The Canadian Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7)

Dolgert: Here’s why Canada should get nuclear weapons


Dozens of protesters staged a demonstration at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to mark the 72nd anniversary of the atomic attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Justin Sullivan, Getty Images JUSTIN SULLIVAN / GETTY IMAGES
Dear Prime Minister Trudeau,
Please consider inaugurating a nuclear armament program. Please begin this process now.
I never imagined writing something like this. American by birth, but now also a Canadian citizen, I’ve always regarded the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a stain on my birth nation’s honour. But the time has come to face reality, and the foreign minister’s June speech reasserting Canadian sovereignty is only the beginning of the reckoning.
We are in many ways living through a replay of the 1930s: a world struggling in the wake of economic cataclysm, fascists rising across Europe and an authoritarian in power (this time in the United States) cultivates support from the radical right.
Tyranny is on the march, and there is no clear end-point in sight. We can no longer assume that our country’s safety is assured, and even proposals for anti-missile defence don’t go far enough because they assume a democratic U.S. – the very thing that is now in question.
Alarmist? Maybe. But the consequences of a misstep now — the 21st-century equivalent of 1933, the year of Hitler’s ascendance — are dire, and we can’t regain later the time that we lose now. Nuclear programs take time to initiate, and in order to be prepared for our version of 1939 (the start of the Second World War), we cannot allow these to be “the locust years,” as Winston Churchill described the time wasted between 1933 and 1939.
So this is 1933. Start the countdown.
America is on a quest to demonize Muslims, round up Mexican immigrants, restrict trade, break up NATO and help Vladimir Putin divvy up the world. If you want to understand Donald Trump’s foreign policy, think “Mafia Protection Racket.” Just change the little shop-owners, forced to pay up, into little nations across the globe.
Canada is a small shopkeeper not so well-positioned to resist this new racket.
To understand what it’s like being beside a bully in today’s world, look at Ukraine. Perhaps the greatest mistake that country made after the breakup of the USSR was to get rid of its nuclear weapons. The consequences? Russia seizes Crimea and effectively invades eastern Ukraine by arming Russian secessionists there. This could also happen to Latvia and the Baltic states.
Could it happen here? For more than a century, Canadian policy could assume that, while the U.S. might be an 800-lbs gorilla on our doorstep, at least the gorilla played by the rules. But Trump has said the old rules won’t apply, and his selection of white nationalists and conspiracy theorists to powerful roles in his administration indicates he is not kidding.
Most troublingly, recent Congressional Republican capitulation on “L’Affaire Russe” shows us that the famed “checks and balances” of the U.S. Constitution mean little, and that the path to American authoritarianism is wide open.
To plan for the day when the U.S. is more like Putin’s aggressive bear, Canada must be able to protect itself without anyone’s assistance. A conventional military buildup is nonsensical, given the size disparity between the U.S., Russia, and ourselves.
But as Israel, Pakistan and North Korea have shown, nuclear arms are a pragmatic deterrent for small nations adjacent to populous neighbours of uncertain motives.
Yes, this might provoke the ire of Trump or Putin, and hasten the conflict it means to stave off. That risk must be carefully weighed. But what do you think Ukraine would do, given the chance to go back and keep its nukes?
Was Ukrainian disarmament rewarded with Russian pacifism? Who, other than Putin, is Trump’s model for strong leadership? And, speaking of Putin, who is looking to contest Canada’s future Arctic claims? If you think Trump will support us against Russia’s coming provocations, think again.
Rather than trigger a crisis, I expect this strategy would preserve the peace, by forcing potential aggressors to acknowledge a far more potent Canadian response.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that America is our enemy. Canada just needs to prepare to ensure its own security in an uncertain world, which requires having the resources to face any potential future conflict.
Starting a nuclear program is not easy. It takes time and research to determine the most practical options for Canada. It will also require withdrawing from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a step with major ramifications that requires careful consideration.
Importantly, however, we should not think that such a program would be inherently “un-Canadian.” For two decades, during the Cold War, we had up to 450 nuclear warheads permanently stationed on Canadian bases (though these were not under exclusive Canadian control). We need to trust in ourselves even more now, and stop relying on others to protect us.
Maybe I’m being alarmist. Maybe. But at what point does alarmism become prudence? Not when an aggressor makes the first overt threats – by then it’s too late. If 1933 (i.e. now) is too soon, then when? At some point we must be ready to start the discussion about protecting ourselves, and three years’ grace is about the best we can hope for.
After that we have to rely on the United Kingdom or United States to bail us out … Oh, wait.
Stefan Dolgert is an associate professor in the department of Political Science at Brock University in St. Catharines, and can be found on Twitter @PosthumanProf.

The Justification For Nuclear War (Revelation 15)


trident UK 

The Guardian: Apologist for nuclear war
By Laura Tiernan
27 July 2016

Last week, Britain’s parliament voted 472-117 to renew the Trident nuclear submarine programme.
Amid jeering and abuse heaped by members of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) on their leader Jeremy Corbyn, 140 Labour MPs voted with the Conservatives in defence of Britain’s “nuclear deterrent.” The Trident vote revealed that there is a single party of war, cutting across party lines.
The media campaign surrounding the vote exposed the central aim of the attempted coup against Corbyn. Its aim is to install the Blairite forces who will ensure Labour continues to serve as the direct and pliant instrument of British imperialism.

As with every aspect of this campaign, the Guardian has played a key role.

On the eve of the vote, it provided a platform for Labour MPs demanding support for Trident, as well as those calling for an abstention—reserving its vitriol for Corbyn’s anti-nuclear stance.

The first of these sorties was launched by Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson. He spoke for the vast majority of PLP members in a July 17 article headlined, “Economically and militarily, we must renew Trident.”

Emphasising Labour’s history as a party of war, Watson declared, “[N]ow is not the time to step away from our historic role as a nuclear power. When [Labour Prime Minister Clement] Attlee built Britain’s bomb, he did so because he knew our role in the world would be shaped by our capacity to defend ourselves and our allies; the logic of that Labour party position holds even truer today.”

He made clear the predatory interests behind the Trident debate, calling on Britain to step up its involvement in the NATO build-up against Russia: “I am pleased that the UK is committed to deploying our troops as part of NATO’s Baltic forces. Putin’s Russia looms, a mafia state built on chauvinism. Britain must play its part in holding it at bay.”

Labour MPs Clive Lewis and Emily Thornberry, who are nominally Corbyn supporters, contributed their own article, “This Trident vote is a contemptible trick. That’s why we are abstaining.”

Justifying their refusal to oppose the government motion, the pair wrote that Monday’s debate would be nothing more than “a political game … There is nothing new in this debate—a vote in principle was agreed in 2007. It is being held simply to sow further divisions inside the Labour party.”

To portray the vote on Britain’s nuclear program as merely a cynical political manoeuvre by the Tories is politically criminal. Both MPs are well aware of the context in which the Trident vote is being held—a growing arms race by all the major imperialist powers that threatens a third world war. Thornberry is heading up Labour’s Defence Review, while Lewis, a graduate from Sandhurst military academy who served in Afghanistan, is currently Labour’s shadow defence minister. Both are privy to high-level military briefings, especially in relation to the current NATO build-up against Russia.
While claiming to offer a third way between outright rejection and acceptance of the government’s motion, they made clear that any concerns they have over the Trident programme are of a militarist character. Budget outlays on Trident “will matter if our already highly stretched conventional defence capabilities must be cut to pay for it,” Lewis and Thornberry wrote. “If we choose to retain a nuclear capability, there are many cheaper alternatives than building the full complement of replacement submarines.”
The next day, just hours before the Trident debate, Guardian commissioning editor Archie Bland weighed in with an extraordinary opinion piece: “Banging on about Trident—it’s Corbynism to a T.”
Bland’s objective was to portray Corbyn’s planned opposition to Trident as irrelevant, because the issue lacked “salience” with the broader public.
“Do you prefer your potatoes mashed or roasted?” he asked his readers. “Which are better, cats or dogs? Is it reasonable for your aunt’s next-door neighbours to play loud music after 11pm? If pressed, you will have a view about all of these things. … But a view isn’t usually the same thing as a deep concern. Political scientists call this salience: the idea that, as well as what you think about something, it is worth asking whether you think about it.”
According to Bland, the attitude of millions of people to the danger of nuclear war is on par with the minor inconvenience of rowdy neighbours.

“They don’t care whether Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the Labour party,” he continued. “They no longer care about the invasion of Iraq, which remains a shibboleth for a huge segment of Labour activists, even though it began more than a decade ago and all of the key players have departed from the stage. And they certainly don’t care about the particulars of Trident.”

The Tories would “breeze through” the vote on Trident “in a spirit of complete unity,” he concluded, while “Labour appears hopelessly divided on something that most people don’t care about.”

Bland’s article provoked hundreds of objections on the Guardian’s comment thread.

Undeterred, Guardian journalist Owen Jones took up Bland’s theme in his own column the next day, concluding: “Those of us who believe Britain could set an example by disposing of its nuclear weapons should have the humility to accept we have not convinced the majority of people in this country, including those whose jobs currently depend on Trident and who have not been persuaded about an alternative economic plan. We have to at least start from there.”

The picture painted by Bland and Jones of an apathetic populace is an outright lie. Their aim is to delegitimise opposition to Trident—and to block any challenge to the imperialist war drive.
When Bland writes that the public “no longer cares about the invasion of Iraq” he is confusing the indifference of his fellow columnists, such as Jones, who speak for the most privileged layers of the upper middle class, with the egalitarian and oppositional sentiments of millions of workers and young people.

A critical aspect of the Guardian ’s coverage is its determination to downplay the threat of nuclear war. But Prime Minister Theresa May’s unprecedented and ominous declaration, made in the Trident debate, that she would not hesitate to authorise a nuclear strike killing 100,000 innocent men, women and children, shows what is at stake.

Her chilling admission was passed over in silence by Labour MPs and the Guardian duly stepped in to cover their tracks. The result was a comment by Giles Fraser, “Theresa May is lying over Trident. At least I hope she is.”

Fraser, a former canon chancellor of St. Paul’s Cathedral, and therefore in the professional business of granting benedictions, claimed that “parliament has just committed well over £100bn on a weapons system that we won’t use, that we mustn’t use, and that even the Russians know we won’t use. They know this because the only situation in which we would think about pressing the button would be precisely the situation in which there was no longer any point in pressing the button.”
His imaginary schema was based on the premise that the British ruling class would not initiate a nuclear attack. In his entire column, the words Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not appear. But the bombs dropped on both Japanese cities in August 1945, killing over 200,000 people, were nuclear first strikes by the United States. Declassified papers made public in 2013 revealed that British wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill personally endorsed these atrocities.

On February 15, 2003, more than 1 million people in the UK joined global protests to oppose the impending invasion of Iraq— the largest anti-war protests in history. This opposition has not gone away. According to a YouGov poll published last June, opposition to the Iraq War has in fact increased over the past 13 years. Polls conducted over the past decade have also consistently registered majority opposition to Trident.

The Guardian is not merely a newspaper. It is an organising centre of the nominally liberal bourgeoisie. Claiming to stand for progressive opinion, its role is to police public discourse, upholding at all times the strategic imperatives of imperialism.

The problem is not apathy, as the Guardian claims, but the absence of a revolutionary leadership, programme and perspective. The instinctive opposition of working people has been deliberately confined to the parties and institutions of capitalism—the very system responsible for war, austerity and the growing assault on democratic rights.

In 2003, the Stop the War Coalition—led by figures such as Tony Benn, Ken Livingstone, Tariq Ali and Jeremy Corbyn—channelled mass protests behind impotent appeals to the Labour Party, the United Nations and imperialist powers such as France and Germany, to oppose the US-led invasion of Iraq. Corbyn addressed the mass rally in London’s Hyde Park, calling on Blair to hold a parliamentary vote on the war. Blair did so four weeks later. A pro-war vote by Labour and the Tories resulted, with British military action commencing the next day.

Corbyn’s record since becoming Labour leader in September 2015 has been one of abject capitulation to the Blairite warmongers on every critical issue. In the name of “party unity” he has: (1) refused to challenge Labour policy on Trident at the party’s National Conference; (2) allowed a free vote on British military action in Syria that resulted in bombing raids; and (3) opposed war crimes charges against Tony Blair and his accomplices, helping to sweep the findings of the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War under the mat.

Despite addressing rallies of thousands of supporters over the weekend, including a campaign launch in Salford on Saturday, Corbyn made no mention of Trident or the threat of war.

Too Late To Tame The Nuclear Monster (Revelation 15)


Commentary: World must tame the nuclear monster

By Paul Findley

In recent months, nuclear warheads have surfaced ominously in news reports from the Middle East, Russia and North Korea.

A rumor stated that Saudi Arabia might secure a nuclear weapon. Asked for comment, the government of Saudi Arabia made no response.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin recently reminded the world that his government possessed nuclear weapons. He announced he had taken several bombs out of storage. North Korea demonstrated it can launch a nuclear bomb aboard an intercontinental rocket.

Taken together, these revelations are reasons for concern.

All three nations in effect say yes to nuclear bombs. Their recent announcements make it clear they see them as national assets. A few other nations also say yes. Among them are the United States, Great Britain, China, France, Israel, Pakistan and India.

Many other nations disagree. 190 governments have clearly said no to nuclear weapons. Each has signed an agreement, the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Of these, two governments, Argentina and Brazil, deserve special accolades. They have fortified their no vote on nuclear weapons with a remarkable, truly historic bi-national pact.

Years ago, they had a checkered, sometimes fierce, relationship in nuclear affairs. Today, they are observing 25 years of friendly nuclear cooperation. The harmony began with their compliance in a bi-national accord 13 years in the making. It gives both nations the right to make on-site inspections of the other nation’s nuclear facilities without advance notice. It is the ultimate in diplomatic transparency, the first bi-national nuclear pact in world history.

Each nation has 50 nuclear inspectors at work. They are organized under a bi-national group called the Argentine-Brazil Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials. Scientist Odilon Marcusso Do Canto is general secretary. The anniversary is being observed in several seminars arranged by ABACC. During the inspection process, the ABACC works closely with representatives from the UN’s International Agency on Atomic Energy, based in Austria.

Through happenstance a short term but unique role in this great drama came my way. It began in mid-August 1977, when I was a member of a U.S. congressional group touring South America’s major capitals. We began in Panama, then proceeded to Ecuador, Peru and Chile.

Discussions at each capital focused on the danger of competition between Argentina and Brazil that might lead to a nuclear arms race. No one wanted that to happen, but a recent military government in Brazil secretly started a nuclear process that would produce nuclear explosives, an episode that caused continuing apprehension over the future.

The basic problem between the two nations was distrust. As our group continued its calls, a suggestion came to mind: The two governments should jointly pledge renunciation of nuclear explosive devices and each government should permit nuclear scientists from the other government to inspect without advance notice all its places of nuclear activity.

Argentina’s Atomic Energy Commission chairman, Adm. Castro Madero, and other officials responded favorably. Two days later in Brazil, our last stop, Deputy Foreign Minister Geraldo Holanda Cavalcanti and his staff said it needed more study.

When our group landed in Washington, I decided to present my personal proposal for public discussion. A news conference yielded coverage in the Washington Post. Two days later, the Post published my detailed commentary. In a fortunate coincidence, the capital was preparing for the arrival of Latin American leaders for ceremonies in which the U.S. government deeded the Panama Canal Zone to the government of Panama. This should assure a good audience for my publicity.
Learning that Brazil’s vice president, Gen. Pereira dos Santos, had arrived in Washington, I secured an appointment with him and delivered a lengthy letter presenting my proposal. Although courteous, he displayed no interest in my letter.

The next day, I returned to my duties on Capitol Hill. In all, I spent about two weeks on the nuclear peacekeeping project. From that day, I did nothing to promote it.

On Capitol Hill, I faced one political crisis after another, putting totally out of mind my experience in South America.

That is, until the phone rang in late November 2011.

The call was from Brazil. On the phone were two historians studying nuclear developments in South America, Dr. Carlo Patti of Brazil and Rodrigo Mallea of Argentina. Working together in archives of the Brazilian government, they discovered the original letter I wrote to the vice president of Brazil on Sept. 6, 1977. The historians wanted to know the background of the letter.

Momentarily, I was taken aback. South America had been totally out of my mind for more than three decades. When the historians mentioned the letter, details came flooding back.
Patti summarized the long but ultimately successful journey of my proposal through 13 years of diplomatic discussion. He said it seemed completely dormant for the first six of those years. Then he found documents proving that in 1983 President Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, George Schultz, brought my plan back to life. Making preparations for an official visit to Brazil, he sent an unusual request through diplomatic channels. He expressed hope that his hosts would be able to report progress on implementing the plan I proposed in 1977. I was astounded at that revelation, because it was my first evidence that the U.S. State Department approved my proposal. Schultz’s request must have revived consideration, because my plan began to receive sporadic consideration during the next seven years. Patti told me several officials kept pressing for action.

Toward the end of our phone conversation, Patti said a number of documents did not mention my name but contained phrases taken verbatim from my letter to Brazil’s vice-president.

As we talked, I felt a warm inner glow. His report was a gratifying and exciting revelation. During my long career in public life, the 20 eventful days in August-September 1977 were the closest I came to qualifying as a success in peacemaking. Marcusso wrote: “Your seeds germinated and grew up in a beautiful plant, and we Brazilians and Argentinians are very proud of it.”

The historic bi-national pact was ratified in 1991. It was signed by the two presidents — Carlos Mnem of Argentina and Fernando Collor of Brazil — in a ceremony in Guadalajara, Mexico. These two men deserve the credit. They tamed the nuclear monster in their neighborhood. They executed a remarkable act of statecraft that helps keep South America free of nuclear bombs.

In time, I trust, other world leaders will act as resolutely. Argentina and Brazil were the first — and today still the only — countries to achieve this pinnacle of mutual nuclear comity and cooperation in history.

All leaders must face the truth about nuclear warheads. They are far too terrible for use as instruments of war, even in a desperate defensive crises. They no longer serve as deterrents to attack. Every one of them is a liability, not an asset.

Today, not all governments agree warheads are too dangerous to keep. The list of such nations is short but impressive: United States, Russia, China, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India, Great Britain and France. Except for North Korea, all consider nuclear warheads useful only to repel a nuclear attack.
Argentina and Brazil lead the way. They say no to nuclear warheads. Perhaps India and Pakistan, often rivals, will start their own on-site inspection pact and disable all their nuclear warheads. That would be another giant step toward a safe and sane world.

My concern about nuclear warheads began in October 1945 when, as a U.S. Navy officer, I visited Nagasaki, Japan, just a few weeks after a relatively small nuclear bomb was dropped by a U.S. Air Force plane, burning to instant death at least 60,000 humans in a single gigantic blast. The experience was shocking and deeply troubling. The vast area pulverized convinced me nuclear warheads must be prohibited worldwide. Hoping to advance that goal was one of the reasons I later sought election to Congress.

In his recent address to congress Narendra Modi , prime minister of India,offered to extend India’s leadership in the region.

A suggestion. Modi is uniquely situated to tame the nuclear monster to a higher level. All he needs is the cooperation of the president of Pakistan, Mamnoon Hussain. Perhaps he and Modi are already convinced that nuclear warheads are a liability, not an asset.

A pie in the sky? A dream, yes, but more than that, a dream that can become reality when two people see the hand of destiny.

Then others will follow. The monster will then be dead, not just maimed.

Paul Findley of Jacksonville served as a Republican Congressman from 1961 to 1983. He is the author of six books, the latest of which is titled “Speaking Out.”

The Nuclear End Looms Near (Revelation 15)

Nuclear-war-forcetoknow.com_ 
Nuclear threat looms large
By Rizwan AsgharJuly 17, 2016Print : Opinion

“Today, the danger of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the cold war – and most people are blissfully unaware of this danger”

– William J Perry

Something changed forever when the first nuclear device was detonated in the desert of New Mexico on July 16, 1945. As the 71st anniversary of that fateful event fell yesterday, there is an awful lot to worry about the uncertain future of more than seven billion people in the world today.

Many observers believed that the end of the cold-war era would help the world move towards the goal of global nuclear disarmament. The opposite has turned out to be true. In fact, the threat of a nuclear weapon being used today is greater than ever before.

The technical expertise to develop nuclear weapons or produce fissile material – uranium-233, uranium-235, and plutonium-239 – is available to a large number of states and non-state actors. The continued existence of nuclear black markets where nuclear weapons designs and fissile material could be acquired makes the doomsday clock tick closer to nuclear midnight.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, disarmament advocates have seen more failures than successes. In 2005, the United Nations World Summit could not go even one step further toward non-proliferation and disarmament. The failure of the 2015 NPT review conference was another wake-up call to the reality that, despite all the excessive rhetoric, the Obama administration would go to any lengths to protect Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the Middle East.

The prospects for the next review conference also look bleak. Several multilateral agreements on disarmament and non-proliferation, like the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), have not yet entered into force.

Even if we accept the nuclear deterrence theory as valid, it is about time we answered the ‘how many nuclear weapons are enough’ question. Today, nine nuclear-armed nations possess more than 15,000 nuclear weapons.

A single nuclear weapon would cause catastrophic damage to an extent that has not been seen in the past seven decades. Ten nuclear weapons would cause destruction, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. The use of a hundred nuclear weapons would totally change the face of this planet, wiping out a large proportion of the world’s population.

Countries like Pakistan and India have absolutely no moral or strategic justification to expand their nuclear capabilities. This is completely insane. The international community must continue to pressurise the governments in both Pakistan and India to declare a moratorium on further production of nuclear weapons or fissile material for military purposes, in addition to improving transparency regarding the exact quantities of fissile material in their possession.

The global non-proliferation regime, currently, faces two major challenges: the proliferation of nuclear weapons both horizontally and vertically, and the threat of nuclear terrorism. Iran has been made to retreat from the nuclear path at least for the next fifteen years but North Korea continues to strengthen its offensive nuclear weapons capability.

Over the past few years, Seoul, the South Korean capital, has been held hostage by thousands of North Korean artillery shells and missile batteries, which can flatten the entire city, killing millions of innocent civilians. North Korea is said to have the world’s largest artillery force and Seoul is only 40 miles from the border. Some experts even claim that North Korea could wipe Seoul off the map in less than two hours using rockets and conventional artillery.

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, is getting away with his lunatic behaviour because North Korea’s missile and nuclear programmes have been allowed to operate for so long. Quite alarmingly, North Korea’s stockpile, if left unchecked, would grow to fifty nuclear weapons by 2020. A nuclear North Korea has not only significantly threatened regional security, but has also undermined the legitimacy of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Similarly, advancement or modernisation of existing weapons technologies has raised concerns about the future of non-proliferation efforts. According to the Federation of American Scientists, “all the nuclear-armed states have ambitious nuclear weapon modernization programs… that appear intended to prolong the nuclear era indefinitely.”

US nuclear modernisations programme, along with the deployment of ballistic missile defence (BMD) in Europe remains a major obstacle to negotiating further cuts to US-Russian nuclear stockpiles. Thousands of American and Russian nuclear missiles could be launched accidently in a span of a few minutes. But very little is being done to reduce these threats.

Lastly, the world has yet to wake up to the reality that the threat of terrorists getting nuclear weapons is more acute than it seems. During a recent conference in the US, this writer had the opportunity to be part of a policy discussion on nuclear terrorism.

A retired US Army official, who spoke to this writer on condition of anonymity, said that if terrorists succeeded in exploding an improvised nuclear device in one of the US’s major metro cities, it would be very difficult for the US to desist from launching a full-scale attack once it traces back the origin of material used by terrorists.

Facing such a dire threat, it behoves all nuclear weapon states, particularly Pakistan, India and the Russian Federation, to ensure the maximum possible security of nuclear weapons or materials in their possession.

To overcome these broader challenges, it is time for disarmament activists across the globe to breathe new life into the efforts to revive global nuclear non-proliferation efforts and open the door to a nuclear weapons free world. Efforts to reduce and, ultimately, eliminate nuclear weapons should be focused at all stages of nuclear fuel cycle. Let’s wake up before it is too late and let’s stop terrorists from planning a nuclear nightmare.

The Trinity Of Death (Revelation 15)

The Trinity Bomb Los Alamos

The Trinity Bomb in Los Alamos

Commemoration Events Of Uranium Tailing Spills

 Submitted by Chris Clark on July 9, 2016 – 6:36am
CCNS News

Sharing a moment of silence and statements at each of the commemoration events, the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium and the Red Water Pond Road Community Association on the Navajo Nation will experience their loss, offer healing prayers, and provide community education about the first atomic bomb test at the Trinity Test Site in 1945 and the largest liquid uranium tailings spill in the U.S. that flowed into the Rio Puerco in 1979.

Both events happened July 16 in New Mexico. This is the first time the groups have shared a moment of silence and statements supporting their work for restorative justice for the people harmed by both tragedies. The public is invited to participate in the events. For more information, visit nuclearactive.org.

July 16, 1979, an earthen uranium tailings dam at the United Nuclear Corporation Church Rock Uranium Mill failed and released 1,000 tons of solid radioactive uranium mill waste and more than 90 million gallons of acidic and radioactive liquids into the Rio Puerco. It contributed to the long-term contamination already present in the watershed from the release of untreated or poorly treated uranium mine water.

Saturday, July 16, the Red Water Pond Road Community Association will host the 37th Annual Commemoration of the North East Church Rock Uranium Tailings Spill, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., 12 miles north of Red Rock State Park on N.M. 566. There will be a walk to the spill site to offer healing prayers, food, speeches, a silent auction and community education. See more at nuclearactive.org.

The Canadian Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

Canada to boost strategic ties with India with Defence, nuclear push 
NEW DELHI: Canada is planning to send a delegation to the Def Expo in Goa later this month to explore partnership in the area of defence electronics as it eyes an expansion in strategic ties with India, including an opportunity to set up nuclear reactors in the country.
India is among the top priorities for the Justin Trudeau government that came to power late last year, Canadian High Commissioner to India Nadir Patel told ET.
Last April PM Narendra Modi had the opportunity to meet Trudeau when the latter was the Opposition leader. A Canadian nuclear mission comprising nuclear firms and officials visited India in October last year and both sides have explored cooperation in pressurised heavy water reactors, training, capacity building and nuclear waste management.
“Following this visit there have been intense discussions between the officials of the two countries. Given the opportunity Canada could consider setting up nuclear reactors in India and upgrading Indian reactors run on CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium) technology,” Patel said.
Canada will follow the USA, Russia and France in setting up nuclear reactors in India if a decision is taken to allot the country a plant site.
Patel said Canada is partnering India in maintenance aspects of the nuclear sector. The civil nuclear partnership between the two countries entered a new phase with the conclusion of commercial pact during Modi’s trip for supply of uranium from the North American country to energy hungry India.
Following this the first tranche of uranium from Canada arrived here four decades after civil nuclear cooperation was suspended following the test at Pokhran. Canada will supply 3,000 metric tonnes of uranium beginning last year under a $254 million five-year deal to power Indian atomic reactors.

Creating The Islamic Horns (Daniel 7)

Schisms in Islamic World Guide Pak’s Foreign Policy
603654d1317716759-flag-pins-pakistan-saudi-arabia2
By G Parthasarathy Published: 12th March 2016 10:00 PM Last Updated: 10th March 2016 10:59 PM

The 20th century saw two developments that shook the Islamic world. The first was World War I, which triggered the collapse of global Islamist ambitions, with the dismantling of the Ottoman empire and end of the Caliphate. The creation of Israel and the dispossession of Palestinians in 1948 brought Muslims worldwide together to destroy the Jewish state determined to end the injustice done to fellow Muslim Palestinians. The 1967 Arab-Israeli conflict proved disastrous for such ambitions, as the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan were routed, with Israel capturing large tracts of their territory and, most importantly, taking control of the holy sites of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, in Jerusalem. The defeated Arabs responded in 1969 by establishing the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in a summit meeting of Islamic countries in Morocco, with the aim of uniting the Muslim “Ummah” against Israel.

Not surprisingly, Pakistan had its own aims in participating in the OIC, which now has 57 members, with headquarters in Saudi Arabia. Its ambition was to mobilise the Islamic world against India and secure support for its claims in Jammu and Kashmir, while pledging allegiance for the Arab cause, on ending Israeli occupation of Muslim lands. This was accompanied by a worldwide effort to persuade Muslims and Islamic countries to unite against alleged atrocities targeting Muslims in India, particularly in J&K. Pakistan also used its nuclear ambitions to persuade Saudi Arabia, Iran and others that it would transfer nuclear capabilities to enable them to counter Israel’s formidable stockpile. What followed was massive flow of money to Pakistan from oil-rich Islamic states, together with diplomatic support, with OIC recognising and backing the Hurriyat as the sole and legitimate representatives of Muslims in Kashmir.

Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts are now coming apart, as the mirage of religion-based unity among Islamic countries is being torn apart by sectarian strife between Shias and Sunnis, and civilisational fault lines between Iran and its Sunni Arab neighbours. The carnage in Yemen and Syria reflect these fault lines. The conflict in Syria is pitting Shias backed by Iran, Iraq and the Hezbollah, against Sunnis backed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. It has led to 0.25 million Syrians losing their lives and 11 million fleeing homes. In Yemen, Saudi Arabia is determined not to allow an Iranian-backed regime dominated by Shia Houthis to take charge of the country. Saudi Arabia has put together a coalition of 34 Sunni Islamic countries to take on the ISIS, which is seen as a threat to its conservative monarchy. More importantly, the Saudi effort is geared to containing Iranian influence in Syria and elsewhere in its neighbourhood.

Pakistan is now faced with a dilemma on how to respond to Saudi entreaties for active military support. The Gulf Arabs, who have invested billions in economic and military assistance to Pakistan, are recognising that Islamabad will not come to their assistance, as they had expected. Pakistan has been severely criticised by the leaders of UAE for its alleged duplicity, even as the Emirates seek closer relations with India. The OIC, torn apart by sectarian differences, may periodically issue bombastic statements on J&K against India at Pakistani behest, but it has lost its credibility and relevance, as influential members like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and others, overtly and covertly, seek Israeli support against Iran and have little time or energy to fight for the rights of Palestinians, amid internal conflicts. The country that has benefited most from Pakistan’s membership of the OIC has been its ‘all-weather friend’ China. Despite severe persecution of its Muslim population who are not allowed to fast publicly during Ramzan, or wear Burqas in Xinjiang Province, China has avoided being condemned by the OIC, thanks largely to Pakistan’s backing.

Russian And Iranian Nuclear Horns Join (Daniel 8)

 
Iran: Russia to help us improve our centrifuges

Tehran’s nuclear chief says Moscow will enable ‘enhanced’ uranium enrichment, as part of July’s nuclear deal

By TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF September 16, 2015, 5:52 pm

Russia has agreed to help Iran upgrade its uranium-enriching centrifuges, Iran’s nuclear chief said.
Moscow has confirmed its “preparedness to cooperate and improve Iran’s centrifuges to produce stable isotopes,” Ali Akbar Salehi, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said Tuesday, according to the Iranian semi-state Fars news agency. Salehi was speaking after talks in Vienna with Sergey Kirienko, who heads Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation.

Salehi said Russia had undertaken to help “enhance” Iran’s centrifuges as part of July’s nuclear deal between the P5+1 world powers and Iran.

“Assistance to enhance the designing of our existing centrifuge machines in a way that they can produce stable isotopes is among the Russians’ undertakings (based on the July 14 nuclear agreement between Tehran and the world powers),” Fars quoted Salehi saying. “They are among the most powerful and pioneering countries in the world in this field, and they have announced their preparedness to cooperate and improve Iran’s centrifuges to produce stable isotopes.”

Critics of the nuclear accord have highlighted, among other flaws, that it grants Iran the right to conduct ongoing R&D to improve its centrifuges, potentially enabling it enrich uranium more quickly toward a potential breakout to the bomb. The deal provides, for instance, that Iran will commence testing of the fast “IR-8 on single centrifuge machines and its intermediate cascades” as soon as the deal goes into effect, and will “commence testing of up to 30 IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges after eight and a half years.”

Iran has said that its IR-8 centrifuges are intended to enrich uranium 20 times faster than the IR-1 centrifuges it currently uses.

Salehi and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told Iranian lawmakers in April that Iran would advance research on the IR-8s as soon as the deal takes effect. According to a Fars report at the time, “Iran’s foreign minister and nuclear chief both told a closed-door session of the parliament… that the country would inject UF6 gas into the latest generation of its centrifuge machines as soon as a final nuclear deal goes into effect by Tehran and the six world powers.”

“The AEOI chief and the foreign minister presented hopeful remarks about nuclear technology R&D which, they said, have been agreed upon during the talks (with the six world powers), and informed that gas will be injected into IR8 (centrifuge machines) with the start of the (implementation of the) agreement,” Fars quoted Javad Karimi Qoddousi, a member of the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, as saying.

In his reported comments in Vienna on Tuesday, Salehi also said Russia would purchase Iran’s enriched uranium under the nuclear deal, and would supply Tehran with natural uranium, and that he has discussed the process by which this occurs with the Russian officials.

Korean Horns On The Brink Of Nuclear War (Daniel 7:7)


On the brink of destruction: The real NUCLEAR threat if North Korea attacks the South

NORTH Korea and South Korea are on the brink of war – but what do we know about the two nations?

By Rory McKeown / Published 21st August 2015

The North has reportedly instructed its army to “enter a wartime state” and be “fully battle ready to launch surprise operations” after weeks of high tension with the South.

Crackpot dictator Kim Jong-un threatened military action if South Korea carried on pumping anti-North propaganda over the border through huge speakers in the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ).
Kim also threatened action against the South and the West if a planned joint military exercise with the US went ahead on Monday.

The two nations exchanged military fire on Thursday (August 20) as tensions boiled over.

Jong-Un ordered his troops to be on a war footing from 5pm on Friday (9:30am GMT)and issued an ultimatum to the South to cease broadcasts by Saturday evening – or face military action.

North Korea is a notoriously secretive nation – while South Korea is allies with the West – but what do we know about the nations on the brink of conflict?

North Korea and South Korea have been divided since the end of World War 2 which led to the Korean War in 1950.

Since then the North and South have been at loggerheads and the tensions could be about to break into conflict.

The Korean War is still technically on-going as the two sides only signed an armistice.

NORTH KOREA

The citizens of North Korea follow the Juche ideology – a “creative application of Marxism-Leninism”.

It means education and food production are subsidised or state-funded but hundreds of thousands of people died in a famine in the late 1990s, and the country has struggled with food production since.
But the country ploughs millions into its military strength.

The Korean People’s Army consists mainly of ground forces, the navy and the air force and has 1.19million people – out of a population of 25,000,000 – on active duty according to its Military Balance 2011report.

It has one of the largest armies in the world.

Much has been made in the Western world of its nuclear threat.

In 2002, President George W Bush have a famous speech describing North Korea as part of the “Axis of Evil” including Iraq and Iran due to its steadfast approach to international relations and nuclear development programme.

It has carried out three underground nuclear tests since 2006 and it wasn’t until a year later that the government confirmed it had nuclear weaponry in its arsenal.

Siegfried Heckler, a nuclear expert at Stanford University’s Centre for International Security and Cooperation, estimated North Korea has enough weaponised plutonium for up to eight nuclear bombs.
Successful nuclear tests were also carried out in 2009 and 2013 despite international pressure to stop its nuclear programme.

It is understood North Korea has a range of long and short range missiles, some developed by the Soviet Union, and thousands of tonnes of chemical weapons including mustard gas, sarin and other nerve agents.

According to the CIA World Factbook: “North Korea’s history of regional military provocations; proliferation of military-related items; long-range missile development; WMD programs including tests of nuclear devices in 2006, 2009, and 2013; and massive conventional armed forces are of major concern to the international community.

“The regime in 2013 announced a new policy calling for the simultaneous development of its nuclear weapons program and its economy.”

North Korea’s main ally is China, which provides fuel and food aid, while it maintains a close relationship with Russia.

However positive ties with the US and South Korea are non-existent.

The promotion of Kim Jong-un has leader following the death of his father Kim Jong-Il in 2011 has done little to improve that.

Last year the secretive nation was brought to the forefront of the world’s news agenda last year following the production of American political comedy film The Interview.

Starring Seth Rogen and James Franco, the story surrounded two journalists who set up an interview with Kim Jong-un but are recruited by the CIA to assassinate him.

But the film proved controversial in North Korea and it threatened “stern” and “merciless” action against the US if it was released.

The portrayal of the president being assassinated was seen as an “act of war”.

It led to film distributors Sony Picture Entertainment being hacked by a group with ties to North Korea.

The threat led to many cinemas refusing to show the film and it was only released at selected cinemas.

However it managed to rake in around £17million in digital rentals, making it one of the most successful digital releases.

SOUTH KOREA

The South unleashed a relentless propaganda campaign to its enemy in the north after it claimed several of its soldiers were injured by land mines planted by the North in the Demilitarised area between the two nations.

It has rested to playing anti-Pyongyang messages through large speakers along the boarder.

And tensions heightened as Jong-Un threatened military retaliation if the broadcasts don’t cease.

If a conflict does erupt, the Republic of Korea Armed Forces will face a much larger army but will have significantly more advanced weaponry at its disposal.

The South’s army boasts around 630,000 active personal – almost half of what the North has – but has nearly 3,000,000 in reserve, making it one of the largest armed forces in the world.

It allocated £35trillion to its military budget last year and its arsenal has shells, missiles, and air defence weapons.

The air force also uses a number of aircrafts built by the US.

Korean Horns On The Brink Of Nuclear War (Daniel 7:7)


On the brink of destruction: The real NUCLEAR threat if North Korea attacks the South

NORTH Korea and South Korea are on the brink of war – but what do we know about the two nations?

By Rory McKeown / Published 21st August 2015

The North has reportedly instructed its army to “enter a wartime state” and be “fully battle ready to launch surprise operations” after weeks of high tension with the South.

Crackpot dictator Kim Jong-un threatened military action if South Korea carried on pumping anti-North propaganda over the border through huge speakers in the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ).
Kim also threatened action against the South and the West if a planned joint military exercise with the US went ahead on Monday.

The two nations exchanged military fire on Thursday (August 20) as tensions boiled over.
Jong-Un ordered his troops to be on a war footing from 5pm on Friday (9:30am GMT)and issued an ultimatum to the South to cease broadcasts by Saturday evening – or face military action.

North Korea is a notoriously secretive nation – while South Korea is allies with the West – but what do we know about the nations on the brink of conflict?

North Korea and South Korea have been divided since the end of World War 2 which led to the Korean War in 1950.

Since then the North and South have been at loggerheads and the tensions could be about to break into conflict.

The Korean War is still technically on-going as the two sides only signed an armistice.
NORTH KOREA

The citizens of North Korea follow the Juche ideology – a “creative application of Marxism-Leninism”.

It means education and food production are subsidised or state-funded but hundreds of thousands of people died in a famine in the late 1990s, and the country has struggled with food production since.
But the country ploughs millions into its military strength.

The Korean People’s Army consists mainly of ground forces, the navy and the air force and has 1.19million people – out of a population of 25,000,000 – on active duty according to its Military Balance 2011report.

It has one of the largest armies in the world.

Much has been made in the Western world of its nuclear threat.

In 2002, President George W Bush have a famous speech describing North Korea as part of the “Axis of Evil” including Iraq and Iran due to its steadfast approach to international relations and nuclear development programme.

It has carried out three underground nuclear tests since 2006 and it wasn’t until a year later that the government confirmed it had nuclear weaponry in its arsenal.

Siegfried Heckler, a nuclear expert at Stanford University’s Centre for International Security and Cooperation, estimated North Korea has enough weaponised plutonium for up to eight nuclear bombs.

Successful nuclear tests were also carried out in 2009 and 2013 despite international pressure to stop its nuclear programme.
It is understood North Korea has a range of long and short range missiles, some developed by the Soviet Union, and thousands of tonnes of chemical weapons including mustard gas, sarin and other nerve agents.

According to the CIA World Factbook: “North Korea’s history of regional military provocations; proliferation of military-related items; long-range missile development; WMD programs including tests of nuclear devices in 2006, 2009, and 2013; and massive conventional armed forces are of major concern to the international community.

“The regime in 2013 announced a new policy calling for the simultaneous development of its nuclear weapons program and its economy.”

North Korea’s main ally is China, which provides fuel and food aid, while it maintains a close relationship with Russia.

However positive ties with the US and South Korea are non-existent.

The promotion of Kim Jong-un has leader following the death of his father Kim Jong-Il in 2011 has done little to improve that.

Last year the secretive nation was brought to the forefront of the world’s news agenda last year following the production of American political comedy film The Interview.

Starring Seth Rogen and James Franco, the story surrounded two journalists who set up an interview with Kim Jong-un but are recruited by the CIA to assassinate him.

But the film proved controversial in North Korea and it threatened “stern” and “merciless” action against the US if it was released.

The portrayal of the president being assassinated was seen as an “act of war”.

It led to film distributors Sony Picture Entertainment being hacked by a group with ties to North Korea.

The threat led to many cinemas refusing to show the film and it was only released at selected cinemas.

However it managed to rake in around £17million in digital rentals, making it one of the most successful digital releases.

SOUTH KOREA

The South unleashed a relentless propaganda campaign to its enemy in the north after it claimed several of its soldiers were injured by land mines planted by the North in the Demilitarised area between the two nations.

It has rested to playing anti-Pyongyang messages through large speakers along the boarder.
And tensions heightened as Jong-Un threatened military retaliation if the broadcasts don’t cease.
If a conflict does erupt, the Republic of Korea Armed Forces will face a much larger army but will have significantly more advanced weaponry at its disposal.

The South’s army boasts around 630,000 active personal – almost half of what the North has – but has nearly 3,000,000 in reserve, making it one of the largest armed forces in the world.

It allocated £35trillion to its military budget last year and its arsenal has shells, missiles, and air defence weapons.

The air force also uses a number of aircrafts built by the US.