International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

[Gerard]

Coming Soon: Deal With North Korea ... or 2nd Nuclear Test?

Satellite imagery over the past two weeks has picked up suspicious activity at a suspected nuclear test site, senior U.S. officials told ABC News. The activity includes tunneling and the movement of large cables

[Gerard]

Pakistan says it doesn't want another nuclear agreement with China

[enqyoob]

UQ nuclear tests

http://www.iss.niiit.ru/ksenia/catal_nt/5.htm

IN US

25. Storax 07/06/62 - 06/25/63 Underground - 48 Two UK nuclear tests
28. Whetstone 07/16/64-06/17/65 Underground - 48 Two UK nuclear tests
29. Flintlock 07/16/65-06/30/66 Underground - 48 One UK nuclear test
37. Arbor 10/02/73-06/19/74 Underground-19 One UK nuclear test
39. Anvil 09/06/75 - 08/26/76 Underground - 21 One UK nuclear test
41. Cresset 10/26/77-09/27/78 Underground - 23 One UK nuclear test
42. Quicksilver 11/02/78-09/26/79 Underground -18 Two UK nuclear tests
43. Tinderbox 11/29/79-09/25/80 Underground -15 One UK nuclear test
44. Guardian 10/24/80-09/24/81 Underground -16 Two UK nuclear tests
45. Praetorian 10/01/81 -09/29/82 Underground - 22 Two UK nuclear tests
46. Phalanx 11/12/82-09/29/83 Underground -19 One UK nuclear test
47. Fusileer 12/09/83-09/13/84 Underground -17 One UK nuclear test
48. Grenadier 10/02/84-09/27/85 Underground -17 One UK nuclear test
49. Charioteer 10/09/85-09/30/86 Underground -18 Two UK nuclear tests
50.Musketeer 10/16/86-09/24/87 Underground -15 One UK nuclear test
3. Aqueduct 10/31/89-09/27/90 Underground -11 One UK nuclear test
54. Sculpin 10/12/90-09/19/91 Underground - 8 One UK nuclear test
55. Julin 10/18/91 -09/23/92 Underground - 8 One UK nuclear test

"Great Britain (45 nuclear tests)"

UK nuclear tests by Year:

1952: 1
1953: 2
1956:6
1957:7
1958:5
1962:2
1964: 2
1965: 1
1974: 1
1976: 1
1978: 2
1979:1
1980: 3
1981: 1
1982: 1
1984: 2
1985: 1
1986: 1
1987: 1
1989: 1
1990: 1
1991: 1

China has burst 47 bums and France 210.

[ramana]

Thanks N^3. Looks very interesting. A lot of small phatakas. Looks like the pry were tested often. And sometimes its more than one but the count is treated as one in the yearly table.

[Gerard]

Iran: Tehran could make 60 nuclear bombs in two years, says US expert

Sokolski raised the alarm about Iran's intentions, claiming that it would have sufficient plutonium after the opening of the Bushehr plant to construct from 30 to 60 bombs.

[Gerard]

North Korea taken off US terror list

A US State Department official said the deal was reached after North Korea agreed to provide full access to its controversial nuclear programme.

North Korea would resume its disablement of nuclear facilities.

[Gerard]

Britain's nuclear weapons factory 'nearly overwhelmed' by flood

[Gerard]

US told to increase nuclear arsenal as China threat looms

[Gerard]

Europe advises Asean against nuclear energy

[NRao]

[urlhttp://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=255677]Buffett Could Reshape Nuclear Power Industry
[/url]

9/26/2008 7:58:00 AM

Warren Buffett's decision to rescue Constellation Energy Group Inc. gives one of the nuclear power industry's biggest skeptics some important clout in deciding its future.

In agreeing to a $4.7-billion cash deal for Baltimore-based Constellation, Mr. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. will gain control of three nuclear power plants. In addition, it will own half of a prominent nuclear-plant development company, UniStar Nuclear Energy LLC, which is trying to accelerate construction of the next generation of nuclear plants in the U.S.

Mr. Buffett, who has sizable investments in electric utilities and gas pipelines through Berkshire's energy firm, MidAmerican Energy Holding Co., has previously argued nuclear plants are too costly to build.

On Thursday, MidAmerican chief executive Greg Abel sounded more enthusiastic about the technology, saying "we're committed to new nuclear." But he acknowledged that construction costs still have to be right. Mr. Buffett may still decide costs are too high, which could send a shudder through the rest of the nuclear industry.

The UniStar consortium brings together some of the most sophisticated players in the nuclear sector, including Electricite de France SA, the world's largest operator of nuclear plants; Areva SA, the world's largest nuclear engineering firm by revenue; equipment maker Alstom SA; and engineering, procurement and construction firm Bechtel Corp.

Executives at both EDF and Areva said they are worried that Mr. Buffett will order Constellation to ditch its nuclear plans over fears of soaring costs, and possibly pull out of UniStar altogether. Both invested in UniStar as a way of extending their reach into the U.S. market.

The deal to acquire Constellation still faces regulatory and shareholder scrutiny, and it is possible that competing bids could emerge.

Mr. Buffett's sudden emergence raises questions about whether nuclear development, in general, has viability, according to Paul Patterson, head of Glenrock Associates LLC in New York, a research firm. "It's a very cloudy picture," Mr. Patterson says, "And, so far, we don't have anyone making a firm decision to go forward."

The uncertainty is another sign of how the credit crisis is impacting industries beyond Wall Street. Until recently, the U.S. appeared to be on the verge of a nuclear power revival. Rising prices of fossil fuels and the growing efforts to limit emissions of greenhouse gases had rekindled interest in zero-emission nuclear power plants. Developers have presented 18 applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeking permission to build new plants. Several companies also are seeking U.S. certification of new reactor designs.

But Mr. Patterson notes that those plans now face higher hurdles. The estimated costs for nuclear plants have skyrocketed lately. The availability of financing for the projects could be in jeopardy and electricity demand could decline if the nation falls into recession.

For Mr. Buffett, price has always been the major sticking point. His energy company, MidAmerican, formed a special unit last December to explore possible construction of a nuclear plant at a site in Idaho. That created a flurry of excitement as people in the industry believed that Mr. Buffett might finally throw his weight behind the technology. But MidAmerican pulled the plug seven weeks later, saying it was too costly.

MidAmerican's Mr. Abel said last week nuclear plants "have to be priced such that they can bring power into the market at prices customers can afford." He said the Idaho project didn't have the right balance of "cost and risk...so we just sort of put it on hold."

Mr. Abel, in an interview Thursday, said that experience makes the UniStar consortium approach more valuable. "We'd like to revisit the Idaho site with EDF, at some point, because the West is going to need new nuclear."

The Constellation purchase, if completed, will give MidAmerican control of five reactors and many more fossil-fuel units, plus an energy-trading unit, a retail energy sales unit, and utility Baltimore Gas and Electric Co -- all for $4.7 billion, about half the cost of a single new nuclear plant.

EDF and Areva have a lot riding on UniStar, their sole vehicle for U.S. development. Areva has applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for certification of its evolutionary power reactor, a next-generation reactor that it hopes to build at sites in the U.S.

Once the NRC certifies a new reactor, it designates a "reference plant" which typically is the first project built with that reactor. All the engineering work done for that plant must be shared with subsequent projects to save time and expense for developers and the NRC. The reference plant for the Areva reactor is Constellation's Calvert Cliffs plant in Maryland.

If Berkshire pulled the plug on the additional reactor at Calvert Cliffs, it would be a set back Areva, as well as other companies planning on using Areva's design, such as Missouri-based Ameren Corp., and Pennsylvania-based utility, PPL Corp.

Mike Wallace, Constellation's generation group president, said that if "Calvert doesn't pencil out, none of the others will, either." He said he worries most about getting financing for big, expensive projects without clarity on how federal loan guarantees or subsidies will play out. Until that's known, "a decision isn't possible," he said Thursday.

Constellation chief executive Mayo Shattuck III said last week his firm was thrown into the arms of MidAmerican after a "classic run on the bank," as investors dumped shares fearing it would be unable to secure a $2 billion bank credit facility needed for its energy-trading operation.

"We engaged in discussions," Mr. Shattuck said, as "we perceived we might not be in commercial operations for long." He said Mr. Buffett moved quickly to an agreement and injected $1 billion in capital a day later. Mr. Shattuck said he was forced to act because credit-rating agencies were "spooked." A downgrade to less than investment grade could have increased Constellation's collateral requirements by $3 billion, more money than it had.

---

David Gauthier-Villars in Paris contributed to this article.

[Gerard]

Russia’s nuclear deterrent in good shape: Medvedev

[Philip]

"Legerdemain".

One of the enduring mysteries still unanswered in full has been the "love affair" between the US and Pak.This affair has been going on for well over half a decade now.From Cold War days,the Soviets in Afghanistan,to the current "war on (Islamist) terror".No matter how devious and clandestine Pak has been with its nuclear proliferation through the AQ Khan network,the US,well knowing what was going on,as mentioned in the book "Deception",by Adrian Levy,(http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2007/ ... s-and.html),did nothing to stop Pak or reveal what it knew.It further continued to deliver to Pak high-tech weaponry that could be used only against India.Why has this relationship endured?Was it Cold War ideology?Was it love of the Paki macho men in their military uniforms? Could it be Uncle Sam's fatal attraction for dictators? A staunch ally in the war on terror? The last possibility if any perhaps is the most ludicrous,becasue in actuality,Pak has been playing a doublegame ,hunting with the West's hounds and hiding with the Talib's hares.In fact,despite the double-cross,the US has continued support for Pak,with more largesse of weaponry,much to the distress of India.

The above possibilities do not fully answer the question of this amazing support by the US for one of the world's worst rogue states,that has done the most in the cause of nuclear proliferation.Could there then some dirty secret in this relationship between "democratic" Christian America and "dictatorial" Islamic Pakistan? Blackmail on Pak's side perhaps? I believe that there is an answer that the US would like to keep hidden from view,as it undermines the moral authority of the US and utter disregard for international agreements.For this we have to turn to another book that has appeared recently.
First,let us go back to the days of the Cold War,the 1950s.

At the outset of the Cold War,there was intense rivalry between the US and the Soviets primarily in developing nuclear weapons.The first delivery systems were not rockets but long range bombers.In the mid-50s,Russia and the Soviet Republics were still out of range from US bombers and the US required bases where they could store their nuclear weapons in secret.Thus began a covert operaton in Morocco ,at that time under the French,pals of the US,who covertly stockplied nuclear weapons without either the French ,Moroccans or even NATO knowing anything about it! The book "Legerdemain" ,the word is a noun,meaning "sleight of hand",review given here,is a first person account by the man who was in the thick of things.Read on.

Legerdemain:By James Heaphey
Review by Simon Barret.

Fact is often stranger than fiction, and Legerdemain is living proof. The tag line alone was enough to get my attention.

‘The President’s Secret Plan, The Bomb, And What The French Never Knew…’

And James Heaphey is just the man to tell us. He was there, this is living history at it’s absolute best. It has been only recently that the documents involved have been declassified, the events happened over 50 years ago, but I will be willing to bet that there are fractions in the Pentagon, the CIA, and other branches of the government that would have preferred their permanent burial! To add insult to injury, the book is not written by some investigative reporter digging through dusty boxes of long forgotten memorandums, but the ‘Point Man’. Even more embarrassing is the fact that than not only were the French duped, but the whole of NATO.

Morocco may seem like an unlikely location for international intrigue, but in the early years of the 1950’s it was pivotal in the Cold War. Our hero James Heaphey at the tender age of 22 finds himself playing in the always murky world of secrets. He is stationed at Nouasseur Air Base, a French facility run by the US, and flying the NATO flag. The mission is ostensibly one of peacekeeping in the powder keg that describes Morocco. During this period Morocco was a French protectorate, and a place where the Moroccans felt that France was little more than an overbearing dictator.

America had a completely different concept for Morocco. Although the brink of nuclear war was still a decade away, and the term ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ was yet to be invented, the US had already declared that if it came to using The Bomb, it was an all or nothing proposition. There would be no limited response should the USSR use this weapon. The response would be total destruction of Mother Russia. The problem though was that of delivery. ICBM’s were still just a twinkle in the designers eye’s and the only real way of dropping nukes was with bombers. Unfortunately Russia was way outside the range of even the longest range bomber based on American soil, the response time to an aggressive act would be days rather than hours.

Breaking just about every international treaty known to man, the solution was to store nuclear weapons in Morocco. Of course informing France who controlled Morocco, the Moroccans themselves, or even NATO, whose skirts they were hiding behind was out of the question.

The history books currently are all wrong! They reflect that it was 1954 that the US started stockpiling Nukes in Morocco, James Heaphy explodes that myth, 1952 was the actual date.

Obviously it was vitally important that the storage area at Nouasseur be kept secret, and ‘Area Q’ of the the air base did keep its secret for decades. A more serious concern though was the political climate in the country. The French rulers were hated, nationalistic factions were working hard to extricate themselves from the colonial rule. Where would this leave the US, and what could they do? In an intricate ballet of deception they must appear supportive of France, yet also back the various groups seeking freedom, I guess in gambling parlance you would say ‘hedging your bet’. This is where James Heaphey enters the picture, this unassuming base newspaper editor is tasked with contacting the various groups and creating an environment that fosters friendship. At 22, he is old enough to die for his country, but young enough that his country has plausible deniability should anything go wrong.

“If you do well, nothing will be recorded anyplace….. If you screw up, they’ll either hide you or make an example of you” is the sage advice James receives at the beginning of his mission.

The Copts, Istiqlal, The Berbers, Osama Bin Ladens guiding light Sayyid Qutb, even the Israeli Mossad, are all part of the patchwork quilt that James Heaphey must somehow work with.

If you only read one book in 2008, make sure it is this one. This book rewrites history. This will be hell for the average History author, and heaven for those college professors, who will be able to revise their books, and sell more copies to the poor students that will need the new copy for the 2008 school year!

Now what is the connection with Pak? Pak joined SEATO and CENTO in er...1954! The same time as the Moroccan plan was put into operation.
The most infamous celebration of this affair between Pak and the US was the U-2 downing by the Soviets and the capture of its pilot Gary Powers in 1960.Pak had provided the US carte blanche use of a secret base near Peshawar.Here are details from Wik.

In July 1957, Pakistani Prime Minister Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy was requested by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower of his government's agreement for the U.S. to establish a secret U.S. intelligence facility in Pakistan and permission for the U-2 spyplane to fly from Pakistan. A facility established in Badaber, 10 miles (16 km) from Peshawar, was a cover for a major communications intercept operation run by the American National Security Agency (NSA). Badaber was an excellent choice because of its proximity to Soviet Central Asia. This enabled monitoring of missile test sites and other communications. U-2 "spy-in-the-sky" was allowed to use the Pakistan Air Force portion of the Peshawar airport to gain vital photo intelligence in an era before satellite observation.[1]

On 9 April 1960, the U-2 spyplane of the special Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) unit "10-10" crossed the South national boundary of Soviet Union in the area of Pamir Mountains and flew over four Soviet top secret military objects: the Semipalatinsk Test Site, the Tu-95 air base, the Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) test site of the Soviet Air Defence Forces near Saryshagan, and the Tyuratam missile range (future Baikonur Cosmodrome). The plane was detected by the Soviet Air Defense Forces at 4:47 when it flew away by more than 250 km from the Soviet national boundary and avoided several attempts of interception using MiG-19 and Su-9 during the flight. After U-2 left the Soviet air space at 11:32, it was clear that U.S. Central Intelligence Agency successfully performed an extraordinary intelligence operation. In spite of the negative Soviet diplomatic reaction, the next flight of U-2 spyplane from the Badaber airbase was planned on the 1st May.[2][3]

On May 1, 1960, thirteen days before the scheduled opening of an East–West summit conference in Paris, a U.S. Lockheed U-2 spy plane left US base in Badaber on a mission to overfly the Soviet Union, photographing ICBM sites in and around Sverdlovsk and Plesetsk, then land at Bodø in Norway. All units of the Soviet Air Defence Forces in the Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, Ural and later in the U.S.S.R. European Region and Extreme North were on red alert, and the U-2 flight was expected. Soon after the plane was detected, Lieutenant General of the Air Force Yevgeniy Savitskiy ordered the air-unit commanders "to attack the violator by all alert flights located in the area of foreign plane's course, and to ram as necessary".[2]
Powers's U-2 was downed by a salvo of supposedly 14 SA-2 Guideline SAMs,as his last target was the heavily defended Chelyabinsk plutonium production plant.
The incident was a major embarrassment to the US,which tried to bullsh*t the truth of the matter.It was also the reason for the failure of the Paris Summit between Eisenhower and Kruschev,Eisenhower refusing to apologise for the incident,as demanded by Kruschev.

Since the US had secretly based N-weapons in Morocco without the knowledge of anyone there,it could be argued that a similar clandestine situation existed in Pakistan at Badaber/Peshawar air base,from which,the soft underbelly of the Soviet Union in Central Asia could be attacked by US bombers armed with nuclear weapons secretly stored at the base.Later on,in the 60s,once long range ICBM and SSBNs came onto the scene,the need for such clandestine N-stockplies receeded.With the further massive expansion and development of Diego Garcia in thre Indian Ocean,where B-52 ,B-1,B-2 stealth bombers and SSBNs are based armed with nukes,the need for foreign nuclear bases faded,including those in Europe.The SSBN became the key least detectable leg of the triad and the most attractive.

Nevertheless,if US N-weapons were secretly stored in Pak in the '50s,a strong possibility going by the "Morocco" yardstick,it is also conceivable that a few key individuals at the apex of the Pak military leadership also knew about it.Such a secret if revealed would've had enormous repercussions in India and across Asia and a reaction from the Soviet Union.It could explain why the US winked at Pak's nuclear ambitions for so many decades,as Pak was its partner in crime! In the current situ too also,with Pak-US relations so controversial in the country,such a revelation could trigger off even more hatred of those elements in Pak who toe the US line.It also brings into question the ulterior motives of the US in the Indo-US N-deal,as the US has shown such scant regard for international agreements and conventions especially with regard to N-weapons and technology.India must seriously examine this "legerdemain" of the US in the past as it seeks to secure its strategic future.

PS:..and if this wasn't enough,then take a loook at what was happening in Canada too.Here the govt. of the day also indulged in semantics and obfuscation to hide behind a web of deceit that allowed Canada to base US N-weapons on its soil while pretending to be a non-proliferator.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=hLs5 ... Fg#PPP1,M1

[Gerard]

North Korea allows UN inspectors at key nuclear site

[NRao]

Pak, China expected to sign civil nuclear deal

[Gerard]

Some Nuclear Energy Backers Say Uranium Alternative Could be a Magic Bullet

In the midst of renewed global interest in nuclear energy, a long-overlooked nuclear fuel, thorium, is being re-examined as a potential solution to some of the industry's most daunting problems, including disposal of waste.

[Gerard]

ITER, IAEA sign deal to move nuclear fusion research forward

[Gerard]

link

Withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) did not bode well for international peace and security, and should be discouraged through the adoption of measures by the 2010 NPT Review Conference that included the suspension of nuclear cooperation, France’s representative told the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) today.

[renukb]

Thomson Financial News
Nuclear capacity could rise fourfold by 2050-
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/fe ... 61644.html

PARIS, Oct 16 (Reuters) - Nuclear power generation capacity could grow almost fourfold by 2050, although securing political and public support will be crucial, the OECD said on Thursday.

'By 2050, global nuclear capacity is projected to increase by a factor of between 1.5 and 3.8,' the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) forecast in its first Nuclear Energy Outlook.

If capacity growth is at the top end of forecasts, the nuclear share of global electricity production would rise to 22 percent by 2050, up from 16 percent today with 1,400 reactors of the size currently used operational, the NEA added.

In June 2008, there were 439 nuclear reactors operating in 30 countries, with a total capacity of 372,000 megawatts.

Current national plans and statements of intent suggest that the countries having the largest installed nuclear capacity in 2020 will be the United States, France, Japan, Russia, China and Korea with China and the United States planning the largest increases.

France, Japan and the United States currently have 57 percent of the world's nuclear capacity.

Although a number of countries without nuclear power have plans to build reactors, those are likely to add only 5 percent to the installed capacity by 2020, the agency said.


SECURING POLITICAL AND PUBLIC SUPPORT

But the agency warned that in order to achieve such an expansion political and public support would be vital.

'An ongoing relationship between policy makers, the nuclear industry and society to develop knowledge building and public involvement will become increasingly important,' the NEA added.

Governments had a clear responsibility to maintain safety regulation, improve efforts to develop solutions for radioactive waste disposal and reinforce the international non-proliferation regime, the NEA said.

'The delay and failure thus far of some major disposal programmes for high-level radioactive waste continue to have a significant impact on the image of nuclear energy,' the agency said, adding that governments and the nuclear industry had to work together to deliver safe disposal.

Uranium resources were sufficient to fuel a nuclear energy expansion, without reprocessing, at least until 2050, the agency said, adding that geological data showed forecast resources could raise uranium supply to several hundreds of years.

(Editing by William Hardy) Keywords: NUCLEAR OECD/OUTLOOK

[email protected]

jlw


COPYRIGHT


Copyright Thomson Financial News Limited 2008. All rights reserved.

[Gerard]

Atom smasher will be in business by spring

[Gerard]

Maintaining nuclear weapons as they age

[Gerard]

US: North Korea steps up disabling of nuclear reactor

[Gerard]

Iran to receive auxiliary nuclear gear

[NRao]

Nuclear weapons debated in Sydney

The co-chair Mr Evans has said that the world can never achieve nuclear disarmament unless countries which have refused to join the non-proliferation treaty - such as India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea - are brought into the new process.

[ramana]

All these prognostications of growth for nuke electrical power wont happen unless the world tackles terrorism on a permanent basis. As long as there are non-state actors maintained by States there wont be any assurance that such power plants are not at risk.

[Gerard]

Iran arrests pigeons 'spying' on nuclear site

[Gerard]

Pakistan China civilian nuclear program doesn’t require NSG’s approval

[Gerard]

Sydney Weapons Summit Warns of Growing Nuclear Threat

[Gerard]

Facing a Long-Ignored Problem: Reviving America’s Nuclear Deterrence

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/611.pdf

[Gerard]

Soaring, cryptography and nuclear weapons

[svinayak]

Soaring, cryptography and nuclear weapons

[Johann]

"Legerdemain".

At the outset of the Cold War,there was intense rivalry between the US and the Soviets primarily in developing nuclear weapons.The first delivery systems were not rockets but long range bombers.In the mid-50s,Russia and the Soviet Republics were still out of range from US bombers and the US required bases where they could store their nuclear weapons in secret.Thus began a covert operaton in Morocco ,at that time under the French,pals of the US,who covertly stockplied nuclear weapons without either the French ,Moroccans or even NATO knowing anything about it! The book "Legerdemain" ,the word is a noun,meaning "sleight of hand",review given here,is a first person account by the man who was in the thick of things.Read on.

-This stuff was declassified by the Pentagon back in the late 1990s. There is absolutely nothing that even hints at a nuclear deployment in Pakistan

- The US *never* stationed nuclear bombs anywhere they didnt station bombers. While the bombs in Morocco were secret, the bombers (B-36s and later B-47s) were most certainly not - that is not something that could ever be hidden. Pakistan never hosted US bombers.

This is not for want of US requests; the Pakistanis simply didnt want the internal and external flack that would come from hosting US combat forces. Instead they permitted US intelligence gathering which was by nature discreet - sigint stations, and then U-2 flights, and other measures.

[Gerard]

Uranium should be the new gold

[NRao]

Uranium should be the new gold

That Australia supported the deal means the formal position of the Rudd Government is that the world is right to engage in this nuclear trade with India. However, for no reason other than outdated Labor ideology, Australia still will not sell its uranium to India.

This is an absurd contradiction.

It is NO absurd contradiction. The US was prepared to twist the Oz hand till it broke, which is why Oz voted, not once, but twice. Then stated we cannot sell Uranium to India.

[NRao]

Soaring, cryptography and nuclear weapons

As interesting as the article is, I find it to include invalid arguments for the current, even perhaps near future environment. I doubt any confrontations between minor players will escalate to any meaningful "war". Forget a nuclear one, even a conventional wars could change a lot more than the face of the earth. On the Georgian front it is interesting to note that many EU countries were reluctant to escalate anything. Outside of McCain (a trigger happy, short tempered person) no one really went outside of assisting the Georgians.

The only nuclear country that I can see as a threat is Pakistan, and, they too only because of either religion or economics (or lack of it) reasons. Certainly not because they have a thought out, processed set of events leading to a nuclear war. It is evident today in their support of terrorism. Non-state actors could pose a problem, but that really does not count as a calculated nuclear war.

[Rye]

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stori ... 504&EDATE=

Areva to tie up with Northrop Grumman for the civilian nuclear industry in the USA.

[Gerard]

US Air Force to establish new command for nuclear forces

[Gerard]

UN chief outlines five-point nuclear disarmament plan

[Gerard]

US considering implications of nuclear decline

Gen. Kevin Chilton, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, which is responsible for maintaining the nation's nuclear war plans, told Congress last spring that technical nuclear expertise also is lagging. "The last nuclear design engineer to participate in the development and testing of a new nuclear weapon is scheduled to retire in the next five years," Chilton said.

[Gerard]

Experts: Israel lacks capability to hit Iran's nuke facilities

[NRao]

Experts: Israel lacks capability to hit Iran's nuke facilities

US weekly Newsweek quotes Western intelligence officials as saying Jewish state unable to destroy Tehran's nuclear facilities using just conventional weapons