Government
Russia is violating the last remaining nuclear treaty with the US, according to Washington
Russia’s refusal to allow the US to inspect its nuclear arsenal could reignite pressure for the US to develop new nuclear weapons.
Share this:
After decades of progress on limiting the buildup of nuclear weapons, Russia’s war on Ukraine has prompted renewed nuclear tensions between Russia and the U.S.
The U.S. State Department told Congress on Jan. 31, 2023, that Russia is not complying with the countries’ last remaining nuclear arms agreement, which was renewed for five years in 2021. Russia has denied these accusations and accused the U.S. of violations as well.
This agreement, known as New START, is critical to nuclear cooperation and preventing a new arms race. It is the only remaining agreement between the U.S. and Russia limiting the development of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. It allows both countries to regularly, and with limited advance notice, inspect each other’s nuclear weapons arsenals.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly ignited concern that Russia’s setbacks during its nearly year-old war with Ukraine – as well as Western involvement in the conflict – could result in Russia launching a nuclear attack on Ukraine or another country in the West.
A single nuclear weapon today in a major city could immediately kill anywhere from 52,000 to several million people, depending on the weapon’s size.
I have worked on and researched nuclear nonproliferation for two decades.
Convincing countries to reduce their nuclear weapons stockpiles or renounce the pursuit of this ultimate weapon has always been extremely difficult.
A history of nonproliferation
The Soviet Union, U.S., United Kingdom, France, Israel and China had active nuclear weapons programs in the 1960s.
Countries recognized the risk of a nuclear war in the future.
Sixty-two countries initially agreed to what’s been called the “Grand Bargain” in 1967, an essential element of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. One hundred and ninety-one countries eventually signed this treaty.
The agreement prevented the spread of nuclear weapons to countries that didn’t already have them by 1967. Countries with nuclear weapons, like the U.S. and the U.K., agreed to end their nuclear arms race and work toward eventual disarmament, meaning the destruction of all nuclear weapons.
This landmark agreement laid the groundwork for agreements between the U.S. and the Soviet Union to further reduce their nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. It also stopped other countries from developing and testing nuclear weapons until the end of the Cold War.
Israel, India and Pakistan never joined the agreement due to regional security concerns. They all now possess nuclear weapons. North Korea withdrew from the agreement and developed nuclear weapons.
Some successes
There have been major achievements in preventing countries from gaining nuclear weapons and dramatically reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles since the Cold War.
The global nuclear stockpile has been reduced by 82% since 1986, from a peak of 70,300, with nearly all of the reductions in the U.S. and Russia, who held the largest stockpiles at the time.
Globally there are now around 12,700 nuclear weapons, with about 90% held by Russia and the U.S. – or between 5,000 to 6,000 weapons each.
Several other countries have nuclear weapons, and most of them have a few hundred weapons each, including the United Kingdom, France and China – though China has been building up its nuclear stockpile. Newer nuclear countries like India, Pakistan and Israel have around 100 each, while North Korea has around 20.
Starting in the late 1960s, countries agreed to more than a dozen legally binding agreements, or treaties, that limited new countries from getting nuclear weapons and prohibited nuclear weapons testing, among other measures.
But they have not reduced the number of nuclear weapons with short-range missiles.
No agreements cover these weapons, which could also cause widespread destruction and deaths.
U.S.-Russia cooperation declines
U.S.-Russia engagement on nuclear weapons changed when Russia forcibly annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.
Russia built up land missiles in Kaliningrad, an enclave of Russia in the middle of Eastern Europe, in 2014.
The U.S. and NATO then accused Russia of violating a 1987 nuclear agreement on short- and intermediate-range land missiles. From Russia, these could travel between 500 to 5,500 kilometers (311 to 3,418 miles), hitting targets as far as London.
The U.S. also terminated this agreement in 2019 due to reported Russian violations. Now, there are no international nuclear agreements in Europe.
The New START agreement, signed by Russia and the U.S., remains the one main strategic nuclear weapons agreement in place. It was to continue until at least 2026. But, the recent State Department report to Congress on Russia’s alleged violations of the treaty raises questions about whether this agreement will survive.
The U.S. says that it cannot make certain that Russia is in compliance with the deal since Putin is “refusing to permit the United States to conduct inspection activities on Russian territory.”
The U.S. and Russia halted all inspections of each other’s nuclear weapon sites and operations in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In November 2022, Russia canceled talks to resume inspections. The U.S. considers these violations of the agreement, but not an altogether outright material breach of the treaty.
Impact of Ukraine war
The U.S. and Russia’s arms control regime was successful in the Cold War because it included significant verification mechanisms – direct inspections of each party’s nuclear arsenal with less than 24 hours’ notice.
Russia and the U.S. have conducted 306 inspections since New START took effect in 2011. Without New START, all inspections of nuclear bases and support facilities will end.
During nuclear talks in 1987, President Ronald Reagan translated a Russian maxim, saying, “trust, but verify,” the foundation of the nuclear arms control regime.
If the U.S. and Russia are no longer transparent about their nuclear arsenals and developments, pressure for both countries to develop new nuclear weapons and delivery systems will increase, along with the risk of miscalculations.
While the U.S. State Department declares that Russia has a “clear path” for returning to compliance, the war in Ukraine complicates this effort.
Anatoly Antonov, the Russia ambassador to the U.S., for example, has said that Western assistance to Ukraine impacts the New START treaty. “There can be no progress on arms control without the United States reconsidering its policy of inflicting strategic defeat on Russia,” he said.
While Putin has not followed through on his threat of a nuclear strike, the potential for a nuclear attack has meant the U.S. and NATO have responded to Russia’s attack on Ukraine with this lingering threat in mind.
The U.S. and NATO members announced in January 2023 plans to escalate their military assistance to Ukraine, sending 120 to 140 Western-made tanks, alongside other war machinery. This might signal a change to the U.S.‘ and NATO countries’ strategy, so far, of limiting their direct support to Ukraine and avoiding further escalation with Russia in the conflict.
This is an updated version of an article originally published on April 8, 2022.
Nina Srinivasan Rathbun does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
congress pandemic covid-19 testing spread deaths india europe france russia ukraine china
Government
As We Sell Off Our Strategic Oil Reserves, Ponder This
As We Sell Off Our Strategic Oil Reserves, Ponder This
Authored by Bruce Wilds via Advancing Time blog,
One of Biden’s answers to combating…
Share this:
Authored by Bruce Wilds via Advancing Time blog,
One of Biden's answers to combating higher gas prices has been to tap into America's oil reserves. While I was never a fan of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) program, it does have a place in our toolbox of weapons. We can use the reserve to keep the country running if outside oil supplies are cut off. Still, considering how out of touch with reality Washington has become, we can only imagine the insane types of services it would deem essential next time an oil shortage occurs.
Sadly, some of these reserves found their way into the export market and ended up in China. We now have proof that the President's son Hunter had a Chinese Communist Party member as his assistant while dealing with the Chinese. Apparently, he played a role in the shipping of American natural gas to China in 2017. It seems the Biden family was promising business associates that they would be rewarded once Biden became president. Biden's actions could be viewed as those of a traitor or at least disqualify him from being President.
The following information was contained in a letter from House Oversight Committee ranking member James Comer, R-Ky. to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen dated Sept. 20.
"The President has not only misled the American public about his past foreign business transactions, but he also failed to disclose that he played a critical role in arranging a business deal to sell American natural resources to the Chinese while planning to run for President.”
Joe Biden, Comer said, was a business partner in the arrangement and had office space to work on the deal, and a firm he managed received millions from his Chinese partners ahead of the anticipated venture. While part of what Comer stated had previously been reported in the news, the letter, cited whistleblower testimonies, as well as emails, a corporate PowerPoint presentation, and a screenshot of encrypted messages. These as well as bank documents that committee Republicans obtained suggest Biden’s knowledge and involvement in the plan dated back to at least 2017.
The big point here is;
- The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which was established in 1975 due to the 1973 oil embargo, is now at its lowest level since December 1983.
In December 1975, with memories of gas lines fresh on the minds of Americans following the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, Congress established the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). It was designed “to reduce the impact of severe energy supply interruptions.” What are the implications of depleting the SPR and is it still important?
The U.S. government began to fill the reserve and it hit its high point in 2010 at around 726.6 million barrels. Since December 1984, this is the first time the level has been lower than 450 million barrels. Draining the SPR has been a powerful tool for the administration in its effort to tame the price of gasoline. It also signaled a "new era" of intervention on the part of the White House.
This brings front-and-center questions concerning the motivation of those behind this action. One of the implications of Biden's war on high oil prices is that it has short-circuited the fossil investment/supply development process. Capital expenditures among the five largest oil and gas companies have fallen as the price of oil has come under fire. The current under-investment in this sector is one of the reasons oil prices are likely to take a big jump in a few years. Production from existing wells is expected to rapidly fall.
The Supply Of Oil Is Far More Constant And Inelastic Than Demand
It is important to remember when it comes to oil, the supply is far more constant and inelastic than the demand. This means that it takes time and investment to bring new wells online while demand can rapidly change. This happened during the pandemic when countries locked down and told their populations and told them to stay at home. This resulted in the price of oil temporarily going negative because there was nowhere to store it.
Draining oil from the strategic reserve is a short-sighted and dangerous choice that will impact America's energy security at times of global uncertainty. In an effort to halt inflationary forces, Biden released a huge amount of crude oil from the SPR to artificially suppress fuel prices ahead of the midterm elections.
To date, Biden has dumped more SPR on the market than all previous presidents combined reducing the reserves to levels not seen since the early 1980s. In spite of how I feel about the inefficiencies of this program, it does serve a vital role. It is difficult to underestimate the importance of a country's ability to rapidly increase its domestic flow of oil. This defensive action protects its economy and adds to its resilience.
Biden's actions have put the whole country at risk. Critics of his policy pointed out the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was designed for use in an emergency not as a tool to manipulate elections. Another one of Biden's goals may be to bring about higher oil prices to reduce its use and accelerate the use of high-cost green energy.
Either way, Biden's war on oil has not made America's energy policies more efficient or the country stronger.
Government
The Disinformation-Industrial Complex Vs Domestic Terror
The Disinformation-Industrial Complex Vs Domestic Terror
Authored by Ben Weingarten via RealClearInvestigations.com,
Combating disinformation…
Share this:
Authored by Ben Weingarten via RealClearInvestigations.com,
Combating disinformation has been elevated to a national security imperative under the Biden administration, as codified in its first-of-its-kind National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, published in June 2021.
That document calls for confronting long-term contributors to domestic terrorism.
In connection therewith, it cites as a key priority “addressing the extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often channeled through social media platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence.”
Media literacy specifically is seen as integral to this effort. The strategy adds that: “the Department of Homeland Security and others are either currently funding and implementing or planning evidence–based digital programming, including enhancing media literacy and critical thinking skills, as a mechanism for strengthening user resilience to disinformation and misinformation online for domestic audiences.”
Previously, the Senate Intelligence Committee suggested, in its report on “Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 Election” that a “public initiative—propelled by Federal funding but led in large part by state and local education institutions—focused on building media literacy from an early age would help build long-term resilience to foreign manipulation of our democracy.”
In June 2022, Democrat Senator Amy Klobuchar introduced the Digital Citizenship and Media Literacy Act, which – citing the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report – would fund a media literacy grant program for state and local education agencies, among other entities.
NAMLE and Media Literacy Now, both recipients of State Department largesse, endorsed the bill.
Acknowledging explicitly the link between this federal counter-disinformation push, and the media literacy education push, Media Literacy Now wrote in its latest annual report that ...
... the federal government is paying greater attention to the national security consequences of media illiteracy.
The Department of Homeland Security is offering grants to organizations to improve media literacy education in communities across the country. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense is incorporating media literacy into standard troop training, and the State Department is funding media literacy efforts abroad.
These trends are important for advocates to be aware of as potential sources of funding as well as for supporting arguments around integrating media literacy into K-12 classrooms.
When presented with notable examples of narratives corporate media promoted around Trump-Russia collusion, and COVID-19, to justify this counter-disinformation campaign, Media Literacy Now president Erin McNeill said: “These examples are disappointing.”
The antidote, in her view is, “media literacy education because it helps people not only recognize the bias in their news sources and seek out other sources, but also to demand and support better-quality journalism.” (Emphasis McNeill’s)
Government
Disney World Event Gives Florida Gov. DeSantis the Middle Finger
Walt Disney’s CEO Bob Iger has shown no willingness to back down in the face of the governor’s efforts to campaign against diversity training.
Share this:
Walt Disney's CEO Bob Iger has shown no willingness to back down in the face of the governor's efforts to campaign against diversity training.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has made Disney World, one of his state's largest employers, the target of his so-called war on woke.
At the root of the dispute are former Walt Disney (DIS) - Get Free Report CEO Bob Chapek's remarks opposing the Republican governor's new law, which limits the ability of educators to discuss gender identity and sexual orientation with children.
Labeled the Don't Say Gay bill, the law met with huge pushback from Disney employees, who had criticized Chapek for initially not speaking out against the bill.
That led the then-Disney boss to take a direct stand against the governor's actions, which in turn led DeSantis to strip the company of its special tax status.
DON'T MISS: Huge Crowds Force Disney World to Make Big Changes
DeSantis has decided to use Disney as the center of his political-theater culture war because it's an easy, and nonmoving, target. The company can't pack up Disney World and move it to New York, Massachusetts, or some other liberal bastion, so it mostly has to take whatever the governor dishes out.
But while DeSantis wants to use Disney as a target, he's mostly playing to the cameras; clearly, he's not actually looking to take down the largest single-site employer in the U.S. Disney World generates tens of thousands of jobs, pays the state a lot of money. and brings in billions of tourism dollars -- many of which are spent outside its gates in the broader Florida economy.
Image source: Shutterstock/TheStreet Illustration
Disney CEO Iger Uses Actions, Not Words
Disney CEO Bob Iger understands that actions speak louder than words and words can come back to haunt you.
The returned Mouse House boss has not called out DeSantis, nor did he fight the governor's takeover of its Reedy Creek Improvement District.
On paper, Disney World appears to have lost its right to self-govern. That's true, but it doesn't mean much because it's not as if the state -- even DeSantis's handpicked cronies who now oversee the former Reedy Creek Improvement District -- intend to actually get in Disney's way. The company prints money for the state.
So, that's why Iger -- who had publicly spoken against the Don't Say Gay bill when he was a private citizen and not Disney CEO, has not called out DeSantis. A speech decrying the governor's actions, pointing out that they “put vulnerable, young LGBTQ people in jeopardy,” as he said before taking the CEO job back, would not help Disney.
Instead, Iger has let his company's actions speak.
Disney World plans to host a "major conference promoting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights in the workplace" at the Disney World Resort this September, the Tampa Bay Times reported.
Disney Boldly Challenges DeSantis
Disney World will host the annual Out & Equal Workplace Summit in September.
"The largest LGBTQ+ conference in the world, with more than 5,000 attendees every year. It brings together executives, ERG leaders and members, and HR and DEI professionals and experts -- all working for LGBTQ+ equality," the event's organizer, Out & Equal, said on its website.
"Over more than 20 years, Summit has grown to become the preferred place to network and share strategies that create inclusive workplaces, where everyone belongs and where LGBTQ+ employees can be out and thrive."
The Tampa Bay Times called simply hosting the event "a defiant display of the limits of DeSantis’s campaign against diversity training."
Disney World has hosted the event previously and the company has a relationship with Out & Equal going back many years.
Instead of giving a speech and becoming even more of a right-wing-media talking point, Iger showed his employees where Disney stands through his actions. It's a smart choice by a seasoned executive not to become an actor in DeSantis's political theater.
The Florida governor wants to be perceived as battling 'woke" Disney without actually hurting his state's relationship with the company. The newspaper described exactly how that works when it looked at the new government powers the state has taken from the theme park giant.
The subsequent legislation left most of Disney’s special powers in place despite the governor’s attempt to dissolve the district. The conservative members the governor appointed to the board hinted at the first meeting of the new board that they would exercise leverage over Disney, such as prohibiting COVID-19 restrictions at Disney World. But legal experts have said that the new board’s authority has no control over Disney content.
DeSantis wants a culture war, or at least one that'll play out in the media. Iger knows better and has played the situation perfectly.
governor covid-19
Many CDC Blunders Exaggerated Severity Of COVID-19: Study
As We Sell Off Our Strategic Oil Reserves, Ponder This
What Is Commercial Paper? Definition, Purpose & History
Could the common cold give children immunity against COVID? Our research offers clues
NIH awards researchers $7.5 million to create data support center for opioid use disorder and pain management research
How They Convinced Trump To Lock Down
‘A toxic policy with little returns’ – lessons for the UK-Rwanda deal from Australia and the US
Where there’s smoke, there’s thiocyanate: McMaster researchers find tobacco users in Canada are exposed to higher levels of cyanide than other regions
G7 Vs BRICS – Off To The Races
