U.S.-Dependent Pacific Island Defies Nuke Powers

By Thalif Deen UNITED NATIONS, Apr 25 2014 (IPS) - The tiny Pacific nation state of Marshall Islands - which depends heavily on the United States for its economic survival, uses the U.S. dollar as its currency and predictably votes with Washington on all controversial political issues at the United Nations - is challenging the world´s nuclear powers before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. The lawsuit, filed Thursday, is being described as a potential battle between a puny David and a mighty Goliath: a country with a population of a little over 68,000 people defying the world´s nine nuclear powers with over 3.5 billion people. "The United States should defend the case and widen the opportunity for the Court to resolve the wide divide of opinion regarding the state of compliance with the disarmament obligations." -- John Burroughs John Burroughs, executive director of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy and the U.N. Office of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), told IPS the Marshall Islands and its legal team strongly encourage other states to support the case, by making statements, and by filing their own parallel cases if they qualify, or by intervening in the case. Burroughs, who is a member of that team, said the ICJ, in its 1996 advisory opinion, held unanimously that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. And these cases brought by the Marshall Islands nearly 18 years after the ICJ advisory opinion "will put to the test the claims of the nine states possessing nuclear arsenals that they are in compliance with international law regarding nuclear disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date." The nine nuclear states include the five permanent members (P5) of the U.N. Security Council, namely the United States, the UK, France, China and Russia, plus India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. Burroughs said three of the respondent states - the UK, India, and Pakistan - have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, as has the Marshall Islands.... After 18 years I am happy to see this issue gets its follow up. Oh yes, I was present in November 1995 - Oral Hearings - and the 8 July 1996 - the release date of the Advisory Opinion - at the ICJ and gave the team all my support on both occasions. I wish the team all the best ! Ak Malten, Pro Peaceful Energy Use U.S.-Dependent Pacific Island Defies Nuke Powers Related: U.S. examining Marshall Islands' nuclear lawsuits, defends record For a greener planet website  For a greener planet ( blog - this blog in: Atom - RSS ) More websites by Ak Malten

Parliamentarians call on Nuclear Security Summit process for nuclear abolition

Legislators and disarmament experts from around the world meeting at the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament (PNND) Assembly in Washington, D.C. last week called on the leaders of the nuclear-weapon States, and other States participating in the forthcoming Nuclear Security Summit to commence a high level process to achieve the global abolition of nuclear weapons. Czech Senator Alena Gajduskova, GSI President Jonathan Granoff and Canada MP Paul Dewar discuss cooperative security and nuclear disarmament at the PNND Assembly in Washington D.C. In a statement released on 27 February, the parliamentarians and disarmament experts welcomed the Nuclear Security Summit, which aims to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons or bomb-making materials by terrorist organisations, but noted that 'only by abolishing nuclear weapons globally will this risk be eliminated.' The legislators were meeting in Washington for the Annual Assembly of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament (PNND), a global network of legislators working cooperatively to reduce the risks of nuclear weapons, prevent proliferation and achieve a safe and secure nuclear-weapons-free world. PNND Global Coordinator Alyn Ware, in an interview in Inter-Press Service, noted that "The problem with the Nuclear Security Summit is that it only focuses on one-third of the picture: non-state actors who don't even have nuclear weapons. It does not address the bigger picture: the current and real threats of the stockpiles of weapons and materials of nuclear-armed states, and the risks of proliferation to additional states." The Dutch government is touting the Nuclear Security Summit, scheduled to take place in the Hague in three weeks, as "the largest gathering of its kind ever in the country." 58 world leaders, 5,000 delegates and 3,000 journalists are expected to participate in the Nuclear Security Summit, the third in a series of summits initiated by President Obama following his historic Prague Speech in 2009. However, where-as the Prague Speech laid out the vision and commitment to achieve a nuclear-weapons-free world, Renée Jones-Bos, Secretary-General of the Hague Nuclear Security Summit, has stated that the Summit is not about nuclear disarmament, or even about nuclear proliferation to other States, but only about "...rogue nuclear material. It's about ensuring that such material does not fall into the wrong hands." Ware replies that, "With regard to nuclear weapons, there are no right hands. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague has long confirmed that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal, regardless of who would possess or use such weapons (State or non-State actors), and that there is an obligation to achieve complete nuclear disarmament. It's ironic that this summit is happening in The Hague, but appears to ignore the conclusion of, and legal imperative from, the highest court in the world situated in the same city." UN High Rep for Disarmament Angela Kane speaking at the PNND Assembly in Washington D.C. With her are Saber Chowdhury MP (Inter Parliamentary Union) and Dr Vidya Shankar (PNND India Coordinator). The statement released at the PNND Assembly notes that: The highest level of political commitment is needed to achieve the global common good of ending the risk that nuclear weapons will ever be used by a terrorist - or a state - by accident, design or madness. Only by eliminating nuclear weapons will this risk be eliminated. We believe that achieving this global common good requires efforts at every level - local, national, and global. However, the existential imperative of ending the threat of nuclear weapons requires the highest level of political commitment, cooperation, and action. We therefore strongly urge you to commit to include in the agenda of your next meeting work on substantive plans to achieve the universal, legally verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons. If this summit process cannot include this issue in its agenda we strongly urge you to establish a parallel process at the same high political level. We commit to support such efforts in our respective legislative bodies This initiative of the PNND has my full support (for reasons see my previous post, please) ! Ak Malten, Pro Peaceful Energy Use Parliamentarians call on Nuclear Security Summit process for nuclear abolition For a greener planet website  For a greener planet ( blog - this blog in: Atom - RSS ) More websites by Ak Malten

The Hague nuclear summit security will be 'tightest ever in Holland'

Dutchnews - Monday 27 January 2014 video-link (dutch): http://vimeo.com/85137149 The security operation for the March global nuclear summit in The Hague will be the tightest ever mounted in the Netherlands, officials said on Monday. In total, 58 world leaders and 5,000 delegates will be in The Hague for the two-day NSS meeting to discuss methods to prevent nuclear terrorism. The main advice from the police organising the operation to commuters who travel by car from Amsterdam to The Hague and Rotterdam is 'don't do it', the transport ministry's roads department said.... More information on the summit the article in Dutchnews is talking about: The Nuclear Security Summit 2014 is a world summit, aimed at preventing nuclear terrorism around the globe. website: https://www.nss2014.com/en Preventing Nuclear Terrorism is fine with me, however: As long as we have nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence in our World and keep our nuclear industry alive even promote its use by means of the IAEA promoting peaceful nuclear energy use the risk of nuclear terrorism will grow. for more information on this, please follow the link: Nuclear Power Powers the Bomb All nuclear weapons in our World are build with nuclear material made in the "safe" and "clean" nuclear power plants and other forms of the "safe" and "clean" nuclear industry. Apart from that: Uranium mining is neither "safe" nor "clean"; Uranium enrichment is neither "safe" nor "clean" and can produce nuclear weapon grade uranium; Nuclear waste produced in the Nuclear Power Plant is neither "safe" nor "clean"; Reprocessing nuclear waste is neither "safe" nor "clean" and will produce almost nuclear weapon grade plutonium. for more information on this, please follow the link: Nuclear Power is not a form of "green" energy and never will be _AND_ should be considered a serious health risk And of course the nuclear industry denies the above and want the public to understand the nuclear industry, including nuclear power is safe and clean. They come together at the same dates, but in Amsterdam. see: https://www.nis2014.org/ for information on the Nuclear Industry Summit. At the Summit they will discuss the security aspects needed to ensure that the nuclear industry is seen by society as valuable now and in the future. So my advice would be, to those who want to prevent nuclear terrorism: get rid of all those nuclear weapons in our World. Because the effect a nuclear weapon explosion can not distinguish between a soldier and a civilian; a neutral state and a state at war this weapon is illegal to be used or threaten to be used in a war, so all those nuclear weapons are useless anyway; Stop promoting the illusion of peaceful nuclear energy which does not exists, better phase out nuclear power altogether ! Ak Malten, Pro Peaceful Energy Use The Hague nuclear summit security will be 'tightest ever in Holland' For a greener planet website  For a greener planet ( blog - this blog in: Atom - RSS ) More websites by Ak Malten

Analysts: $1 Trillion U.S. Nuclear-Weapons Plan Too Costly To Implement - Updated 01-18-2014

The U.S. plan for modernizing the nation's nuclear arsenal is so expensive that it cannot be implemented, the authors of a new study contend. "It's just not real," Jeffrey Lewis, one of the report's co-authors, said in reference to the current U.S. modernization blueprint. "It's inconceivable to me that we will execute anything like the plan that they say they're going to do." The analysis, released on Tuesday by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, says the strategy to update the U.S. triad of nuclear-armed bomber aircraft, submarines and ground-based missiles would cost $1 trillion over the next 30 years, even under conservative assumptions. The estimate relies largely on official government figures, the authors say, and does not include costs associated missile defense, nonproliferation efforts and related intelligence programs. Instead, it includes only the cost of maintaining the current U.S. nuclear arsenal, buying replacement systems and upgrading bombs and warheads, as called for by the current plan. Major cost drivers of the $1 trillion plan include a new Long-Range Strike bomber, which the report projects will cost $55-100 billion, and Ohio-class replacement submarines, which the study says could cost $77-102 billion. Among the more controversial items on the modernization agenda are plans to upgrade B-61 gravity bombs stationed in Europe, create a new Long-Range Standoff Cruise missile, and develop a series of new, interoperable warheads capable of replacing multiple weapons now in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Given current budget constraints, implementing all of these plans simultaneously is so unrealistic that attempting it would likely backfire and cause major projects to be canceled midstream, said Lewis, speaking during the study's Tuesday public roll-out. Doing nothing to inject realism into the plans in the near term could ultimately leave aging weapons without replacements, Lewis forecasted. "I do not support unilateral nuclear disarmament, but if I did, [I'd recommend that we] just keep doing exactly what we're doing," Lewis said. "We might really end up with this tiny little denuded force that was developed with no particular strategic thought in mind. "The example I think of is -- we're talking about spending $10-12 billion on the B-61 [bomb] at this moment, at the very time the Air Force is making all kinds of signals that it will not make nuclear-capable the F-35" Joint Strike Fighter or nuclear-certify from the outset the planned new Long-Range Strike bomber, Lewis added. "So, we'll spend $12 billion on a bomb that won't have an airplane to drop it.".... I surely would applaud, if the US continue on this course. LOL! It is like shop till you drop in extreme, coming home with all those unnecessary items which were 50% off... (no offense meant of course). But I would propose to go instead for Zero. Those Nuclear Weapons are useless anyway ! Ak Malten, Pro Peaceful Energy Use Analysts: $1 Trillion U.S. Nuclear-Weapons Plan Too Costly To Implement Related: New Mexico policy group: new study is correct; conclusions widely understood already in government; new study's scope does not include other serious problems; conservatism of study's basic conclusions underscored New study of nuclear deterrent costs: current plans to cost $1 trillion over 30 years, therefore impossible Omnibus spending bill invests heavily in nuclear warheads but falls short of funds requested, signaling shifts and uncertainties as troubles mount, Big money behind war: the military-industrial complex More than 50 years after President Eisenhower's warning, Americans find themselves in perpetual war. And then a via the UNODA spread document: Contrasting Perspectives On Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Europe: Understanding the Current Debates - pdf shows that Tactical Nuclear Weapon Disarmament in Europe could be just around the corner... For a greener planet website  For a greener planet ( blog - this blog in: Atom - RSS ) More websites by Ak Malten