Blog
-
Geiger Readings for Aug 06, 2016
Ambient office = 81 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 67 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 80 nanosieverts per hourSliced almonds from Central Market = 105 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 80 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 74 nanosieverts per hourSockeye salmon – Caught in USA = 114 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Weapons 218 – Donald Trump Is Not Competent To Control U.S. Nuclear Weapons – Part 2 of 2 Parts
Part Two of Two Parts (Please read Part One first)
In another interview, the interviewer raised the question of nuclear arms for Japan and South Korea and expressed concerns about Trump’s statements that he thought that it would be OK for those two countries to develop nuclear arms which could lead to a nuclear arms race in Asia and destabilize the region. Trump said that we had spent a lot of money defending other nations. He said that if those other nations didn’t start paying more for our protection, then we should be ready to withdraw our nuclear shield. The international defense policy of the U.S. has been specifically dedicated to providing a nuclear umbrella for other nations so those other nations would not develop their own nuclear weapons programs. For decades, the U.S. decision makers have believed that it was well worth the money we were spending on defending other nations to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is unclear if Trump was aware of the reasons for this U.S. defense policy but, aware or not, he was clear about being ready to abandon it.
Turning to the Middle East, Trump was asked if he was OK with the idea of Saudi Arabia obtaining nuclear weapons. He said that he didn’t like the idea but brought up the same argument about Japan and South Korea having to pay for our protection or develop their own protection including nuclear weapons. He also said that, being realistic, Saudi Arabia was going to get their own nuclear weapons someday in any case. One big problem with that is the fact that one of the goals of Al Qaeda is to take over Saudi Arabia. If that happens and Saudi Arabia had previously obtained nuclear weapons, then Al Qaeda would acquire nuclear weapons and the whole world be under threat of a nuclear terrorist attack.
Estimates are that a missile attack from Eurasia would get here in about six minutes and a submarine launched attack would take about three minutes. That means that any U.S. President would have, at most, six minutes from being notified of an attack to decide what to do and launch U.S. missiles if that was the response. Even the most intelligent and decisive man would be hard pressed to do well in such circumstances.
Taken together, these statements and responses from Trump indicate an appalling lack of knowledge about nuclear weapons and international affairs. They also demonstrate extremely poor judgement on his part with respect to nuclear weapons and the relationship between nations. In addition, Trump has displayed signs of mental instability that should disqualify him from having control of nuclear weapons. Members of the media, members of the military, the diplomatic corps, the intelligence community, the U.S. Congress and Executive Branch have all raised serious concerns about Trump being totally unsuited to deal with the threat posed by nuclear weapons. Even a majority of the supporters of Trump would not trust him with the nuclear codes to launch U.S. missiles.
Donald Trump:
-
Geiger Readings for Aug 05, 2016
Ambient office = 95 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 119 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 115 nanosieverts per hourIceberg lettuce from Central Market = 67 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 99 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 87 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Weapons 217 – Donald Trump Is Not Competent To Control U.S. Nuclear Weapons – Part 1 of 2 Parts.
Part One of Two Parts:
As Donald Trump says increasingly provocative and bizarre things about international affairs, more and more of his critics question his qualifications for being the President of the United States. One of the most important international issues under discussion has to do with the possible uses of nuclear weapons against future enemies.
When told by an interviewer that he should not be talking about the use of nuclear weapons, Trump responded with “Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?” The reason huge nuclear arsenals were developed during the Cold War was to deter enemies from thinking that they could launch a nuclear attack and escape unscathed. We made the nuclear weapons specifically to prevent nuclear attacks.
When asked by an interviewer if he would ever consider using nuclear weapons in Europe, Trump said that he would be the last to do so but that he would not take that negotiating “card” off the table. Any use of nuclear weapons in Europe would be devastating to the civilian population regardless of who started it.
Trump said during an interview that using nuclear weapons was a last resort but that we needed to be “unpredictable” about the possibility. The problem with that attitude is that such unpredictability increases the likelihood that in an escalating international conflict, one side or the other would be more likely to use nuclear weapons first if the other side was “unpredictable.”
When talking about the possible use of nuclear weapons against ISIS in the Middle East in an inteview, Trump brought up the idea of unpredictability again. ISIS makes a practice of hiding within cities full of civilians. Use of nuclear weapons against such an enemy would result in a terrible loss of innocent civilian lives. And, if your enemy is suicidal, they may not be concerned about the possible use of nuclear weapons against them.
During an interview, Trump answered a question about a possible arms race on the Korean peninsula between North and South Korea by saying that the world is changing and, with respect to nuclear weapons, he said “It’s not like, gee whiz, nobody has them.” That may be true but the detonation of nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula would have devastating effect on both North and South Korea regardless of where the nukes were dropped. Millions of civilians would die. No one would “win” such a war.
The nuclear triad of the U.S. consists of nuclear armed missiles, nuclear bombs and nuclear bombers, and submarines with nuclear tipped missiles. When questioned in depth about which of the three legs of the nuclear triad he would prioritize for modernization, his answer suggested that he had no idea what the nuclear triad even was.
An interviewer asked Trump about foreign aid to Pakistan and the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and has developed nuclear weapons because India, historically an enemy of Pakistan, has nuclear weapons. The interviewer was interested in getting Trump’s thoughts on the use of the substantial foreign aid being supplied to Pakistan by the U.S. for leverage in getting them to reduce their nuclear arsenal. Trump’s response suggested that he really had not thought about it and had no opinion on the subject.
Please read Part 2
Donald Trump:
-
Geiger Readings for Aug 04, 2016
Ambient office = 78 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 88 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 80 nanosieverts per hourRedleaf lettuce from Central Market = 133 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 172 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 143 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Reactors 394 – New Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Calls For Review Of Hinkley Point C Project On Eve Of Contract Signing
I have often blogged before about the Hinkley Point C nuclear power project in Britain. It is like a soap opera or a slow train wreck. The deal, which may cost over thirty billion dollars has been in the works for ten years for EDF, a French-owned utility company, to build two nuclear reactors at the Hinkley Point power plant.
A lack of investors forced EDF to approach the Chinese government for backing for the project. China insisted as part of the deal that they be allowed to build a Chinese design reactor in Britain with Chinese workers. There were complaints about non-European Union countries being involved in the project. U.K. national security officials complained about China having access to Britain’s nuclear infrastructure. U.K. unions complained about Chinese workers who would build the Chinese reactor.
Austria took the U.K. to court over price guarantees for the output of the plant because there are European Union rules against governments subsidizing businesses.
Financial and technical problems have plagued EDF and prevented it from signing the final contracts for months. Members of the board of EDF have resigned saying that they could not sign off on such a big project because of the financial instability of EDF. The French government moved in with guarantees of billions of dollars of support to help EDF. In July, EDF was finally ready to go ahead with the project when the Brexit vote happened in the U.K. and they got a new government.
One of the first actions of the new government was a decision to review the whole Hinkley Point C project. David Cameron, the former Prime Minister of the U.K. was a very strong supporter of nuclear power for the U.K. in general and the Hinkley Point C project in particular. New governments often reconsider and cancel projects championed by old governments, especially if there are strong ideological differences between the two such as is the case with the new U.K. government and Cameron’s administration.
The timing could not be worse for the Hinkley Point C project. After all the problems and delays, all the complaints and opposition, just when it looked like the project contract was finally going to be approved years after it was first broadly agreed to in 2013, it was derailed by the Brexit vote which came out of the blue just at the wrong time.
Theresa May is the new Prime Minister of the U.K. Upon assuming office after the Brexit, she called for a review of the Hinkley Point C project on the grounds that Chinese investment was a potential threat to national security. She personally intervened just before the final contracts were going to be signed between the U.K. and EDF.
May’s action on Hinkley Point C raises international concerns that Britain’s position on various international infrastructure contracts, energy supply contracts and foreign investment in general might change substantially from policies of the former U.K administration. While May’s administration may claim that it is dedicated to fostering international trade and allying fears of a U.K. retreat from previous positions on trade, her actions in halting the finalization of Hinkley Point C have definitely ruffled the feathers of France and China, two of the U.K. major international trading partners.
The Hinkley Point C project Chas had so many problems and opponents that it may never go forward. This would probably be best for the U.K. The massive amount of money slated for Hinkley Point C would be better spent on alternative sustainable energy sources.
Theresa May, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom:
