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.

Jordan May Become The Next Nuclear Horn Of Prophecy (Daniel 8)

The Middle East’s Next Nuclear Power?
Kazakhistan Nuclear Missiles

It may not be the one you’re thinking about.
January 28, 2015
The Kingdom of Jordan has for more than a decade watched near-continuous turmoil swirl around its borders—an American invasion of Iraq on one side, an Israeli war with Lebanon on another, and a Syrian civil war to the north that has seen ISIL flourish. For much of that decade, while Jordan absorbed refugees and was targeted by terror, it largely escaped the first-hand effects of war itself. Wednesday’s news that the Kingdom was prepared to trade a terrorist involved in the worst terrorist attack in Jordanian history to free one of its pilots captured by ISIL after his F-16 crashed in December, represents a new chapter in Jordan’s perpetual struggle against the militants on its borders. Over all of these regional challenges has hung another dark cloud—the fear, uncertainty, and tension that’s sprung from Iran’s secret nascent nuclear program.

And yet even as Western attention has focused all around Jordan—and especially on the nuclear negotiations with Iran—in a little-noticed series of moves, the Kingdom’s been edging closer to going nuclear itself. In fact, the Kingdom of Jordan, Washington’s most reliable Arab partner, is the latest Middle Eastern state considering nuclear energy that is refusing to relinquish its right to enrich.
That “right to enrich” uranium has proved to be one of the key sticking points in the Iran nuclear talks and was at the top of the list of why Washington and Tehran missed and subsequently extended their late November deadline to reach an agreement regulating the theocracy’s nuclear program.

To prevent proliferation, the US has long held that Middle Eastern states seeking nuclear energy must forego the right to enrich nuclear material. The principle of no-enrichment has underpinned the so-called “gold standard” of US-bilateral nuclear agreements. While this standard does not uniformly apply outside the region—Washington’s 2014 Agreement on Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation with Hanoi included no such stipulation—in its December 2009 agreement with the US, the United Arab Emirates acquiesced to forego enrichment and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.

Jordan and Washington have been discussing nuclear cooperation for some time, but the conversation gained urgency following the 2011 Egyptian revolution—and the subsequent and repeated destruction of the Sinai natural gas pipeline—when the Kingdom lost its most consistent source of energy. In 2013, these disruptions resulted in a $2 billion, or nearly 20 percent, budget deficit.
Over the past four years, the Kingdom has increasingly focused on nuclear energy, in particular the construction of two 1000-megawatt power plants, to fill this gap. By 2030, Jordanian officials estimate nuclear power will provide 30 percent of the state’s electricity.

Amman’s proposed nuclear facilities have met with opposition both at home and abroad. Washington’s stated opposition to the program revolves around enrichment. Jordan’s resolve to maintain this right has stymied efforts to reach a “123 agreement” governing US international nuclear cooperation. The Kingdom, which has no oil, has significant deposits of uranium ore—reportedly 35,000 tons or enough to last Jordan 100 years—and is hoping to commercially exploit the resource.
Israel, too, has taken issue with Jordan’s nuclear ambitions, primarily due to concerns about safety. One of Jordan’s proposed nuclear plants, at least initially, was slated to be built in the Jordan River Valley, a major earthquake fault line. According to a US diplomatic cable disclosed by WIKILEAKS, Israel highlighted these apprehensions during a meeting with their Jordanian counterparts in 2009—two years before the Fukushima Daiichi catastrophe—only to have the Jordanian officials respond by citing Japan as an earthquake-prone country that builds safe nuclear reactors.
The biggest opposition to Jordan’s nuclear project, however, is domestic. It’s not difficult to see why. To start, one of the proposed plants is slated to be built in the heartland of the Bani Sakr, Jordan’s largest tribe. A charismatic young parliamentarian named Hind al Fayez—who hails from the tribe and happens to be married to a prominent local environmental activist—has adopted the no nukes agenda as her cause celebre. In May 2012, she spearheaded a successful vote in parliament to suspend the program.

Among other concerns, Al Fayez questions how a state with such little water will be able to cool a reactor situated more than 200 miles from the shoreline, and whether Jordan has sufficient human capital (i.e., enough nuclear physicists) to safely operate the facilities. She has also expressed dismay with the $10 billion price tag, a sum roughly equivalent to Jordan’s total 2013 annual budget.
Refuting the critics is Jordan’s Atomic Energy Commission Chair Khaled Toukan, who holds a Ph.D in Nuclear Engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Toukan is an impressive government advocate for the project.

No access to water, Toukan says, no problem. Like the three nuclear power plants in Palo Verde, Arizona, Jordan will use wastewater from the nearby Khirbat al Samra sewage treatment plant to cool the blistering reactors. The second reactor, closer to the port of Aqaba, will utilize water pumped from the Red Sea—easing Jordan’s water crisis through desalinization.
A dearth of local nuclear technicians? Not for long, says Toukan. The Kingdom is building a research and training reactor, recently established an undergraduate nuclear engineering program, and has sixty-one nationals currently enrolled in graduate programs in nuclear engineering and related fields abroad. As for the financing challenge, according to Toukan, Russia—which is presently slated to build the reactors—will fund and own 49.9 percent, leaving Government of Jordan to finance the remaining and controlling share.

While Toukan’s answers are authoritative, they have not yet succeeded in convincing Jordanian skeptics. Perhaps that’s because serious safety problems emerged at Palo Verde in 2013. Or maybe Toukan’s unsubstantiated 2014 claims before parliament—that radiation leaks from the Israeli nuclear reactor at Dimona were resulting in increased incidences of cancer in the Kingdom—have further soured Jordanians on nuclear energy. It’s also possible that heightened fears of terrorism fueled by the recent territorial gains by the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq or ISIS, are dampening enthusiasm for the project.

Last year, Hind Al Fayez said “They’ll build that plant over my dead body.” A year on, her hostility toward the program has not noticeably diminished.

To be sure, Jordan needs energy. Indeed, the requirement is so acute that months ago the palace ignored significant domestic disapproval and signed up to a 15-year $15 billion deal to procure natural gas from Israel. (Amman has temporarily frozen negotiations as Israel deals with anti-trust concerns in its offshore gas sector). While important, however, the agreement is insufficient to meet the Kingdom’s requirements in the decades to come.

In the face of continued foreign and domestic opposition, it isn’t clear that Jordan will actually proceed with the nuclear option. Today the Atomic Energy Commission is calling nuclear power “a strategic choice,” but with nearly a million Syrian refugees in the Kingdom, a stumbling economy, a rising threat of terrorism on the home front, and with a downed Jordanian pilot currently held captive by ISIL, King Abdullah could punt, delaying a decision—and avoiding confrontation with Washington—for the indefinite future. Given the ongoing challenges, for the time being at least, no nukes should be a no-brainer for the Kingdom.

David Schenker is director of the Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. From 2002-2006, he served as Levant director in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

The Canadian and Chinese Nuclear Horns Grow (Daniel 7:7)

China General Nuclear’s uranium unit chief seeks investment in Canadian mines

canda-chinese nuclear agreement

BEIJING: The uranium subsidiary of China General Nuclear Power Corp (CGN), one of the country’s two state reactor builders, is looking to invest in mines in Canada “in the near future”, a top official with the firm said on Friday.Zhou Zhenxing, the chairman of CGN Uranium Resources, told an industry conference that the firm had already secured uranium projects in all other major producing nations, including Namibia, Kazakhstan and Australia, and was now focusing its efforts on Canada.”Canada’s uranium reserves are among the largest in the world and we hope to cooperate with Canadian enterprises to complete the mission,” he said.Zhou said he had already been involved in discussions with Canadian officials, but gave no additional details.

CGN is the state-owned parent of CGN Power Co. Ltd , which raised around $3.2 billion in an initial public offering in Hong Kong this week.

Officials said on Thursday that China’s state-owned assets regulator was currently considering proposals to merge CGN with its rival, the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC).

China is in the middle of a huge reactor building programme, and aims to raise capacity to 58 gigawatts (GW) by 2020. Chinese think tanks estimate that capacity could rise further to 200 GW by 2030, from around 19 GW now.

The World Nuclear Association has estimated that annual Chinese demand for primary uranium will rise tenfold by 2030, which would put it at around 40,000 tonnes.

With around three quarters of its uranium demand already sourced from overseas, China’s major nuclear firms have been busy securing supplies across the globe, and they have also stepped up exploration efforts at home.

Since China is also dependent on overseas firms to turn much of its uranium supply into usable fuel, CGN and CNNC were collaborating on the construction of a $6.5 billion processing plant in Guangdong, but the project was shelved last year amid protests from local residents.

The Canadian Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7)

Canada and India reach a deal to supply uranium

canadian-nuclear
Scarborough Mirror

 
Canada and India signed a path-breaking nuclear deal this week, which will strengthen and solidify economic and trade prospects between the two countries.
Under the terms of the deal, Canada will supply uranium to India for Indian nuclear reactors as it aims to increase its capacity to generate more electricity in the coming decade. To make the deal happen, John Baird, Canada’s foreign minister was in New Delhi this week to sign the deal after a series of meetings with senior Indian members and his Indian counterpart Sushma Swaraj, India’s foreign minister.
In an interview given to India’s largest daily English newspaper, The Times of India, Baird said ” the agreement starts a new chapter in relations with India.”
Canada will also express support for India’s membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group even as the two countries plan to build on higher capacity nuclear reactors. India’s Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) calls for the upgrading of Indian nuclear reactors from their current capacity of 200MW to 750MW.
Both the countries will also come together in some joint efforts as well.
In late October, the two countries will co-host an upcoming nuclear security workshop in India with 15 countries participating in the summit.
This is a first for India as it organizes a meeting of this magnitude with another host country.
India is also going to tap into Canada’s skill development resources in the hydrocarbon and water management sectors.
Baird said Canada was excited to be a supplier of oil and gas to help India attain its development goals and Canadian companies with experience in green energy would help India tackle some of their environmental challenges.
In other news, Canada’s new high commissioner to India is Nadir Patel, the Indian born, but Canadian raised young 44-year-old diplomat.
Patel was born in Gujarat, India and his parents emigrated to Canada when he was a child.
Interestingly Patel comes from the same state as India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi and speaks the same language – Gujarati – at home.
Patel went to Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo where he finished his under-graduate in political science in 1993. After graduating, he joined the Federal Public Service and rose in rank.
Up until three years ago Patel was Canada’s consul general in Shanghai. He was recently the assistant deputy minister for corporate planning, finance and information technology in Ottawa, as well as the and chief financial officer at foreign affairs, Trade and Development Canada.
Patel will be in India and his mission among other things is to increase trade between the two countries.
Currently, bilateral trade between the two countries is pegged at $6 billion, and is short of the $15 billion that was supposed to have been reached by 2015 pledged by the prime ministers of the two countries some years ago.

Why Canada Is One Of Ten Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7:7)

Uranium Mining In Canada

Canadian Uranium Mining

Canadian Uranium Mining

By Dave Brown – Exclusive to Uranium Investing News

Canada has been a major world producer of uranium since global demand for production of the mineral developed; and the country is rich in uranium resources with a well established track record of successful exploration, mining and generation of nuclear power. Exploration for uranium ore began in earnest in 1942 under direction of the government for military purposes and at its zenith in 1959, Canada’s $330 million in uranium exports exceeded the value for every other mineral. With known uranium resources of 499,000 tonnes of U3O8, as well as increasing exploration projects on the horizon, Canada is certain to maintain a significant role in meeting future global demand.

Canada was the world’s largest uranium producer for many years, accounting for about 22 percent of global supply; however, in 2009 the leading position belonged to Kazakhstan with about 28 percent.  Today, production comes mainly from the McArthur River mine in northern Saskatchewan, which is the largest in the world, although other areas have been active in the past including Ontario and the Northwest Territories. Canada is the world’s leading exporter of uranium and hosts three of the top ten producing mines in the world.  In addition to being the world’s largest supplier of uranium and potash, Saskatchewan has a wealth of developing mineral resources including coal, diamonds, gold, platinum & palladium, rare earth elements, copper, zinc, nickel, oil, gas, sodium and mineralized brines.

Since 1997, The Fraser Institute has conducted an annual survey of metal mining and exploration companies to assess how mineral endowments and public policy factors such as taxation, geopolitical risk, legislation and regulation impact exploration. The most recent survey includes data on seventy two jurisdictions around the world, on every continent except Antarctica, including sub-national jurisdictions in Canada, Australia, and the United States.  This year Canada has continued its world leading performance with six Canadian provinces positioned in the top ten: Alberta, Newfound land & Labrador, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Quebec (in top spot as the global leader). Ontario is also considered a relatively strong investment jurisdiction ranking twenty second, down from last year’s tenth spot finish.

Present Production

Canada produced 10,617 tonnes of uranium in 2008, and in 2009 production was 11,997 tonnes of uranium, 22 percent of global output. Most of this comes from a third generation of mines, which began operating in 1999 at McClean Lake and McArthur River in northern Saskatchewan. The Rabbit Lake mine in the same region is the third source, and is the longest operating uranium production facility in Saskatchewan.  The primary uranium producers are Cameco (TSE:CCO) and Areva Resources Canada (formerly Cogema Resources), part of France’s Areva Group (EPA:CEI).

Future Operations

Uranium production in Canada is likely to increase significantly as several new mines, now planned or under construction, go into operation sometime after 2011 well positioned to accommodate forecasts for strong Asian demand. The two largest projects are Cameco’s Cigar Lake mine and Areva’s Midwest mine, both in northern Saskatchewan. The mill at McClean Lake has been modified to process ore from both mines. The Rabbit Lake mill will also be modified to take ore from Cigar Lake. Total production is expected to be 8,200 tonnes per year of uranium from Cigar Lake and 2,600 tonnes per year from Midwest.

Prospective Exploration Opportunities

In addition to mining operations planned for the near future, active exploration involving more than 40 companies continues in many parts of Canada. While exploration has concentrated on northern Saskatchewan, new prospects expansively range from Labrador and Nova Scotia in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec province, Nunavut Territory in the far north, and Ontario’s Elliott Lake area.
In uranium-rich northern Saskatchewan, exploration projects are now well-advanced at several locations. The Millenniumdeposit, which is a joint venture (42 percent owned by Cameco, 30 percent by Japan-Canada Uranium Consortium and 28 percent by Areva Resources) has indicated resources of 21,000 tonnes of 4.5 percent grade uranium and 4,400 tonnes of 2.1 percent grade inferred. It is between McArthur River and Key Lake, with the ore expected to be milled at Key Lake. A feasibility study on the project has advanced to Cameco seeking approval for extraction. Underground development is envisaged over 2013 to 2017. The Tamarack deposit associated with Dawn Lake is also a focus of interest.

Denison Mines Corp. (TSE: DML) is actively exploring the Phoenix deposit in the Wheeler River area half way between Key Lake and McArthur River. It is a long strike from the latter and geologically very similar, with some high-grade uranium mineralization. Denison has a 60 percent interest, Cameco has 30 percent and the Japan-Canada Uranium Consortium is at 10 percent ownership.  Last month, Denison announced that the summer drill program had discovered two new mineralized zones at the extreme northeast and southwest edges of the Phoenix trend, which the company believes makes the deposit “one of the most exciting discoveries to come out the uranium-rich area in the last twenty years.”