related Coverage
› South Korea says fishing vessels turn back after North disrupts GPS signals

Obama held separate talks with President Xi Jinping of China, the closest North Korea has to an ally, and said they both wanted to see "full implementation" of the latest U.N. sanctions against Pyongyang. But Xi offered no sign that Beijing was prepared to go beyond its consent to the Security Council measures imposed in early March.

The North has fired a string of rockets in recent weeks including a long-range rocket in February that launched an object in space. Leader Kim Jong Un has supervised some of the launches in defiance of U.N. sanctions.

North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test on Jan. 6, leading to new Security Council sanctions in early March. South Korea and the United States have imposed separate sanctions.

Earlier on Friday, South Korea said North Korea has been sending signals to disrupt GPS reception in the South, leading some shipping vessels to return to port.

(Reporting by Ju-min Park; Writing by Jack Kim; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore)
 

Possible Impact

TB Fanatic

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
From then Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thebulletin.org/can-east-asia-avoid-nuclear-explosive-materials-arms-race9295

Analysis

28 March 2016

Can East Asia avoid a nuclear explosive materials arms race?

Henry Sokolski

Later this week, from March 31 to April 1, Washington will host the fourth and final Nuclear Security Summit. Unfortunately, the commercial plutonium plans of Japan, Korea, and China won’t be on the agenda. That's a shame because, as everyone knows, plutonium is a nuclear explosive. What’s at stake is nothing less than a race to stockpile plutonium in East Asia that could end very, very badly.

North Korea’s fourth nuclear test, on January 6, intensified these concerns. Shortly after the test, leaders of the South Korean National Assembly’s ruling party publicly urged President Park Geun-hye to consider reprocessing fuel from nuclear power plants to extract plutonium, as a military hedge against further North Korean nuclearization. Technically, this is feasible: A recent analysis in Seoul’s leading daily, Chosun Ilbo, detailed how South Korea could use its existing facilities to acquire its first bomb, perhaps as early as 18 months from now.

Those pushing to acquire a nuclear option want a countermeasure against the North. They also complain that Washington has authorized Japan, America’s other East Asian security ally, to reprocess spent US-origin fuel (fuel made in the United States but burned in reactors in Japan) to produce plutonium. This grates on Seoul, given the historical enmity between Japan and South Korea. Washington has yet to grant South Korea similar recycling rights.

In fact, Japan now has about 11 metric tons of plutonium on its soil (and another 37 metric tons stored abroad)—enough to make roughly 2,000 nuclear weapons—and plans to open a large, decades-delayed commercial reprocessing plant at Rokkasho after the US-Japan civilian nuclear cooperation agreement automatically renews late in 2018. The Rokkasho plant will produce enough plutonium to make more than 1,500 nuclear warheads annually—roughly equivalent to the entire operationally deployed US nuclear force.

This has raised China’s hackles. Chinese officials in Beijing and at the United Nations have repeatedly complained that Japan's continued stockpiling and planned production of plutonium is a not-so-subtle threat to go nuclear. There is a bit of hypocrisy in this. Just last week, Beijing announced its latest five-year plan to commercially reprocess spent fuel, and is in the late stages of negotiations with the French firm Areva for a reprocessing plant similar in size to that of Rokkasho. If China builds and operates this plant, it plans to stockpile plutonium for 10 to 20 years—ostensibly for advanced reactor fuel—producing enough plutonium for between 15,000 and 30,000 bombs, roughly the number of weapons’ worth of nuclear explosives that the United States or Russia could remilitarize if they weaponized the massive amounts of surplus nuclear weapons fuel in their respective stockpiles.

This could be militarily significant. Currently, China’s nuclear arsenal is believed to be only 200 to 400 weapons. Its surplus plutonium stockpile, moreover, is only large enough to produce some additional hundreds of bombs, and China lacks any working military plutonium production reactor. Would a Chinese commercial plutonium program serve as a work-around? This may not be China’s intention now, but if tensions in the region increased, might this change? One has to hope not.

What makes these civilian plutonium-recycling efforts all the more dubious is how little economic and technical sense they make. They are not only unnecessary to promote nuclear power or manage nuclear waste, but also clear money losers. Privately, Chinese, Japanese, and South Korean officials and other government advisers concede these points; publicly, they don’t.

For all these reasons, US Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz chose to speak up earlier this month. In an editorial board meeting at The Wall Street Journal’s Beijing office, he made it clear: “We don’t support large-scale reprocessing.” As for China’s latest announcement that it would proceed to build its first commercial-scale reprocessing plant, he noted that it “certainly isn’t a positive in terms of nonproliferation.” On this, Moniz speaks with some moral authority. He coauthored a major 2011 MIT study that concluded investing in commercial plutonium recycling should be deferred, and his Beijing pronouncement came on the heels of a politically difficult decision he made to terminate the Department of Energy’s own costly plutonium fuel fabrication plant at Savannah River.

The Secretary, however, is not the only US official to speak up. The day Moniz made his Beijing statement, both Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Senator Bob Corker and minority committee member Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts emphasized the nonproliferation and regional security value of backing an East Asian commercial plutonium recycling time-out in a committee hearing on the Nuclear Security Summit.

Easily as important: The administration witness, Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation Thomas Countryman, quickly agreed. “I would be very happy to see all countries get out of the plutonium reprocessing business,” he noted. Countryman went further, saying that “there are genuine economic questions where it is important that the US and its partners in Asia have a common understanding of the economic and nonproliferation issues at stake before making a decision about renewal of the 123 [civilian nuclear cooperation] agreement, for example, with Japan.” All at once, although there has been no officially acknowledged change in US policy, the automatic renewal in 2018 of the 123 agreement no longer seems, well, automatic.

The question now is what’s needed next. Besides following through on the economic and nonproliferation discussions Countryman called for in East Asia, it would be useful for others in Congress to speak up. Congressman Brad Sherman, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, has long championed the idea of an East Asian commercial plutonium time-out. Others should follow his lead, emphasizing the need for US officials to make the nonproliferation and regional security case for Japan, South Korea, and China to follow America’s example of deferring the commercializing of plutonium fuels.

Washington officials also need to go back to the French at the most senior levels and make the case for holding off its reprocessing-plant sale to China. Such an export would have major security implications for both the United States and Japan, and it’s not clear that such a sale would ultimately be in France’s interest.

Finally, the US Department of Energy has long been promoting advanced “fuel cycle” (read advanced “reprocessing") cooperation with Japan, South Korea, and China. For all the reasons noted above, this cooperation needs to be reexamined. Instead of making plutonium recycling the focus of US cooperation with East Asian nations, the Energy Department ought to be working more closely with these states on how to manage nuclear waste and how to eliminate plutonium stockpiles without recycling the spent fuel from commercial power reactors.

Editor’s note: The Nonproliferation Policy Education Center is hosting a March 30 lunch forum on “The Coming Plutonium Buildup in East Asia: Why America Should Worry” in Washington. For more information, go to www.npolicy.org.

Comments 2...

Avatar

Richard • 5 hours ago

I wish we could know who's interests are being represented in the reprocessing debate . It serves little purpose to say what countries think about this nuclear issue. We need to know what people really have a dog in the fight. We say the U.S. wants this or that, but what we are really saying, and what the real players know, is policy is not driven by a 'nation' but by the individual interests seeking profit. Westinghouse (for example) certainly has REASONS to bring pressure and influence on Washington and pressure government. Westinghouse operated the Savannah River plant so what do THEY say. Point is, to say a nation will or won't is an obfuscation of the reality that exists; people, not nations, are the movers and shakers so let's hear from them.

△ ▽

Reply

Share ›

Avatar

André Balsa • 3 days ago

History, numbers and recent headlines show that Japan - supposedly the US's main military ally in East Asia - is the main driver for a nuclear weapons buildup in the region.
History first:
- Japan occupied, annexed and ruled the island of Taiwan between 1895 and the end of WW2 in 1945.
- Japan occupied, annexed and ruled the entire Korean peninsula between 1910 and the end of WW2 in 1945.
- Japan invaded and occupied mainland China beginning in 1931 and again ending in 1945, with notable cruelty as in the Rape of Nanjing (1937-38) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
- Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941 without warning and without a declaration of war.
Numbers:
- As mentioned by Professor Sokolski, Japan in 2016 already holds on its soil the largest stockpile of plutonium (11 metric tons) of any country in Asia (and in the world, apart from the US, Russia, France and the U.K.).
- Japan is the only non-nuclear state in the world with plutonium reprocessing capabilities.
- At current prices, uranium reactor fuel is 5 to 10 times cheaper than MOX fuel. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/ne... and only two nuclear reactors are operating in Japan at the moment. The entire Japanese plutonium reprocessing program is absolutely senseless from a commercial or ecological point of view, it only makes sense from a narrow military point of view, in that Japan now has the plutonium and the technology to weaponize it in a matter of months if not weeks. Also noteworthy is the fact that Japan's space program gives it the delivery capabilities in the form of long-range missiles technology derived from its present satellite launchers.
- The Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant is actually the successor to a smaller reprocessing plant in Tokai, which was the home of a criticality accident and was shutdown in 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Recent headlines:
- Japan approves record-high budget, focusing on defense, economic recovery http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
- Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe Pushes to Remove Constitutional Constraints on Military http://www.globalresearch.ca/j...
- The Resurgence of Japanese Nationalism - Japanese Prime Minister Abe’s military choice brings Asia closer to war. http://www.theglobalist.com/ja...

I fully agree with Professor Sokolski's conclusion that "Instead of making plutonium recycling the focus of US cooperation with East Asian nations, the Energy Department ought to be working more closely with these states on how to manage nuclear waste and how to eliminate plutonium stockpiles without recycling the spent fuel from commercial power reactors." I would just add that US diplomatic action should focus on Japan, about whose stance China, Taiwan and South Korea are quite legitimately concerned.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2016/03/31/the_resurgence_of_muqtada_al_sadr.html

March 31, 2016

The Resurgence of Muqtada al-Sadr

By Kevin Sullivan

A familiar face re-emerged on the Iraqi scene this week.

Firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr -- perhaps best known for leading a Shiite insurgency against Western forces following the 2003 invasion of Iraq -- began a sit-in Sunday inside Baghdad's well-fortified Green Zone in protest of the Iraqi government's inability to deliver on long-delayed Cabinet reforms promised by Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.

Although al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia was officially disbanded in 2008, the group -- much like its founder -- never truly went away, but rather repurposed itself to provide social services and security to its Shiite constituency in the suburbs of Baghdad and southern Iraq. The Mahdi Army also morphed into a political force in the years that followed, and in 2014 the Sadrist Al-Ahrar bloc secured 34 seats in the Iraqi parliament.

That same year presented al-Sadr with yet another political opportunity. That summer, the Sunni militant organization known as the Islamic State group spread out across much of northern Iraq, conquering many of the cities and provinces in its path. For al-Sadr and his disciples, the prospect of a revanchist Sunni army marching on Baghdad created an opening for greater influence in national politics. Al-Sadr rebranded the Mahdi Army as the "Peace Companies," and he deployed his armed loyalists to protect Shiite holy sites and communities from ISIS's Sunni insurgents.

While this certainly wouldn't be the first time that the popular cleric has wrapped himself in the Iraqi flag, al-Sadr has gone out of his way in recent weeks to pose first and foremost as an Iraqi federalist.

Late last month, tens of thousands of al-Sadr supporters rallied in Baghdad demanding that the government follow through on reform measures promised last year following a wave of summertime protests. The Sadrists waved Iraqi national flags, and called on the prime minister to make good on his promises to end corruption and improve basic services. Al-Sadr recently moved to Baghdad from the holy city of Najaf to be closer to the political action in the capital, and his armed Peace Companies have worked with the government-sanctioned Popular Mobilization Forces in their campaign against ISIS.

Behind the veneer of nationalism lies an implicit threat, however: reform, or else.

"If al-Abadi's cabinet reshuffle plan stalls or fails to pass in Parliament, he risks open confrontation with al-Sadr," writes Iraq analyst Omar Al-Nidawi. "In the most extreme case, this could mean thousands of al-Sadr's followers storming the Green Zone, but will in any case ... increase in public outrage."

At the heart of al-Sadr's latest move is an effort to maintain access and influence in the Iraqi government. The scion of a prominent clerical dynasty, al-Sadr remains a popular figure among Iraq's Shiite majority, especially among the pious and poor concentrated in the south of the country. But independence from Washington in Baghdad has, consequently, allowed for a greater amount of Iranian influence in Iraqi affairs. The mobilization forces, or Hashd, have grown into a powerful parallel force to the Iraqi military, and al-Sadr's own militia -- while ostensibly aligned with the Hashd -- has engaged in intermittent clashes with rival members of the umbrella organization whose loyalties, some fear, reside in Tehran rather than Baghdad. These very same Iran-backed militias enjoy increasing political support among certain factions of Iraq's splintered Shiite factions, posing a direct threat to al-Sadr's own Shiite powerbase.

Prime Minister al-Abadi finds himself stuck in the middle of this sectarian tug-o-war. While the premier has been pushing for months now to implement a slate of political reforms, he has repeatedly encountered resistance from entrenched factions that have dominated the politics of post-war Iraq. His proposal to replace Cabinet members with a list of technocrats has met equal resistance by pols seeking to maintain access to a patronage system rife with corruption. (Cabinet posts are typically filled through a sectarian quota system.)

With al-Sadr positioned right at his front door, and many more of the cleric's supporters assembled in protest around the capital, al-Abadi has been forced to pull soldiers away from the Iraqi army's critical campaign to retake Mosul, the country's second largest city and the center of Iraq's Sunni heartland.

It is imperative that the Iraqi government regain control of its own territories and, perhaps more importantly, all of its oil infrastructure. The downturn in the global crude market has put a strain on Iraqi coffers, as has the war against ISIS. A confrontation in Baghdad will only further deplete a Mosul campaign already reportedly suffering from desertions and low morale.

Muqtada al-Sadr has never wasted a good Iraqi crisis, and with al-Abadi reportedly rushing to reshuffle his cabinet for an all-important Saturday vote of approval, the shrewd Shiite cleric appears poised for a successful resurgence, and possibly a big political victory.

More on this:

The Unquiet Cleric -- The Economist

The Most Dangerous Man in Iraq, Again -- New Arab

Shia-Centric State Building in Iraq -- Carnegie Endowment

The Worst Job in the Middle East -- RealClearWorld
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...dType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter

Business | Fri Apr 1, 2016 11:49am EDT
Related: World, United Nations, North Korea, Aerospace & Defense

Exclusive: North Korea to pursue nuclear and missile programs - envoy

GENEVA | By Stephanie Nebehay

North Korea will pursue its nuclear and ballistic missile program in defiance of the United States and its allies, a top Pyongyang envoy said on Friday, adding that a state of "semi-war" now existed on the divided Korean peninsula.

So Se Pyong, North Korea's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, denounced the huge joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises taking place which he said were aimed at "decapitation of the supreme leadership of the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea)" and conquering Pyongyang.

North Korea conducted a fourth nuclear test in January and launched a long-range rocket in February. The South Korean military said on Friday that North Korea had fired a missile into the sea off its east coast.

"If the United States continues, then we have to make the counter-measures also. So we have to develop, and we have to make more deterrence, nuclear deterrence," So, who is also North Korea's envoy to the U.N.-sponsored Conference on Disarmament, said in an interview with Reuters conducted in English.

"Simultaneous policy is the policy of my country, and my party also, meaning nuclear production and economic development," he said, referring to the twin aims of the policy course of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un which is expected to be endorsed at a congress of the ruling Workers' Party in May, the first in 36 years.

So had no information about the latest missile firing or about South Korean allegations that his country was disrupting GPS signal reception which Seoul says has forced some boats to return to port amid heightened tensions.

"They (Seoul) are making too many manipulations, too many false reports," he said.

U.S. President Barack Obama joined South Korean President Park Geun-hye and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Thursday in vowing to ramp up pressure on North Korea in response to its nuclear and missile tests. The three leaders recommitted their countries to each others' defense and warned they could take further steps to counter threats from Pyongyang.

"Actually that summit, we call it ... a kind of propaganda," So said, dismissing the talks on securing vulnerable atomic materials to prevent nuclear terrorism.


"WE ARE GOING ON OUR OWN WAY"

Chinese President Xi Jinping on Thursday also called for dialogue to resolve the "predicament" on the Korean peninsula during a meeting with Park in Washington, Xinhua news agency said on Friday.

Asked whether his reclusive country felt pressure from its ally China and other powers, So replied: "Whether they are going to do anything, we don't care. We are going on our own way.

"(We are) not having dialogue and discussions on that."

The Security Council unanimously passed a resolution in early March expanding U.N. sanctions aimed at starving North Korea of funds for its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

"We are going against that resolution also because that is not fair and (not just). At this point, because this is really the war now ... We are busy to deal with this semi-war status of the situation on the peninsula now."

Regarding the joint military exercises being conducted by U.S. and South Korean forces, he said that 300,000 troops were taking part: "Now they open (show) their true color, meaning the decapitation of the supreme leadership of DPRK."

Asked about prospects for resuming stalled six-party talks on his country's nuclear program, So replied that denuclearisation of the peninsula was no longer on the table.

"If the United States stops their hostile policy towards the DPRK and comes to the peace treaty, then something (might be) different," he said.


(Editing by Richard Balmforth)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...g_and_allies_agree_on_north_korea_109210.html

April 1, 2016

Obama, Xi Jinping and Allies Agree on North Korea

By Matthew Pennington & Josh Lederman

WASHINGTON (AP) — In the face of mounting threats from North Korea, President Barack Obama on Thursday urged closer security ties among its chief allies in Asia and increased cooperation with strategic rival China to discourage Pyongyang from further advances in nuclear weapons.

As world leaders gathered for a nuclear security summit, Obama first met with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Park Geun-hye. Together, they warned North Korea would face even tougher sanctions and more isolation if provokes again with nuclear and missile tests.

Then Obama met Chinese President Xi Jinping and both called for North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons. China also agreed to implement in full the latest economic restrictions imposed by the U.N. Security Council against Pyongyang.

More than 50 governments and international organizations are attending the two-day summit on preventing nuclear terrorism — the last in a series of global meetings Obama has championed on the issue. The risk posed by the Islamic State group tops this year's agenda but concerns about North Korea are also commanding focus.

"Of great importance to both of us is North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons, which threatens the security and stability of the region. President Xi and I are both committed to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula," Obama said at the start of his meeting with Xi.

"China and the U.S. have a responsibility to work together," Xi said in his comments made to reporters through an interpreter. As for their "disputes and disagreements," the Chinese leader said the two sides could "seek active solutions through dialogue and consultation."

North Korea's fourth nuclear test in January, followed by a space a launch in February, have heralded more convergence among often-fractious powers in East Asia — at least on the need to press the government of Kim Jong Un toward disarming.

Japan and South Korea have persuasive reasons to get along. They both host U.S. forces and are both in range of North Korean missiles. But their relations have been plagued by historical differences that date back to Japan's colonial occupation of Korea in the first half of the 20th century and its military's use of sex slaves during World War II.

But those tensions have eased some. Abe said North Korea nuclear and missile capability is a "direct and grave threat" to them all.

"Should it choose to undertake yet another provocation, it is certain to find itself facing even tougher sanctions and isolation," Park said of Pyongyang.

Young leader Kim Jong Un has also alienated the North's traditional benefactor and main trading partner, China. The U.S. has long urged Beijing to take a more forceful role in pressing North Korea, and Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zheng Zeguang said after the Obama-Xi meeting that the two sides agreed the new U.N. resolution "should be implemented in full and in its entirety."

The U.S. and China also released joint statements vowing robust collaboration to improve nuclear security and to implement a global climate change deal, and reported progress on the issue of cyber security.

But they were at stark odds in other areas.

According to Zheng, Xi told Obama that China was "firmly opposed" to the U.S. deploying a new missile defense system in South Korea, saying it was against China's national security interests and would the effect the strategic balance in the region.

The U.S. and Seoul are considering that deployment to counter the threat from the North. China contends the system would also give the U.S. radar coverage over Chinese territory. Russia opposes it as well.

Washington has also opposed China's move to build artificial islands and military facilities in the disputed South China Sea. Japan and South Korea are similiarly concerned about China's military build-up and assertive actions in the region's disputed waters.

Tensions appear set to intensify with an upcoming ruling from an international tribunal that could challenge the legal basis of some of Beijing's sweeping territorial claims. The U.S. has supported the right of its ally, the Philippines, to submit the case and says the ruling should be binding on both parties, although China has boycotted the proceedings and says it will ignore it.

Xi told Obama that the South China Sea islands — claimed by several other Asian governments — have been China's territory since ancient times and it has the right to defend its territorial sovereignty and maritime rights, Zhang said.

Obama also met Thursday with French President Francois Hollande, amid steep concerns about terrorism in Europe following Islamic State-linked attacks in Paris and Brussels. The nuclear security summit continues on Friday with a special session focused on preventing IS and other extremists from obtaining nuclear materials and attacking urban areas.

On Thursday, the U.S. said a strengthened nuclear security agreement among nations was finally set to take force following ratification by a critical mass of countries. The stricter rules include new criminal penalties for smuggling nuclear material and expanded requirements for securing materials and nuclear facilities worldwide, and are intended to reduce the likelihood of terrorists getting their hands on ingredients for a bomb.

The United States says it's making progress in reducing its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. The White House says it's declassifying and publicly releasing a national inventory of highly enriched uranium for the first time since 1996. As of late 2013, the U.S. had 586 metric tons of highly enriched uranium. That's a drop from the 741 metric tons the U.S. had in 1996.

Fissile materials like highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium can be used to make nuclear bombs.

Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Darlene Superville contributed to this report.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?488621-Obama-the-military-and-just-war-theory

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2016/03/31/Obama-the-military-and-just-war-theory.aspx

Obama, the military and just war theory

Shannon Brandt Ford
31 March 2016 11:30AM

In his recent interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, President Obama specifies some key elements of his 'theory' on the use of military force — part of the so-called Obama Doctrine. Goldberg claims Obama would argue that 'dropping bombs on someone to prove that you're willing to drop bombs on someone is just about the worst reason to use force.' What does this interview tell us about how Obama thinks about the use of military force?

On the one hand, Obama believes that military force should be limited. He says: 'I had come into office with the strong belief that the scope of executive power in national-security issues is very broad, but not limitless.' Generally-speaking, limiting military force is a good thing. War is a risky and costly exercise that can only be justified in the most extreme cases because of the likelihood of widespread death and destruction. Combatants in war have frequently inflicted high-levels of devastation: they have laid waste to the environment, destroyed cultural heritage, wounded, maimed, and killed.

Obama is a realist in the sense that he recognises the limits of US military power. He says: 'I suppose you could call me a realist in believing we can't, at any given moment, relieve all the world's misery'. He continues: 'We have to choose where we can make a real impact.' It is certainly consistent with political realism for Obama to be concerned with the high costs and risks of war.

But Obama's reticence to use military force also has an important moral element. John Brennan (Obama's CIA Director) suggests that he and the President 'have similar views. One of them is that sometimes you have to take a life to save even more lives. We have a similar view of just-war theory.' The Just War tradition acknowledges that sometimes war is necessary, but it seeks to reduce the harm of war both by preventing its incidence and, where it does occur, by minimising the death and destruction it causes.

According to Brennan, for example, 'the president requires near-certainty of no collateral damage. But if he believes it is necessary to act, he doesn't hesitate'. This reflects the Just War principles of discrimination (do not kill non-combatants) and last resort (only use military force after other reasonable alternatives have been tried).

On the other hand, Obama has been a leading advocate of using military force short of war. He says:

It's probably easier to make an argument that a relatively small force inserted quickly with international support would have resulted in averting genocide [more successfully in Rwanda] than in Syria right now, where the degree to which the various groups are armed and hardened fighters and are supported by a whole host of external actors with a lot of resources requires a much larger commitment of forces.

Over the last 20 years or so we have witnessed increasing use of militaries for purposes other than fighting conventional wars. This is due in part to the emerging norm in the 1990s favouring military intervention to protect civilians whose lives are seriously threatened; in part to a recognition that the military can perform a variety of political functions in peacetime; and in part a response to the heightened attention to the threat from terrorism. And Obama has been at the forefront of this trend.

These types of military operations encompass a wide-range of tasks including peacekeeping, supporting civil authorities, counter-terrorism, disaster relief, enforcement of sanctions and so on. Many of them do not require militaries to use lethal force. But in some cases, because they are working in an environment of conflict, militaries are expected (and prepared) to use such force.

But such broadening of the purpose creates a problem. The problem is that militaries are expected to use their unique capabilities to apply deadly force in situations of conflict outside (what we conventionally understand as) war, where the grounds for their destructive actions are not clear. In war, it can be permissible for soldiers to do certain types of harms that we would not allow in any other context, especially when it comes to killing for reasons other than individual self-defence.

For example, soldiers fighting a war can attack and kill enemy combatants without warning (eg. in an ambush or a missile strike). They are also permitted to do serious collateral harm, including the killing and maiming of non-combatants, providing that the military objective is important enough and the non-combatant deaths were not foreseeable and not intended. But in cases where soldiers are not at war (or at least there is some doubt that it is war) then how should we judge the use of military force? Should we extend the boundaries of 'war' to include less conventional conflicts? Is it a matter of developing a more sophisticated set of justifications based on killing in self-defense? Does policing offer a better way of judging uses of force 'short-of-war'? Or is it something else?

If we choose to use military force for a function that is something akin to a policing role, then we can we end up transporting the military mindset about using lethal force along with military personnel, equipment and training. If a state is using its military capabilities to fulfill a policing role, then presumably the rules of lethal force should be unlike the ones we permit in war; they should be much more restrictive. Perhaps they should not be quite as restrictive as those of police working within a well-ordered society, but they should certainly be more restrictive than we are willing to allow in war.

So in situations of conflict short-of-war, where they are expected to use lethal force, militaries should adjust to the fact that they are not fighting a war and be more restrained in their use of lethal force.
 

Possible Impact

TB Fanatic
Sputnik ‏@SputnikInt 19h
#Beijing's ominous threat
to #Washington over #SouthChinaSea: 'Be careful'
http://sptnkne.ws/aWJn
Ce6vcTuXEAA7OMx.jpg




People's Daily,China ‏@PDChina 18h
#China defends its right
to set up Air Defense Identification Zone: Defense Ministry
http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0401/c90786-9038738.html …
Ce7DFj9WIAA_5pC.jpg




9 Dash Line 九虚线 ‏@9DashLine 19h
U.S. says it will not recognize #SouthChinaSea exclusion zone

http://reut.rs/1RqV5nq




People's Daily,China ‏@PDChina 15h
#China not to accept act detrimental to security interests
under navigation-freedom pretext
http://en.people.cn/n3/2016/0401/c90883-9038820.html …
Ce7zmnpWsAAYKZo.jpg




9 Dash Line 九虚线 ‏@9DashLine 3h
China's President Tells Obama to Steer Clear of #Spratlys
During US Summit
http://bit.ly/1UImCDB #NSS2016



Sputnik ‏@SputnikInt 1h
#Beijing may keep nuclear missiles on ready alert

http://sptnkne.ws/aXf6
Ce-s9zdWsAE4ZcG.jpg





China Set to Deploy Nuke-Equipped Ballistic Missile
Capable of Reaching US



01:08 01.04.2016(updated 03:22 01.04.2016)
http://sputniknews.com/asia/20160401/1037301177/china-ballistic-missile-nuke.html


As Chinese President Xi Jinping meets counterparts in Washington DC
for the Nuclear Security Summit, military experts suggest that Beijing
could soon be in possession of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable
of delivering a nuclear warhead to the continental United States.
US military experts have raised concerns over China’s
DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missile.



"Given the number of real reported tests, it is reasonable to speculate
the DF-41 will be deployed to PLA Strategic Rocket Force bases in 2016,"
said Richard Fisher, senior fellow at the International Assessment and
Strategy Center, according to the Financial Times.

The missile has an estimated range of 9,000 miles and is the first in
Beijing’s arsenal to be capable of delivering multiple warheads to any
part of the US from any location on the Chinese mainland. Unlike
previous Chinese missiles, the DF-41 is not limited to a silo,
and can be deployed with a mobile launcher.


Until 2008, China was believed to have only 20 nuclear warheads.
According to Fisher, that number has now ballooned to between
200 and 400.

This is still a far cry from the arsenal of the United States,
which is believed to comprise some 4,760 nuclear warheads.

"We will see a period of rapid increases in the numbers of China’s
nuclear warheads that can reach the United States," Fisher said.

The Chinese military has made a number of advancements in recent
years. The DF-21D "carrier-killer" has already made US Navy vessels
vulnerable in the Pacific. The newer DF-26 model is also capable of
delivering a nuclear warhead.

"That 'change the warhead, not the missile' feature provides a rapid
switch between nuclear and conventional," Andrew Erickson wrote
for the China Youth Daily newspaper last December.

"It can move fast, and it has no strict demands for where it is launched.
So that is helpful to movement of missile forces all over and in
concealment, and it is helpful to the rapid deployment, rapid launch,
and rapid displacement of combat elements."

The paper added that the DF-26 was aimed at deterring conflict in the
South China Sea, where the United States has conducted a number
of patrols near Beijing’s contested land reclamation projects.

The People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLA) is also developing a
fifth-generation J-20 stealth fighter, which should enter service in 2017.

"Once the tests are carried out successfully, small-scale production will
begin and the PLA Air Force will become the world’s second user of a
fifth-generation stealth fighter (following the United States Air Force),"
Wang Ya’nan, deputy editor-in-chief of Aerospace Knowledge magazine,
told China Daily.

 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...e-warhead-missiles-to-break-arms-treaty-limit

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-doubling-nuclear-warheads/

Russia Doubling Nuclear Warheads

New multiple-warhead missiles to break arms treaty limit

BY: Bill Gertz
April 1, 2016 5:00 am

Russia is doubling the number of its strategic nuclear warheads on new missiles by deploying multiple reentry vehicles that have put Moscow over the limit set by the New START arms treaty, according to Pentagon officials.

A recent intelligence assessment of the Russian strategic warhead buildup shows that the increase is the result of the addition of multiple, independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs, on recently deployed road-mobile SS-27 and submarine-launched SS-N-32 missiles, said officials familiar with reports of the buildup.

“The Russians are doubling their warhead output,” said one official. “They will be exceeding the New START [arms treaty] levels because of MIRVing these new systems.”

The 2010 treaty requires the United States and Russia to reduce deployed warheads to 1,550 warheads by February 2018.

The United States has cut its warhead stockpiles significantly in recent years. Moscow, however, has increased its numbers of deployed warheads and new weapons.

The State Department revealed in January that Russia currently has exceeded the New START warhead limit by 98 warheads, deploying a total number of 1,648 warheads. The U.S. level currently is below the treaty level at 1,538 warheads.

Officials said that in addition to adding warheads to the new missiles, Russian officials have sought to prevent U.S. weapons inspectors from checking warheads as part of the 2010 treaty.

The State Department, however, said it can inspect the new MIRVed missiles.
Disclosure of the doubling of Moscow’s warhead force comes as world leaders gather in Washington this week to discus nuclear security—but without Russian President Vladimir Putin, who skipped the conclave in an apparent snub of the United States.

The Nuclear Security Summit is the latest meeting of world leaders seeking to pursue President Obama’s 2009 declaration of a world without nuclear arms.
Russia, however, is embarked on a major strategic nuclear forces build-up under Putin. Moscow is building new road-mobile, rail-mobile, and silo-based intercontinental-range missiles, along with new submarines equipped with modernized missiles. A new long-range bomber is also being built.

SS-N 30
“Russia’s modernization program and their nuclear deterrent force is of concern,” Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, which is in charge of nuclear forces, told Congress March 10.

“When you look at what they’ve been modernizing, it didn’t just start,” Haney said. “They’ve been doing this quite frankly for some time with a lot of crescendo of activity over the last decade and a half.”

By contrast, the Pentagon is scrambling to find funds to pay for modernizing aging U.S. nuclear forces after seven years of sharp defense spending cuts under Obama.
Earlier this month, Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress that Russia continues to pose the greatest threat to the United States.

“The one that has the greatest capability and poses the greatest threat to the United States is Russia because of its capabilities—its nuclear capability, its cyber capability, and clearly because of some of the things we have seen in its leadership behavior over the last couple of years,” Dunford said.

In addition to a large-scale nuclear buildup, Russia has upgraded its nuclear doctrine and its leaders and officials have issued numerous threats to use nuclear arms against the United States in recent months, compounding fears of a renewed Russian threat.

Blake Narendra, spokesman for the State Department’s arms control, verification, and compliance bureau, said the Russian warhead build-up is the result of normal fluctuations due to modernization prior to the compliance deadline.

“The Treaty has no interim limits,” Narendra told the Free Beacon. “We fully expect Russia to meet the New START treaty central limits in accordance with the stipulated timeline of February 2018. The treaty provides that by that date both sides must have no more than 700 deployed treaty-limited delivery vehicles and 1,550 deployed warheads.”

Both the United States and Russia continue to implement the treaty in “a business-like manner,” he added.

Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon official involved in strategic nuclear forces, however, said he has warned for years that Russia is not reducing its nuclear forces under the treaty.

Since the New START arms accord, Moscow has eliminated small numbers of older SS-25 road-mobile missiles. But the missiles were replaced with new multiple-warhead SS-27s.

SS-27 Mod 2
“The Russians have not claimed to have made any reductions for five years,” Schneider said

Additionally, Russian officials deceptively sought to make it appear their nuclear forces have been reduced during a recent nuclear review conference.

“If they could have claimed to have made any reductions under New START counting rules they would have done it there,” Schneider said.

The Obama administration also has been deceptive about the benefits of New START.
“The administration public affairs talking points on New START reductions border on outright lies,” Schneider said.

“The only reductions that have been made since New START entry into force have been by the United States,” he said. “Instead, Russia has moved from below the New START limits to above the New START limits in deployed warheads and deployed delivery vehicles.”

Deployment of new multiple-warhead SS-27s and SS-N-32s are pushing up the Russian warhead numbers. Published Russian reports have stated the missiles will be armed with 10 warheads each.

Former Defense Secretary William Perry said Thursday that New START was “very helpful” in promoting strategic stability but that recent trends in nuclear weapons are “very, very bad.”

“When President Obama made his speech in Prague, I thought we were really set for major progress in this field [disarmament],” Perry said in remarks at the Atlantic Council.

However, Russian “hostility” to the United States ended the progress. “Everything came to a grinding halt and we’re moving in reverse,” Perry said.

Other nuclear powers that are expanding their arsenals include China and Pakistan, Perry said.

Perry urged further engagement with Russia on nuclear weapons. “We do have a common interest in preventing a nuclear catastrophe,” he said.

Perry is advocating that the United States unilaterally eliminate all its land-based missiles and rely instead on nuclear missile submarines and bombers for deterrence.
However, he said his advocacy of the policy “may be pursuing a mission impossible.”

“I highly doubt the Russians would follow suit” by eliminating their land-based missiles, the former secretary said.

Additionally, Moscow is building a new heavy ICBM called Sarmat, code-named SS-X-30 by the Pentagon, that will be equipped with between 10 and 15 warheads per missile. And a new rail-based ICBM is being developed that will also carry multiple warheads.

Another long-range missile, called the SS-X-31, is under development and will carry up to 12 warheads.

Schneider, the former Pentagon official, said senior Russian arms officials have been quoted in press reports discussing Moscow’s withdrawal from the New START arms accord. If that takes place, Russia will have had six and a half years to prepare to violate the treaty limits, at the same time the United States will have reduced its forces to treaty limits.

“Can they comply with New START? Yes. They can download their missile warheads and do a small number to delivery systems reductions,” Schneider said. “Will they? I doubt it. If they don’t start to do something very soon they are likely to pull the plug on the treaty. I don’t see them uploading the way they have, only to download in the next two years.”

The White House said Moscow’s failure to take part in the nuclear summit was a sign of self-isolation based on the West’s sanctions aimed at punishing Russia for the military takeover of Ukraine’s Crimea.

A Russian official said the snub by Putin was directed at Obama.

“This summit is particularly important for the USA and for Obama—this is probably why Moscow has decided to go for this gesture and show its outrage with the West’s policy in this manner,” Alexei Arbatov, director of the Center for International Security at the Russian Academy of Sciences, told the business newspaper Vedomosti.

A Russian Foreign Ministry official, Mikhail Ulyanov, told RIA Novosti that the summit was not needed.

“There is no need for it, to be honest,” he said, adding that nuclear security talks should be the work of nuclear physicists, intelligence services, and engineers.

“The political agenda of the summits has long been exhausted,” Ulyanov said.

Video
 

mzkitty

I give up.
1h
Report: A car bomb attack near Anbar, Iraq, leaves about 30 dead - @HamidHadeed

BUT:

SHIA NEWS ALERT ‏@SNA110 2m2 minutes ago

Massive cache of weapons seized by #Iraq's army in Kubaysah, central #Anbar, after Da'ish was defeated. Great haul.



Haidar Sumeri ‏@IraqiSecurity 26m26 minutes ago

Civilians in Kubaysah, central #Anbar, celebrating their liberation at the hands of #Iraq's army. Great scenes.


Haidar Sumeri ‏@IraqiSecurity 36m36 minutes ago

Important victory in Kubaysah (central #Anbar) has gone unreported.

Da'ish collapsed in front of #Iraq's army.
 

Attachments

  • iraq apr 1 1.jpg
    iraq apr 1 1.jpg
    74.7 KB · Views: 7
  • iraq apr 1 2.jpg
    iraq apr 1 2.jpg
    58.8 KB · Views: 7
  • iraq apr 1 3.jpg
    iraq apr 1 3.jpg
    39.9 KB · Views: 7

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...ece-will-make-chinas-military-dangerous-15652

Exposed: The Big Hole in China's Military Arsenal It Can't Fill

Dave Majumdar
March 31, 2016

China is developing two new stealth fighters, stealthy unmanned aircraft, new cruise and ballistic missiles; however, Beijing thus far has not attempted to develop a new bomber. Instead, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force relies on the upgraded Xian H-6K—a derivative of the antiquated Soviet Tu-16 Badger—which is armed with a host of cruise missiles.

But given the size of the Pacific and the ranges both American and Chinese aircraft would have to fly over in the event of a conflict, it would be logical for Beijing to develop a long-range bomber that could strike at some of the more distant U.S. bases or to attack U.S. Navy carriers at sea. Moreover, if U.S. forces struck at the Chinese mainland during a war—perhaps over Taiwan—Beijing would only have two options with which to strike back. One would be nuclear weapons—which would signal the start of World War Three—or non-kinetic cyber-attacks. But it would have to means to strike back with conventional weapons.

There have been persistent rumors that China has tried to purchase the Tu-22M Backfire production line from Russia, but those have usually not panned out. But it would make sense if China had made an attempt to purchase the Backfire line—much of Beijing’s vaunted anti-access/area denial strategy is drawn from the Soviet Union’s plans to cut off Europe from North America if the Cold War ever turned hot. The Soviets, too, envisioned a combination of submarines, ships and bomber-launched cruise missile barrages overwhelming a carrier strike group. Only part of the Chinese version of the strategy that is new is the anti-ship ballistic missile component.

It also lacks a sufficient air-launched cruise missile component. The upgraded H-6K is a serviceable platform, but a newer, more capable bomber would probably be useful to the Chinese. That newer platform could be long-range stealth bomber or even a stand-off long-range cruise missile carrier similar in concept to the Russian Tu-160 Blackjack. But thus far China has not been observed developing a new long-range bomber.

But why is that? The answer is likely propulsion. The Chinese—despite years of work—have not been able to develop a reliable jet engine that is ready for mass production. Earlier this year, the Chinese government admitted that its engine technology is not ready for prime time. China's Defense Ministry told Reuters that there was a "definite gap" between Chinese military technology and some developed countries.

However, China has made jet engine technology development a priority. According to the Shanghai-based Galleon Group aerospace consulting firm—as cited by Reuters—estimates that Beijing will spend $300 billion over the next 20 years on civil and military aircraft engine programs. Indeed, according to various sources, Chinese aerospace firms have hired foreign engineers and former air force personnel to work on engine development—according to Reuters.

That means that it is likely that Beijing will eventually be able to build its own jet engines. Once that happens—we could very well see the emergence of a new Chinese bomber.

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.
 
Top