Should Iran get the bomb?

I always like to read new and mind blowing perspectives on foreign affairs. In addition, I am a dedicated reader of Foreign Affairs for an early age and thus, was more than impatient to read why Kenneth N. Waltz considered that Iran should get the bomb (the nuclear bomb). 

The arguments are simple and the essay is short in comparison with what you can really expect in Foreign Affairs - I am wrong to notice that the famous the author the shorter the essay, it is as the fame will exempt you from expanding your arguments based on your well known credentials? In his opinion, Iran should have the bomb because it will create more responsibilities for the authorities in Tehran and will establish a certain nuclear balance in the region with long term effects on the regional stability. It is like a 'wow' effect, isn't it? How did we not realize it and how there are still people that do not realise the simplicity of the solution. 

But, wait a minute, are we talking about France or Germany, or any other countries with a clear - at least for the next 5 years - democratic perspectives and clear engagement to respect the international rules of behavior? We are talking about a country where, even though some worries about the degree of mental inadequacy could be overrated, continues to be unpredictable and unreliable in its engagement on behalf of the international community. What about a world free of nuclear power? It does not make too much sense for very practical reasons but maybe I will write more about this on a different occasion. 

In an interview for The Diplomat, he explained further his intentions and the perspective on the nuclear balance, but it does not make too much sense from the cultural and historical point of view, as he apparently ignores some basic facts about the reasons why some countries would need to have the bomb and the degree of responsibility in handling it. 

Following this week negotiations, Iran looks as a quiet dove interested in the scientific development. But when it comes to the legal obligarions, the situation is apparently a completely different one. You have a region with a high degree of instability and only one democracy - which is not Iran, by the way. Syria presents already a danger for the region due to the significant stockpile of chemical weapons. In addition, we often forget that Iran is a country with frequent earthquakes and as long as it is no reliable control on their nuclear facilities, you risk a bigger tragedy than in the case of Fukushima. 

In conclusion, even if I enjoyed reading Waltz' piece of opinion, I dare to say that it does not say too much about the reality and even if it would have been an advertorial it blindly ignores almost every chunk of naked reality.

Iran to resume uranium enrichment despite Turkey deal

(CNN) -- Iran will continue to enrich uranium to 20 percent, it said Monday, despite agreeing to ship its low-enriched uranium to Turkey.

Foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told the Islamic Republic News Agency that Iran will not stop making the highly enriched uranium, which is a source of consternation among many Western nations.

Iran said it needs to enrich uranium from its current 3.5 percent to 20 percent because a research reactor that produces isotopes for cancer patients is running out of fuel.

But 20-percent enriched uranium is the threshold for uranium capable of setting off a nuclear reaction. And Western leaders have alleged that Iran is trying to create nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian energy program.

On Sunday, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced he was heading to Iran to join nuclear talks in Tehran involving Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The meeting in Tehran sought to reach a breakthrough in the showdown over Iran's nuclear program, according to Erdogan.

The last-minute trip followed a "signal" from the talks, which are intended to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear energy program, Erdogan told reporters before departing. Erdogan indicated the signal involved Iran's agreement to swap its low-enriched uranium for nuclear fuel, CNN Turk reported.

Erdogan said he hoped an agreement in Tehran would stop the U.N. Security Council from its negotiations on tougher sanctions on Iran.

"The Security Council was contemplating a step in the direction of sanctions as of yesterday," Erdogan said. "As a part of our talks, this has been postponed. Now with this step we are going to take, I hope that we will have the opportunity to overcome these problems."

Iran's official Islamic Republic News Agency made no mention of the nuclear issue in reporting earlier that Lula was sitting down with Ahmadinejad. But French President Nicolas Sarkozy and President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia both have said they back Lula's efforts to resolve the long-running, high-stakes stalemate.

"This could be the last chance before the U.N. Security Council makes the already known decisions," Medvedev said, referring to the U.N. decision on imposing sanctions against Iran.

Sarkozy said earlier that he had spoken with Lula by phone to assure him that Paris supports his efforts to resolve the impasse.

The United States and many other countries believe that Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

On Saturday, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu left for Tehran to join the Iran-Brazil talks. Erdogan said Sunday the anticipated signal from Iran was received and he was changing his schedule to travel to Tehran, postponing a planned visit to Azerbaijan.

Erdogan's statement indicated an agreement in which Iran would send most of its low-enriched uranium to be turned into fuel rods suitable for Turkey's nuclear power reactor that makes medical isotopes.

"After our high-level meeting in Tehran, I believe we will have the opportunity to start the process regarding the swap," Erdogan said. "We said that we will go to Tehran if the swap takes place in Turkey, and we received news that the text includes a reference to this. That's why we are going. Otherwise we wouldn't have gone."

Turkey and Brazil have been working on a joint offer based on the nuclear swap deal offered previously to Tehran. Both countries are temporary members of the U.N. Security Council and have been working toward a diplomatic solution that does not involve sanctions.

Countering Iranian power

with the United Emirates positioning as a new nuclear power in the area.

Obama's Move: Iran and Afghanistan

George Friedman

Stratfor

September 28

During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, now-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said that like all U.S. presidents, Barack Obama would face a foreign policy test early in his presidency if elected. That test is now here.
His test comprises two apparently distinct challenges, one in Afghanistan and one in Iran. While different problems, they have three elements in common. First, they involve the question of his administration’s overarching strategy in the Islamic world. Second, the problems are approaching decision points (and making no decision represents a decision here). And third, they are playing out very differently than Obama expected during the 2008 campaign.

During the campaign, Obama portrayed the Iraq war as a massive mistake diverting the United States from Afghanistan, the true center of the “war on terror.” He accordingly promised to shift the focus away from Iraq and back to Afghanistan. Obama’s views on Iran were more amorphous. He supported the doctrine that Iran should not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons, while at the same time asserted that engaging Iran was both possible and desirable. Embedded in the famous argument over whether offering talks without preconditions was appropriate (something now-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attacked him for during the Democratic primary) was the idea that the problem with Iran stemmed from Washington’s refusal to engage in talks with Tehran.

We are never impressed with campaign positions, or with the failure of the victorious candidate to live up to them. That’s the way American politics work. But in this case, these promises have created a dual crisis that Obama must make decisions about now.

Iran

Back in April, in the midst of the financial crisis, Obama reached an agreement at the G-8 meeting that the Iranians would have until Sept. 24 and the G-20 meeting to engage in meaningful talks with the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany (P-5+1) or face intensely increased sanctions. His administration was quite new at the time, so the amount of thought behind this remains unclear. On one level, the financial crisis was so intense and September so far away that Obama and his team probably saw this as a means to delay a secondary matter while more important fires were flaring up.

But there was more operating than that. Obama intended to try to bridge the gap between the Islamic world and the United States between April and September. In his speech to the Islamic world from Cairo, he planned to show a desire not only to find common ground, but also to acknowledge shortcomings in U.S. policy in the region. With the appointment of special envoys George Mitchell (for Israel and the Palestinian territories) and Richard Holbrooke (for Pakistan and Afghanistan), Obama sought to build on his opening to the Islamic world with intense diplomatic activity designed to reshape regional relationships.

It can be argued that the Islamic masses responded positively to Obama’s opening — it has been asserted to be so and we will accept this — but the diplomatic mission did not solve the core problem. Mitchell could not get the Israelis to move on the settlement issue, and while Holbrooke appears to have made some headway on increasing Pakistan’s aggressiveness toward the Taliban, no fundamental shift has occurred in the Afghan war.

Most important, no major shift has occurred in Iran’s attitude toward the United States and the P-5+1 negotiating group. In spite of Obama’s Persian New Year address to Iran, the Iranians did not change their attitude toward the United States. The unrest following Iran’s contested June presidential election actually hardened the Iranian position. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remained president with the support of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while the so-called moderates seemed powerless to influence their position. Perceptions that the West supported the demonstrations have strengthened Ahmadinejad’s hand further, allowing him to paint his critics as pro-Western and himself as an Iranian nationalist.

But with September drawing to a close, talks have still not begun. Instead, they will begin Oct. 1. And last week, the Iranians chose to announce that not only will they continue work on their nuclear program (which they claim is not for military purposes), they have a second, hardened uranium enrichment facility near Qom. After that announcement, Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy held a press conference saying they have known about the tunnel for several months, and warned of stern consequences.

This, of course, raises the question of what consequences. Obama has three choices in this regard.

First, he can impose crippling sanctions against Iran. But that is possible only if the Russians cooperate. Moscow has the rolling stock and reserves to supply all of Iran’s fuel needs if it so chooses, and Beijing can also remedy any Iranian fuel shortages. Both Russia and China have said they don’t want sanctions; without them on board, sanctions are meaningless.

Second, Obama can take military action against Iran, something easier politically and diplomatically for the United States to do itself rather than rely on Israel. By itself, Israel cannot achieve air superiority, suppress air defenses, attack the necessary number of sites and attempt to neutralize Iranian mine-laying and anti-ship capability all along the Persian Gulf. Moreover, if Israel struck on its own and Iran responded by mining the Strait of Hormuz, the United States would be drawn into at least a naval war with Iran — and probably would have to complete the Israeli airstrikes, too.

And third, Obama could choose to do nothing (or engage in sanctions that would be the equivalent of doing nothing). Washington could see future Iranian nuclear weapons as an acceptable risk. But the Israelis don’t, meaning they would likely trigger the second scenario. It is possible that the United States could try to compel Israel not to strike — though it’s not clear whether Israel would comply — something that would leave Obama publicly accepting Iran’s nuclear program.

And this, of course, would jeopardize Obama’s credibility. It is possible for the French or Germans to waffle on this issue; no one is looking to them for leadership. But for Obama simply to acquiesce to Iranian nuclear weapons, especially at this point, would have significant diplomatic and domestic political ramifications. Simply put, Obama would look weak — and that, of course, is why the Iranians announced the second nuclear site. They read Obama as weak, and they want to demonstrate their own resolve. That way, if the Russians were thinking of cooperating with the United States on sanctions, Moscow would be seen as backing the weak player against the strong one. The third option, doing nothing, therefore actually represents a significant action.

Afghanistan

In a way, the same issue is at stake in Afghanistan. Having labeled Afghanistan as critical — indeed, having campaigned on the platform that the Bush administration was fighting the wrong war — it would be difficult for Obama to back down in Afghanistan. At the same time, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has reported that without a new strategy and a substantial increase in troop numbers, failure in Afghanistan is likely.

The number of troops being discussed, 30,000-40,000, would bring total U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan to just above the number of troops the Soviet Union deployed there in its war (just under 120,000) — a war that ended in failure. The new strategy being advocated would be one in which the focus would not be on the defeat of the Taliban by force of arms, but the creation of havens for the Afghan people and protecting those havens from the Taliban.

A move to the defensive when time is on your side is not an unreasonable strategy. But it is not clear that time is on Western forces’ side. Increased offensives are not weakening the Taliban. But halting attacks and assuming that the Taliban will oblige the West by moving to the offensive, thereby opening itself to air and artillery strikes, probably is not going to happen. And while assuming that the country will effectively rise against the Taliban out of the protected zones the United States has created is interesting, it does not strike us as likely. The Taliban is fighting the long war because it has nowhere else to go. Its ability to maintain military and political cohesion following the 2001 invasion has been remarkable. And betting that the Pakistanis will be effective enough to break the Taliban’s supply lines is hardly the most prudent bet.

In short, Obama’s commander on the ground has told him the current Afghan strategy is failing. He has said that unless that strategy changes, more troops won’t help, and that a change of strategy will require substantially more troops. But when we look at the proposed strategy and the force levels, it is far from obvious that even that level of commitment will stand a chance of achieving meaningful results quickly enough before the forces of Washington’s NATO allies begin to withdraw and U.S. domestic resolve erodes further.

Obama has three choices in Afghanistan. He can continue to current strategy and force level, hoping to prolong failure long enough for some undefined force to intervene. He can follow McChrystal’s advice and bet on the new strategy. Or he can withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan. Once again, doing nothing — the first option — is doing something quite significant.

The Two Challenges Come Together

The two crises intermingle in this way: Every president is tested in foreign policy, sometimes by design and sometimes by circumstance. Frequently, this happens at the beginning of his term as a result of some problem left by his predecessor, a strategy adopted in the campaign or a deliberate action by an antagonist. How this happens isn’t important. What is important is that Obama’s test is here. Obama at least publicly approached the presidency as if many of the problems the United States faced were due to misunderstandings about or the thoughtlessness of the United States. Whether this was correct is less important than that it left Obama appearing eager to accommodate his adversaries rather than confront them.

No one has a clear idea of Obama’s threshold for action.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban takes the view that the British and Russians left, and that the Americans will leave, too. We strongly doubt that the force level proposed by McChrystal will be enough to change their minds. Moreover, U.S. forces are limited, with many still engaged in Iraq. In any case, it isn’t clear what force level would suffice to force the Taliban to negotiate or capitulate — and we strongly doubt that there is a level practical to contemplate.

In Iran, Ahmadinejad clearly perceives that challenging Obama is low-risk and high reward. If he can finally demonstrate that the United States is unwilling to take military action regardless of provocations, his own domestic situation improves dramatically, his relationship with the Russians deepens, and most important, his regional influence — and menace — surges. If Obama accepts Iranian nukes without serious sanctions or military actions, the American position in the Islamic world will decline dramatically. The Arab states in the region rely on the United States to protect them from Iran, so U.S. acquiescence in the face of Iranian nuclear weapons would reshape U.S. relations in the region far more than a hundred Cairo speeches.

There are four permutations Obama might choose in response to the dual crisis. He could attack Iran and increase forces in Afghanistan, but he might well wind up stuck in a long-term war in Afghanistan. He could avoid that long-term war by withdrawing from Afghanistan and also ignore Iran’s program, but that would leave many regimes reliant on the United States for defense against Iran in the lurch. He could increase forces in Afghanistan and ignore Iran — probably yielding the worst of all possible outcomes, namely, a long-term Afghan war and an Iran with a nuclear program if not nuclear weapons.

On pure logic, history or politics aside, the best course is to strike Iran and withdraw from Afghanistan. That would demonstrate will in the face of a significant challenge while perhaps reshaping Iran and certainly avoiding a drawn-out war in Afghanistan. Of course, it is easy for those who lack power and responsibility — and the need to govern — to provide logical choices. But the forces closing in on Obama are substantial, and there are many competing considerations in play.

Presidents eventually arrive at the point where something must be done, and where doing nothing is very much doing something. At this point, decisions can no longer be postponed, and each choice involves significant risk. Obama has reached that point, and significantly, in his case, he faces a double choice. And any decision he makes will reverberate.

North Korea's bomb test seen as troubling progress

Pamela Hess

AP

May 27

Based on what appears to be a successful test of an atomic bomb more powerful than the one North Korea detonated in 2006, former U.S. government and independent analysts say the North's technical skills are improving slightly.

Of greater concern, according to national security adviser James L. Jones, is the possibility that North Korea could sell or share its nuclear technology with others. He would not say whether the U.S. intelligence community judged the test to be a significant step forward.

"The fact that they have this kind of technology and are obviously willing to export it is very troubling," Jones told reporters Tuesday.

The U.S. government remains officially mum on technical details about the underground blast that took place Monday in North Korea. It could be days or weeks before radioactive gases from the underground test are detected and analyzed by U.S. and allied intelligence.

North Korea appears to be marginally closer to having both a nuclear warhead and the means of delivering it to the United States or U.S. allies in the Pacific. In April, Pyongyang launched a long-range missile in what represented a modest improvement over earlier missile tests. The government reported launching a series of short-range missiles on Tuesday.

The nuclear test proves that North Korea's basic warhead design works, said Charles Vick, a missile expert with Global Security.org. The next challenge is reducing its weight by about half, and then integrating the warhead onto a missile.

North Korea has said it has begun harvesting plutonium from spent fuel rods at its main nuclear plant to build up its atomic arsenal. It is thought to have enough weaponized plutonium to make more than a half-dozen atomic bombs.

In its official announcement of the test, North Korea said the explosion was larger than its 2006 test. Publicly available information supports that.

The U.S. Geological Survey recorded a seismic event — equivalent to an earthquake with a roughly 4.6 on the Richter scale — near the test site. The 2006 test registered roughly 4.1, according to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization, an arms control group.

Martin Kalinowski, a Hamburg University professor, says that corresponds to an explosive yield of about 3 to 8 kilotons of TNT, with a yield most likely of 4 kilotons.

That would be considerably higher than the half-kiloton yield in 2006. One kiloton is the equivalent of exploding 1,000 tons of TNT. For comparison, the U.S. nuclear bombs detonated in Japan during World War II ranged between 15 to 21 kilotons.

Jeffrey Lewis, director of nuclear strategy initiative at the New America Foundation, a think tank in Washington, cautioned that "it's really hard to know what the yield actually is." He said it might be as low as 1.5 kilotons.

Lewis described the range as "somewhere between what you wouldn't want dropped on your neighborhood, but it's nowhere near what was dropped on Hiroshima."

Discussions about yield and capability are somewhat beside the point, he added. The fact that North Korea has a weapon, and its intentions for it are unclear, are the true concerns.

"What's frightening is that they have a nuclear weapon, the uncertainty that comes from having a nuclear weapon, not the capability itself," said Lewis.

North Korea's nuclear test forced the Pentagon to scrap much of its planning for a meeting Saturday in Singapore among Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his Japanese and South Korean counterparts.

"Undoubtedly, the developments in North Korea over the weekend will be a focus of that conversation," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters. He said it was believed to be the first discussion among the three nations' defense chiefs.

Associated Press writers Robert Burns and Lara Jakes contributed to this report.

U.S. wants Israel, India in anti-nuclear arms treaty

Louis Charbonneau
Reuters
May 5

India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel should join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the global pact meant to limit the spread of atomic weapons, a senior U.S. official said on Tuesday.

Speaking on the second day of a two-week meeting of the 189 signatories of the pact, Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller also defended a U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal, which developing nations have complained rewards New Delhi for staying outside the NPT.

"Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea ... remains a fundamental objective of the United States," Gottemoeller told the meeting, which hopes to agree on an agenda and plan to overhaul the treaty at a review conference next year.

Speaking to reporters later, she declined to say whether Washington would take any new steps to press Israel to join the treaty and give up any nuclear weapons it has. Israel neither confirms nor denies whether it has what arms control experts assume to be a sizable atomic arsenal.

The administration of President Barack Obama was encouraging all holdouts to join the treaty, she said.

Nuclear-armed India and Pakistan have never signed the treaty. North Korea withdrew from it in 2003 and tested a nuclear device in 2006.

At the NPT meeting, developing countries have criticized the endorsement of the U.S.-India nuclear agreement by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, an informal club of the world's top producers of nuclear-related technology.

The group agreed in September to lift a ban on nuclear trade with India, imposed after New Delhi's first nuclear test in 1974.

Delegates from poor nations complain that the endorsement was tantamount to rewarding India for remaining outside the treaty and secretly developing nuclear weapons. In contrast, they say, developing states are denied access to sensitive technology because they are often deemed proliferation risks.

No mention of Iran

Gottemoeller defended the agreement. "India is coming closer to the non-proliferation regime," she said.

She cited India's willingness to work with Washington in pushing for a binding international treaty that would prohibit the further production of bomb-grade nuclear material and by improving its nuclear export controls.

Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad Ali Hosseini on Monday railed against the United States and what he said was its continued nuclear support for the "Zionist regime" (Israel). Western diplomats called this an attempt to divert attention away from its own nuclear program.

In failing to mention Iran even once in her speech, Gottemoeller broke from a tradition established by the administration of former President George W. Bush, which had used NPT meetings to criticise Iran and North Korea.

Gottemoeller said that Iran came up indirectly in her statement when she spoke of the need for "consequences for those breaking the rules or withdrawing from the treaty."

Obama has offered Iran's leaders direct talks on a wide range of issues, including its nuclear program. Tehran has reacted coolly to the U.S. overtures nearly three decades after Washington severed ties with Tehran during a hostage crisis.

The West suspects Iran is developing weapons under cover of a civilian atomic energy program, a charge Tehran denies.

Gottemoeller also reiterated commitments to disarmament that Obama made in a speech in Prague last month. She said the United States would continue its two-decade long moratorium on testing nuclear explosives and urged others to follow suit.

Nuke talks useless, NKorea tells Russia: report

AFP
April 24

North Korea has told Russia's visiting foreign minister that it has no further use for international nuclear disarmament talks, according to the communist state's official media.

Sergei Lavrov is trying to persuade Pyongyang to return to the six-nation negotiations, but reported tough going after talks with his counterpart Pak Ui-Chun Thursday.

Pyongyang's foreign ministry, in a statement on the Korean Central News Agency, said Lavrov's team had "paid attention to the DPRK's (North Korea's) position that it no longer needs six-party talks."

The Russian is the first high-level official to visit the North since it announced it was quitting the talks and would restart a programme to make weapons-grade plutonium.

The North was reacting angrily to United Nations condemnation of its April 5 rocket launch, which it says put a satellite in orbit. Other nations saw it as a disguised missile test.

Russia and China, which have traditionally had friendly ties with North Korea, resisted pressure for a binding UN resolution in response to the launch.

But they supported a statement which condemned Pyongyang and tightened existing sanctions.

According to the foreign ministry, Lavrov in his talks with Pak reaffirmed Russia's position that it opposes UN sanctions against the North.

"Both sides recognised a satellite launch as the sovereign right of each country," it added.

Russia is involved in the six-nation talks, which also include the two Koreas, China, Japan and the United States.

"So far we do not expect any immediate breakthroughs," Russian news agencies quoted Lavrov as saying after meeting his counterpart.

"It is a difficult situation but one does not need to succumb to emotions and should concentrate on the foundation we already have."

He flies to South Korea later Friday to brief Foreign Minister Yu Myung-Hwan.

The North's military believes the six-party talks failed to ease the threat posed by the US military, according to Chosun Sinbo, a pro-Pyongyang newspaper published in Japan which generally reflects official thinking.

Tensions caused by the rocket launch proves its stance was right, it said.

From now the army will exercise a greater influence over nuclear policies, the paper said, suggesting there could be another nuclear test.

Chosun Sinbo said the Obama administration must try to eradicate the distrust of the North's army if it wants to avoid following in the footsteps of its predecessor, which drove North Korea to conduct a nuclear test.

Pyongyang will further cement its status as a nuclear state, the paper said, recalling that the first test in 2006 followed UN sanctions.

See also:

Russian Centre opens in North Korean Capital

Japan prepares crisis steps for NKorea missile

The Associated Press, International Herald Tribune

March 26

TOKYO: Cities on the northern Japanese coast are setting up hot lines and emergency headquarters and conducting safety drills to prepare for possible falling debris from North Korea's planned rocket launch, officials said Thursday.

North Korea has said it will launch a communications satellite between April 4-8, and has designated waters off northern Japan as a risk zone for falling fragments.

Japan and its allies have said the launch is intended to also test long-range ballistic missile technology. The government is readying an order to deploy a missile shield, including interceptors, to protect against debris that might fall short and hit Japan. The order is expected Friday.

"We are preparing to do everything we can to protect the safety and lives of the people," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Takeo Kawamura.

Japan is also set to shift some of the batteries of PAC-3 land-to-air missiles, now in around Tokyo, to the north coast and send a pair of destroyers carrying missile interceptors to nearby waters.

In the meantime, locals are getting ready.

Pyongyang has designated the waters off northern Akita and Iwate prefectures (states) as a risk zone for falling fragments, and officials in Iwate have set up hot lines connecting town offices and increased overnight staffing before and during the scheduled launch dates.

They have also reviewed contingency measures to deal with possible damage.

Some said there was little they could do.

"The problem is that we have no idea if it will hit us or where it will land until it happens," said prefectural disaster management official Shuzo Koshino. "We won't have time for evacuation or to do anything. Where do we evacuate to, anyway? We don't have underground shelters."

Koshino said many people are concerned about safety, as the launch dates overlap with the beginning of the country's school year, when many ceremonies are planned for new students.

"We must be prepared, but we don't want to incite fear among citizens or restrict their activity," he said. "We just have to believe that the chance of being hit by missile debris is smaller than getting hit by a car. Otherwise, you can't leave your house."

In Tottori on Japan's northwestern coast, officials held an emergency drill Wednesday.

Japan has also warned of additional sanctions against North Korea if the country went ahead with a launch, and the Japanese parliament is set to issue a statement Friday urging the North to scrap the launch, which Japan says violates a U.N. Security Council resolution barring North Korea from any ballistic missile development activity.

Japan imposed tight trade sanctions against Pyongyang in 2006 after it tested ballistic missiles in waters between the two countries and conducted an atomic test. Japan's current sanctions, which have been extended every six months, are set to expire April 13.

SCENARIOS-What next in Pakistan?

Reuters
March 16

Pakistan's government agreed on Monday to reinstate Iftikhar Chaudhry as chief justice in a surprise move to defuse a crisis and end agitation by lawyers and activists.

The decision is seen as a climb-down by President Asif Ali Zardari, who had long resisted reinstating the judge, fearing Chaudhry could undermine his position, and a victory for his main rival, opposition leader and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
Tension will linger between Zardari and Sharif whose parties, the countries' two biggest, have long been rivals. Analysts say there is no trust between the men and both are hard-nosed political battlers.

Following are some scenarios for the nuclear-armed country which is also struggling to stem Islamist militancy and revive a flagging economy:



Tension over the Sharifs' eligibility


A main issue that could inflame tension is the question of the eligibility of Sharif and his brother, Shahbaz, to hold elected office.

A Supreme Court ruling last month barred the Sharifs from elected office and triggered this crisis. The Sharifs said Zardari was behind the ruling that was based on old convictions they say were politically motivated.

In a first step toward reconciliation, the government said on Saturday it would seek a review of that court ruling. Tension will build if the Sharifs are not made eligible for election quickly.


Conflict over Punjab


Another, related source of tension between Zardari and Sharif is control of Punjab, Pakistan's most populous and politically important province, returning more than half the members of the National Assembly.

Last month's Supreme Court ruling nullified a by-election victory by Shahbaz Sharif, and disqualified him from holding the office of chief minister of Punjab. The Sharif party's government was thrown out of power in the province and Zardari imposed central rule there for two months.

The Sharifs' party is the biggest in the provincial assembly but it does not have a majority. Zardari's PPP is second biggest while a party set up to support former President Pervez Musharraf holds the balance of power.

A bid by Zardari for control of Punjab would spark a political battle with the Sharifs. Control of the province was a main source of conflict between the two parties in the turbulent 1990s.


Legal problems

Chaudhry earned a reputation as an independent-minded maverick that eventually led former President Pervez Musharraf to sack him. Similarly, Zardari has feared that if Chaudhry was restored he would rule Musharraf an illegal president and overturn an amnesty the general had given him and his wife in 2007 to allow them to return to Pakistan without fear of prosecution on old corruption cases they said were politically motivated. Analysts expect Chaudhry to be cautious and make no hasty moves to rake up old controversy, but they also say he might not be able to prevent the revival of legal challenges to Zardari's amnesty. That could spark tension between the president and the judiciary. If the amnesty was ruled illegal, that could result in cases against the president being resurrected, a prominent lawyer said.


More stable politics

Optimistic analysts say Chaudhry's return has restored faith in Pakistan's democracy and political order and that will contribute to stability. They point to the constructive role of a growing middle class, civil society groups and the media. They also point to the role of army chief General Ashfaq Kayani, who was involved in negotiations that led to the judge's restoration. Whereas in the past, military leaders might have been looking for an excuse to step in and take power, Kayani's help in defusing tension might show a new kind of power structure was evolving. Zardari, though weakened, is seen as a survivor who can live with the setback to his credibility. Sharif, at least in the short term, may not want to be seen grasping for power after taking what was seen as a principled and widely popular stand on Chaudhry's restoration, the optimists say.

Kuwait says eyes nuclear cooperation with France

Reuters

March 13

Kuwait will cooperate with France in the field of nuclear power, the deputy prime minister of the Gulf nation said on Friday, hinting it could take a stake in French nuclear group Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).

Speaking after a meeting with President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sheikh Jaber Moubarak Al-Hamad Al-Sabah said the two leaders had discussed the possible purchase of French military material and the issue of energy and nuclear reactors.

Asked if Kuwait would cooperate with France in the domain of nuclear energy for civilian use, he said: "Yes."

In response to a question on whether Kuwait was among the Gulf countries that could envisage taking a stake in Areva, he said: "These are economic subjects that will be discussed by the specialists of these areas, but it is not far from the truth."

Last month, Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah told daily newspaper al-Watan Kuwait was considering developing nuclear power with the help of a French company to meet demand for electricity and water desalination.

"A French firm is studying the issue," the paper quoted him as saying.

The ruler of the oil-rich Gulf Arab state would only put nuclear power -- which he said would save a lot of wasted fuel in electricity and water desalination plants -- to civilian use, according to the paper.

The emir did not specifically refer to any French firm in his published remarks.

The Financial Times said this week the French government was considering opening the share capital of Areva to Middle Eastern investment funds with a view to reinforcing its political influence and the nuclear group's prospects in the region.

Exploratory talks had been held about the possibility of sovereign wealth funds buying minority stakes of 1 to 5 percent in Areva, which is majority owned by the French government, the FT said, citing people close to the matter.

See also:

Financial Times

Iraq invites France back to build nuclear plant

AFP

February 23

Electricity Minister Karim Wahid on Sunday invited France to help Iraq build a nuclear power plant, three decades after Paris constructed a reactor near Baghdad that was bombed by Israeli warplanes.

"We have had very good relationships with French companies," the minister told AFP in an interview.

"I am willing to enter into contacts with the French nuclear agency and to start to build a nuclear power plant, because the future is nuclear," he said. "This is my perspective."

Under former dictator Saddam Hussein, Iraq sealed a 1976 deal with France to build the Osirak nuclear reactor, where construction started in 1979.

But in June 1981, during the Iran-Iraq war, Israel sent warplanes to bomb the unfinished reactor south of the Iraqi capital, charging that Saddam's aim was to build nuclear weapons.

Then French premier Jacques Chirac cultivated a special relationship with Iraq during the 1970s. As French president two decades later, he opposed the US-led invasion which toppled Saddam over alleged weapons of mass destruction.

"France has not shown up yet (in post-Saddam Iraq). They will come hopefully," said Wahid, adding that France, whose President Nicolas Sarkozy visited Baghdad on February 10, had "been a good friend to Iraq."

"My coming here is to tell French companies: the time has come, come and invest," Sarkozy told a joint news conference with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on the first ever visit to Iraq by a French president.

Sarkozy said a large French business delegation would follow him to Baghdad by the end of the summer. Defence, energy and water were all key sectors for cooperation with Iraq, he said.

"We are ready to listen to the requests of the Iraqis."

Wahid also invited French companies to invest. "We have many projects to be announced for investments," he said, singling out "power generation investment called IPP," or independent power producers.

Sweeping away the Saddam era, the government last year sold and transported its uranium concentrate -- or "yellow cake," which is partially processed uranium ore -- to Cameco of Canada.

"We no longer need this material accumulated by the former regime," Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told AFP.

Oil-rich Iraq, which has the world's third largest known reserves but whose budget has been hit by the slump in world prices, still has to clean up the last radioactive waste at the former plant.

The accidental encounter between The Vanguard and Le Triomphant

The first such event after the end of the Cold War, a British and a French nuclear subs collided.

TIME's question: Why if did they had a better communication?

BBC: Q&A Submarine Collision

Pakistani Nuclear Scientist Freed From House Arrest

Zahid Hussain
The Wall Street Journal



A Pakistani court Friday freed Abdul Qadeer Khan, the scientist who had confessed to selling nuclear weapon technology to Iran, North Korea, and Libya, ending his five year house detention.

Sardar Mohammad Aslam, chief justice of the Islamabad High Court, ruled that Mr. Khan's detention was unlawful. Details of the ruling are confidential. Mr. Khan's lawyer said the high court had declared him a free citizen.

"The court has said as he was not involved in nuclear proliferation or criminal activity, there is no case against him, therefore he is a free citizen," Mr. Khan's attorney Ali Zafar said.

The decision came after a closed door hearing on a petition filed by the scientist. The restriction was lifted after Mr. Khan agreed not to speak on nuclear issues. In July, the court had relaxed restrictions on him, allowing him to meet his close relatives.

State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid said the U.S. opposes Mr. Khan's release. "If he is released, we think it would be extremely regrettable. This man remains a serious proliferation risk," Mr. Duguid said.


Mr. Khan was seen as Pakistan's national hero after a successful nuclear test in May 1998 that established the predominantly Muslim nation as the world's seventh nuclear power. He was hailed as father of the country's nuclear bomb.

But he fell from grace when he admitted on national television to selling nuclear technology to other countries. He later backtracked on his confession saying it was extracted under duress.

Mr. Khan, 72 years old, was placed under house detention in February 2004.

"I am a free man now," Mr. Khan told reporters outside his villa in Islamabad where he lived in confinement.

Mr. Khan declined to comment on the allegations about his role in nuclear proliferation. "I don't want to discuss the past," he said. He said he would work for promotion of education in the country.

Mr. Khan allegedly supervised a vast clandestine nuclear black market network with tentacles spread over three continents. With the help of middlemen in various countries, the network allegedly supplied nuclear material to Libya, Iran and North Korea.

For almost three decades, the U.S. and Western intelligence agencies had been investigating Mr. Khan's role in nuclear proliferation. Investigations also revealed his links to Iranian, Libyan and North Korean nuclear programs.

A statement from Pakistan's foreign ministry said the government would provide Mr. Khan with "all requisite security." It said Pakistan has taken "all necessary measures to promote the goals of nonproliferation. The so called A.Q. Khan affair is a closed chapter."