So The Race Begins


quandary121
Green
#1
SO THE RACE BEGINS -

A new report published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies shows that global interest in developing nuclear technology has risen significantly in recent years. Rising oil prices and other factors have prompted more than 40 countries worldwide to announce that they are either starting new or expanding existing nuclear energy programs. Included in this list is almost every country in the Middle East. In the space of less than a year, 13 nations in the Middle East have announced plans to explore atomic energy. Each of these countries has abundant oil and gas reserves, which is why some experts fear that Iran's nuclear ambitions may have triggered the start of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, some Arab countries might be developing nuclear energy now so they will have the option of building a bomb in the future. Nuclear technology is complex and costly, and developing nuclear weapons is not something that can be done overnight. It takes time to build the necessary infrastructure. However once built, the same nuclear technology used to generate electricity can also be used to develop weapons. It would not be the first time countries (such as India and Pakistan) have claimed that they were developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, but then have used that same technology to develop nuclear weapons.

In the past year it seems the Middle East has been struck with nuclear fever: Egypt is building four nuclear power plants, while Turkey has plans for three. The United Arab Emirates, despite its vast oil wealth, has signed an agreement with France to build two nuclear reactors. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, Syria and Yemen are also planning nuclear plants, as are the North African nations of Libya, Algeria and Morocco.

If the nations of the Middle East develop peaceful nuclear energy programs, how difficult would it be to use that technology to make nuclear weapons? Well, nuclear power plants need 3 to 4 percent enriched uranium for fuel, but natural uranium only contains 0.7 percent. Thus uranium must be processed in a uranium enrichment facility before it can be used as fuel for nuclear power. What most people don't realize is the exact same technology and equipment used to enrich uranium for fuel can be used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, it simply requires more passes through the enrichment plant. A nuclear bomb requires about 90 percent enriched uranium, which is high compared to the percentage found in fuel, but according to experts it requires more energy to convert natural uranium to fuel than it takes to convert fuel into weapons-grade uranium.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency there are more than 40 countries with peaceful nuclear programs that could modify their technology to create nuclear weapons. There are currently about 439 nuclear power plants worldwide, with 30 more under construction, and over 200 now in the planning stages.

 
quandary121
Green
#2
Iran nuclear plans could trigger Mideast arms race: study

May 20, 2008
LONDON (AFP) — Iran's nuclear programme could trigger a race to develop atomic weapons in the Middle East, a study warned Tuesday, highlighting a recent surge of nuclear activity in countries in the region.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) noted that 13 countries had announced new or revived plans to pursue or explore civilian nuclear energy over an 11-month period between February 2006 and January 2007.
"This upsurge of interest is remarkable, given both the abundance of traditional energy sources in the region and the low standing to date of nuclear energy there," said the London-based group's chief executive John Chipman.
"If Tehran's nuclear programme is unchecked, there is reason for concern that it could in time prompt a regional cascade of proliferation among Iran's neighbours," he added.
The IISS study assesses the nuclear activities of Egypt, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Algeria, Israel, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Yemen and Syria.
Israel is widely assumed to have a nuclear arsenal, although it has never admitted to joining the club of self-declared nuclear states including the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, India and Pakistan.
"A proliferation cascade would become more likely if Israel felt obliged to relinquish its long-standing doctrine of nuclear 'opacity,' or ambiguity, whereby it refuses to confirm or deny any aspect of its nuclear activities, as this would increase the pressure on Egypt and perhaps other Arab states to seek their own nuclear deterrents," said Chipman.
Iran's refusal to stop enriching uranium, in defiance of UN sanctions, has fuelled western suspicions that it is covertly developing an atomic bomb. The Islamic republic insists it wants only peaceful nuclear energy.
Washington has spearheaded efforts at the United Nations to rein in Iran's ambitions to master the nuclear fuel cycle, by imposing a series of sanctions, of which more are threatened.
US President George W. Bush has repeatedly refused to rule out military action against Iran as a last resort.
Mark Fitzpatrick, an IISS expert on non-proliferation and editor of the study, added: "We take it for granted that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon," adding that Iran could theoretically produce enough uranium for one by 2009.
 
quandary121
Green
#3
**IMPORTANT NEWS HEADLINES** Iran Arming Hezbollah and Hamas - May 27, 2008
Rockets and weapons bearing signs of Iranian paint, lettering and serial numbers are making their way into the Gaza Strip and Lebanon — helping Tehran cement its powerful role within militant movements on Israel's northern and southern flanks, senior Israeli security officials say. FOX News
Honor Killing Sparks Debate in Germany - May 27, 2008
The brutal "honor killing" of a 16-year-old Afghan immigrant living in Hamburg has sparked a renewed debate in Germany over whether Islamic families can adapt to the social ways of the Western world. The girl was stabbed by her brother 20 times because he believed he had become too comfortable with Western life with her uncovered hair, makeup and short skirts. FOX News
Germany Ratifies EU Treaty - May 27, 2008
Germany has ratified the Treaty of Lisbon, which was proposed in the wake of the failed EU Constitution. Germany's vote has tipped the scales - fourteen EU countries have now ratified the treaty, which means it needs the votes of a further thirteen before it passes into law. Times
Muslims Equate Missionaries with Terrorists - May 27, 2008
Christian missionaries are "as dangerous as terrorist activities or the illegal drug trade," Islamic leaders in Uzbekistan declared. Uzbekistan bans missionary activity, religions that are not registered with the government and printing of faith-based literature without state consent. WND
 
quandary121
Green
#4
A new report by the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Iran has failed to come clean on its uranium enrichment program and that it has serious concerns over alleged research into nuclear weapons.
The critical report released to the UN Security Council on Monday is likely to buttress calls by the US and other Western countries for new sanctions on Iran. Iranian officials say they have cooperated with the IAEA and will continue to enrich uranium for future power generation, not for military purposes.
Last week, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iranian banks may face further curbs on international trade under measures designed to pressure Iran into stopping its nuclear program. She said Iran's economy was already suffering as a result of successive sanctions and she warned that Iran faced further sanctions if it failed to fall into line with nuclear inspections, reported the Associated Press. The UN Security Council agreed to a third round of economic sanctions on Iran in March.
European countries have proposed incentives for Iran to suspend enrichment of uranium, a key step toward acquiring nuclear weaponry. These include supplying Iran with enriched uranium for use in nuclear power stations. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said Monday he had a new offer to present to Iranian leaders, a revised version of a previous package, Bloomberg reports, though the details of the offer haven't been made public.
The New York Times says that the IAEA report uses unusually blunt language to spell out Iran's lack of cooperation on key issues, though the agency says it still needs more time to produce a definitive assessment of Iran's nuclear activities. The report lists 18 leaked documents – dismissed as forgeries by Iran – that indicate past efforts to develop nuclear missile technology. Last December, US intelligence agencies concluded that Iran had suspended work on designing a nuclear warhead in 2003 due to international pressure, but said it was unclear if this work had resumed.
The [IAEA] report also makes the allegation that Iran is learning to make more powerful centrifuges that are operating faster and more efficiently, the product of robust research and development that have not been fully disclosed to the agency.
That means that the country may be producing enriched uranium — which can be used to make electricity or to produce bombs — faster than expected at the same time as it a replaces its older generation of less reliable centrifuges. Some of the centrifuge components have been produced by Iran's military, said the report, prepared by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the agency, which is the United Nations' nuclear monitor.
Iran's ambassador to the IAEA said the report shows that its nuclear program was peaceful and not for military purposes, reports Reuters, citing an Iranian news agency. Ali Asghar Soltanieh said US allegation of secret missiles programs were "baseless" and that Iran had been vindicated by the report. He didn't comment on the IAEA's criticism of Iran's withholding of information on missile-related activities.
Earlier this month, Iran presented its own document to the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany that proposes ways to defuse global security tensions, reports Asia Times. While the Bush administration gave a cool response to the "Proposed Package for Constructive Negotiations," Iran may be offering a way out of the diplomatic stalemate by asking existing nuclear powers to improve access to peaceful nuclear technology. A key proposal is to create an international uranium-enrichment facility in Iran. The Asia Times argues that bringing Iran into regional security talks could be a quid pro quo for scaling back its nuclear ambitions.
Britain's Guardian reports that Iran agreed an action plan last year with the IAEA that was supposed to clarify several outstanding issues and allow inspectors into nuclear facilities. But many of the same questions remain, including the alleged Iranian weapons program that the IAEA report describes as a "serious concern."
The new report could lead to new discussions on sanctions in the Security Council, but there is resistance to further punitive measures from Russia and China, and scepticism over whether they are effective. It will also renew speculation on whether the Bush White House would consider taking military action aimed at slowing down Iran's nuclear programme, before George Bush's term expires next January.
Policymakers in Washington and the Middle East aren't ruling out a US military strike against Iran on Bush's watch, TIME magazine reported. While the US Congress is wary of the White House's saber-rattling, Bush probably received encouragement for a harder line during his recent trip to Israel, where Iranian nuclear capacity is widely seen as an existential threat. A senior US adviser on the trip reportedly told Israeli officials that Bush was ready to attack Iran, but faced objections from Ms. Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The White House has denied this claim.
"I'm worried that by November it's going to be too late," to stop Iran from gaining the ability to produce nuclear weapons, said Yossi Kuperwasser, the former senior intelligence officer for the Central Command of the Israeli Defense. On military action against nuclear sites in Iran, he said, "Just do it."
Iran's nuclear ambitions are already spurring a preemptive arms race in the Middle East, according to a new report by Britain's International Institute of Strategic Studies, says The Daily Telegraph. The IISS said last week that Iran's neighbors are investing in civil nuclear programs that would allow them to develop bombs in the event of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Since 2006, 13 Middle East countries have unveiled new plans – or overhauled existing ones – to generate electricity from nuclear fuel, an apparent reaction to Iran's decision to resume uranium enrichment after a suspension period.
"Iran's programme could become a powerful regional proliferation driver, building on regional rivalry, security concerns and one-upmanship," said John Chipman, the IISS chief executive.
"For the time being, these considerations are contributing to a regional surge in interest in nuclear energy. The question is how to keep this interest confined to purely civilian nuclear programmes."
 
quandary121
Green
#5
The Iranian nuclear confrontation will just not go away.
The latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran is not cooperating fully in the investigation of its nuclear activities leaves this potentially serious crisis open.
Iran is featuring heavily in the US presidential campaign, with the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain frequently suggesting that Democratic hopeful Barack Obama, who has proposed talks with Iran, is showing weakness.
The issue is likely to remain an important one for whoever is the next president - assuming the Bush administration does not take military action in its final months.
IAEA concern
The problem at the moment is not just Iran's refusal to suspend the enrichment of uranium, in defiance of UN Security Council demands and three rounds of UN sanctions.
The immediate concern of the new IAEA report is Iran's apparent reluctance to give its full cooperation in the investigation to sort out exactly what it has been up to in the past.
This effort is needed in order to satisfy the demands of the IAEA and the Security Council that Iran has given up all suspicious activities.
Iran says it has answered all questions and that its intentions are entirely peaceful.
In particular, the IAEA has been concerned about the acquisition by Iran, probably from the Pakistani nuclear scientist AQ Khan, of a 15-page document describing, as the IAEA puts it, "the procedures for the reduction of UF6 [uranium hexafluoride] to uranium metal and the machining of enriched uranium metal into hemispheres, which are components of nuclear weapons".
Iran has told the IAEA that this design document was received along with the P-1 centrifuge [machines that enrich uranium] documentation in 1987 and that it had not been requested by Iran.
The IAEA has a copy of the document but has not apparently been able to discuss its contents fully with the relevant people in Iran. It says the weapons design question needs "substantive explanations".
Until this is cleared up, the suspicion will be that Iran has been interested in nuclear weaponisation. And if it was once, it might be again.
In the meantime, a new attempt to get Iran to suspend enrichment will be made by the EU's chief foreign policy representative, Javier Solana. He hopes to go to Tehran soon with an improved offer of incentives if Iran does agree to suspension.
For its part, Iran is reported to be offering a joint venture on enrichment with foreign partners, but on Iranian soil.
Proliferation threat
The effect of all this uncertainly is being felt not just in the US presidential campaign.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) has published a report that draws attention to the sudden interest in nuclear energy by 13 countries across the Middle East.
"This upsurge of interest is remarkable, given both the abundance of traditional energy sources in the region and the low standing to date of nuclear energy there," said IISS Director General Dr John Chipman.

Until this is cleared up, the suspicion will be that Iran has been interested in nuclear weaponisation


Q&A: Iran's nuclear issue


"Notwithstanding the legitimate energy and economic motivations behind this sudden region-wide interest in nuclear power, political factors also play an important role...
"The single most salient political factor... is Iran's development of dual-use nuclear technologies, which motivates at least some of its neighbours to seek fledgling nuclear capabilities of their own.
"If Tehran's nuclear programme is unchecked, there is reason for concern that it could in time prompt a regional cascade of proliferation among Iran's neighbours.
"A proliferation cascade would become more likely if Israel felt obliged to relinquish its long-standing doctrine of nuclear 'opacity' or ambiguity... as this would increase the pressure on Egypt and perhaps other Arab states to seek their own nuclear deterrents."
Former US President Jimmy Carter has said that Israel has 150 nuclear weapons.
Recently the US accused Syria of building a nuclear reactor "not intended for peaceful purposes". This site was bombed by the Israelis last September.
In addition, the existing nuclear-armed countries are also modernising their weapons. The UK is upgrading Trident, the US is planning the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead and the Russian and Chinese have their plans.
All this adds to the sense that nuclear non-proliferation remains a key world issue and one that is straining at its belt.
And it will only get more difficult if the Iran question is not resolved.
But that does not seem likely in the near future.
Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
 
quandary121
Green
#6
The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union might have become World War III were it not for the threat of "mutual assured destruction." Nuclear war was avoided because of the delicate balance between the world's superpowers and their respective nuclear arsenals. Throughout the Cold War US policymakers, intelligence analysts, and academics recognized that the addition of new nuclear-armed states would create a more unstable and perilous world. They referred to this frightening prospect as the "Nth country problem" - the possibility that some undetermined number of countries would develop nuclear weapons capabilities.

Who Has Nukes?

The Nth country problem, foreseen in the early days of the Cold War, has since become a reality. Today there are at least nine nations that possess nuclear technology: the US, the UK, France, Israel, Russia, Pakistan, India, China, and now North Korea. And other nations, such as Iran, are actively pursuing nuclear weapons technology. Furthermore, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency has reported that there are more than 40 countries with peaceful nuclear programs that could modify their technology to create nuclear weapons.

It is estimated that there are currently more than 30,000 nuclear weapons worldwide. In 2002, President Bush and Vladimir Putin signed the Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty. Yet the United States and Russia still possess substantial stockpiles. The US nuclear weapons arsenal is estimated to number nearly 10,000 while Russia's number closer to 16,000.

China, which possesses 130 nuclear bombs, has refused to take part in arms control measures until the US and Russia reduce their arsenals to a level comparable with Britain and France. The UK, which conducted its first test in 1952, has a submarine based deterrent of about 200 nuclear weapons. France, which also maintains a deterrent force, possesses approximately 350 nukes.

India detonated its first nuclear device, code-named "Smiling Budda," in 1974. For over two decades it claimed that its nuclear program was only meant for peaceful research purposes. Then, in 1998, India all but declared itself a nuclear power with a series of nuclear tests, a move that angered the West and prompted its rival Pakistan to follow suit. Pakistan began a secret nuclear weapons program in 1972, and now has between 65 and 90 nukes - roughly on par with the suspected size of India's arsenal.

Israel is perhaps one of the most controversial members of the nuclear club. Israel's officially unacknowledged nuclear arsenal has been described as "the worst-kept secret in the Middle East." Reports indicate that Israel possesses a little over 100 nuclear missiles. The Jewish nation has never officially conducted a nuclear test, however some suspect that such a test may have been conducted in secret in 1979 off the coast of South Africa. On September 22, 1979 a US satellite detected a massive explosion over the Indian Ocean. The explosion is known as the "Vela Incident". Most of the information about the incident is still classified, and there are many different conjectures about who may be responsible for the blast. However the most popular theory is that Israel, which almost certainly had nuclear weapons in 1979, conducted a nuclear test with the assistance of South Africa. South Africa also had a nuclear weapons program at the time, before the fall of the apartheid, and the geographic location of the tests points to their involvement.

The Growing Threat


On October 9th, 2006, North Korea carried out its first-ever nuclear weapons test - officially joining the nuclear club. Experts suspect that North Korea currently possesses between six and eight nuclear weapons. However a report published by the Institute for Science and International Security says North Korea has enough radioactive material to build as many as 13 bombs. North Korea is the most unstable member of the nuclear club, and the test has triggered an Asian arms race. North Korea is under increasing international pressure to abandon its nuclear program, and in recent months it has shown some signs of compliance, but there have also been reports that it has sold nuclear technology on the black market to countries like Syria and Iran.

Iran's uranium enrichment program has also been the subject of intense international scrutiny in the debate over nuclear proliferation. Yet with troops already deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Bush appears - at least for the time being - to be committed to finding a diplomatic solution to the standoff. Some experts have speculated that Israel may be planning a pre-emptive strike, although military action would most likely be used as a last resort. In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor when it believed Saddam Hussein was close to producing a nuclear bomb. If Israel does attack Iran it would undoubtedly bring about a firestorm in the Middle East. Unfortunately we are running out of time, and neither Israel nor the United States are willing to accept the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran. If diplomacy continues to fail, military action may be our only option.

The threat of a nuclear attack is very real. Thomas C. Schelling, an economist and professor of foreign affairs, national security, nuclear strategy and arms control at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, once wrote that we have "a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable. The contingency we have not considered looks strange; what looks strange is therefore improbable; what seems improbable need not be considered seriously." Those words were written in regards to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In that instance American forces were taken by surprise and the result was catastrophic. Have we learned from our mistake or is history destined to repeat itself? Will we once again be taken by surprise by our adversaries? To some, the threat of a nuclear attack may seem improbable, but we would be foolish not to take it seriously.

RELATED LINKS
Men Arrested for Selling Weapons-Grade Uranium on Black Market - Guardian
North Korea Talks Delayed - Reuters
Iran Nuke Work Continues - Haaretz
Are Pakistan's Nukes in Safe Hands? - TIME
Last edited by quandary121; May 28th, 2008 at 08:10 PM..Reason: SOME THINGS NEEDED TAKING OUT
 
quandary121
Green
#7
North Korea Threatens to Sell Nukes

from the February 05, 2008 eNews issueNot only has North Korea not stopped its nuclear activities, but according to a US intelligence report made public this week, North Korea threatened to sell nuclear weapons to terrorists in 2005. North Korea told US officials that they "could transfer nuclear weapons to terrorists if driven into a corner." The report also contains information on North Korea's enrichment and proliferation activities, Syria's nuclear ambitions, and al-Qaeda's plans for developing chemical and biological weapons to be deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report paints a vivid picture of the challenges we face as nation.

This past year evidence was uncovered that North Korea may be helping Syria develop nuclear weapons. The news was made public after Israel conducted a mysterious nighttime raid deep into Syria to destroy what some say was a clandestine nuclear facility. Syria's nuclear ambitions and its cooperation with North Korea will undoubtedly complicate the six-party talks over North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Officials warn that the secretive and often unpredictable regime has not yet ceased all of its proliferation activities.

North Korea has shown some willingness to cooperate, but US government officials are skeptical. US diplomats won't be able to rest easy until all of North Korea's nuclear facilities are not only shut down, but dismantled. Experts suspect that North Korea currently possesses between six and eight nuclear weapons. However a report by the Institute for Science and International Security claims that North Korea has enough radioactive material to build as many as 13 bombs.

The standoff with North Korea began in October of 2002 when the communist regime announced its plans to build nuclear weapons. North Korea subsequently withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Four years later, in October of 2006, North Korea shocked the world when it conducted its first-ever test of a nuclear warhead. It had long been suspected that North Korea possessed such weapons; however the test laid to rest any lingering doubts about North Korea's nuclear capabilities.

The US has long hoped that pressure from the international community would motivate North Korea to continue with six-party talks and eventually abandon its nuclear program. For almost six years the six nations have tried to reach an agreement, without much success. North Korea's eccentric dictator, Kim Jong-Il, has a history of unpredictable behavior and has proven to be a fickle negotiating partner. Further complicating matters is the fact that the six parties involved in the peace negotiations have such divergent interests. The US and Japan, concerned about security, have taken a hard-line approach. Meanwhile, South Korea wants to avoid war and has increased aid to the North while Russia and China - afraid of sparking a refugee crisis - have been hesitant to back harsh sanctions.

Jesus warned us that as we approach the end times there would be "wars and rumors of wars..." and that "nation would rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom..." This knowledge, that we are in living in the last days, should give you a renewed sense of urgency and determination in pursuing God’s plan for both your life and mine. It is a plan in which we are called to be ambassadors for Christ bringing the light of life and hope into a world full of darkness, death, and decay.
Last edited by quandary121; May 28th, 2008 at 08:08 PM..Reason: SUBMITED TWICE
 
quandary121
Green
#8
North Korea Maintains Uranium Enrichment Program, U.S. Says
By Ed Johnson



Feb. 5 (Bloomberg) -- North Korea maintains its uranium enrichment program and remains a nuclear proliferation risk, the top U.S. intelligence official said in his annual threat assessment to Congress.
``We remain uncertain about Kim Jong Il's commitment to full denuclearization as he promised in the six-party agreement,'' Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell told the Senate Intelligence Committee today.
North Korea failed to meet a Dec. 31 deadline for declaring its nuclear programs as agreed under an accord with the U.S., China, South Korea, Japan and Russia.
The five nations are demanding North Korea continue dismantling its Yongbyon reactor, which produced weapons-grade plutonium, and declare a program to enrich uranium, which can also be used in nuclear weapons.
``While Pyongyang denies a program for uranium enrichment, and they deny their proliferation activities, we believe North Korea continues to engage in both,'' McConnell said.
In the annual assessment of the global threats facing the U.S., McConnell noted North Korea has already sold ballistic missiles to ``several Middle Eastern countries'' including Iran.
``We remain concerned North Korea could proliferate nuclear weapons abroad,'' he said in the assessment.
North Korea probably views its nuclear capabilities as ``being more for deterrence and coercive diplomacy than for war fighting and would consider using nuclear weapons only under certain narrow circumstances,'' McConnell said in the report.
``We also assess that Pyongyang probably would not attempt to use nuclear weapons against U.S. forces or territory unless it perceived the regime to be on the verge of military defeat and risk an irretrievable loss of control,'' he added.
Six-Party Accord
The six-nation agreement provides for North Korea to receive 1 million metric tons of fuel oil, or the equivalent in aid, and for diplomatic ties with the U.S. to be normalized, in return for dismantling its nuclear program.
North Korea shut down the Yongbyon reactor in July, completing the first phase of the accord. It began disabling the reactor, fuel reprocessing plants and a fuel fabrication center under the supervision of U.S. inspectors in November.
The U.S. has said it wants the government in Pyongyang to fully outline its nuclear operations, including any transfers of technology and know-how to other countries as well as uranium enrichment activities.
North Korea remains committed to the six-party accord, Kim told a visiting Chinese envoy last month, according to China's official Xinhua News Agency.
Pakistan's Arsenal
McConnell said that political turmoil in Pakistan hasn't ``seriously threatened'' the military's control of the country's nuclear arsenal, although ``vulnerabilities exist.''
U.S. intelligence agencies ``judge that the army's management of nuclear policy issues, to include physical security, has not been degraded by Pakistan's political crisis,'' he said in the assessment.
Pakistan, the world's most populous Muslim nation after Indonesia, is battling Islamic militants in tribal areas along its border with Afghanistan. U.S. lawmakers have raised concerns that Pakistan's arsenal may fall into the hands of extremists.
The nation has about 60 nuclear bombs, according to the Washington-based Arms Control Association. The arsenal is secure and a division of 8,000 guards oversees security, Muhammad Khurshid Khan, deputy director of Pakistan's Strategic Plans Division, said Nov. 20.
To contact the reporter on this story: Ed Johnson in Sydney at ejohnson28@bloomberg.net.
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
#9
All of the above is 'just' too much for me to sift through, so, all I have to say is this:

We are the masses, and throughout the world the masses far surpass the leaders in
numbers by billions, BUT, we, the masses, must sit by and watch all the sh*t head leaders
threaten each other, wish each other 'off' of the face of the earth, compete with each
other for all the power on earth', build bigger and bigger weapons to kill 'US' with, AND
there seems to be NOTHING we can do, I can't stand it any more. We the masses, are for
the most part peaceful and actually like each other all round the world, but the psycopaths that become the leaders want to threaten and kill, live for power and attention, and we stand by and allow these people to lead all of us. Something is wrong
here, I SAY " Lets run em out of town", now.
 
quandary121
Green
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by talloola View Post

All of the above is 'just' too much for me to sift through, so, all I have to say is this:

We are the masses, and throughout the world the masses far surpass the leaders in
numbers by billions, BUT, we, the masses, must sit by and watch all the sh*t head leaders
threaten each other, wish each other 'off' of the face of the earth, compete with each
other for all the power on earth', build bigger and bigger weapons to kill 'US' with, AND
there seems to be NOTHING we can do, I can't stand it any more. We the masses, are for
the most part peaceful and actually like each other all round the world, but the psycopaths that become the leaders want to threaten and kill, live for power and attention, and we stand by and allow these people to lead all of us. Something is wrong
here, I SAY " Lets run em out of town", now.

I agree totaly with you an the point about " Lets run em out of town" but there are so many pubic order rules about now days that we the people would be gunned down in the streets by the military or the police the only way that i can see any change is to have some sort of boycott in which the whole world took part but of what i don't know as we in Britain tried to do it with petrol (gasoline) but in my mind not enough people were committed to it and even though it did cause some minor disruption and the government did decrease the value of petrol ( for about 2 seconds no in reality it did work for a bit then they hiked up the price again) the trouble we us over here there is no backbone in people any more to take a stand or to dissent.!!!!!
 
earth_as_one
#11
T,

I agree with your sentiments.

Quote:

Summary of Q's posts:

Main Point:

A nuclear arms race has begun in the middle east and internationally

Other Points:

40 countries worldwide to announce that they are either starting new or expanding existing nuclear energy programs

In the space of less than a year, 13 nations in the Middle East have announced plans to explore atomic energy. Each of these countries has abundant oil and gas reserves, which is why some experts fear that Iran's nuclear ambitions may have triggered the start of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

...

Q's posts also consists of alot of misinformation about Iran's nuclear program and the root causes of the nuclear proliferation.

For example, by reading the above, you wouldn't think Iran has a declared and inspected nuclear energy program or that what is known about this program is in complete compliance with the NPT. Nuclear energy research and nuclear weapon research are the same up to a point. So far it appears that Iran has not crossed any illegal NPT violating lines, despite propaganda efforts to portray a completely different perception... (See references in posts above)

Quote:

IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance

by Gordon Prather
Hallelujah! The International Atomic Energy Agency has, once again, verified "the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran." It seems the Iranians continue to provide the IAEA access to all "special nuclear materials" – as proscribed by the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – and all relevant nuclear material accountancy reports, as well as access to all activities involving said materials.

So, let the dancing in the streets commence!

But wait a minute.

Even though compliance by Iran is the principal and only conclusion of the current IAEA report [.pdf] – entitled Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 and 1747 in the Islamic Republic of Iran – the neo-crazy media sycophants at the New York Times don't even mention it in their "report" on the IAEA report!...

...ElBaradei even reports – not unfavorably – the Iranian-supplied justification for the secretive manner in which they have pursued the civilian nuclear power fuel-cycle which both the IAEA Statute and the NPT assure them is their inalienable right

Quote:

"According to Iran, in its early years, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) concluded a number of contracts with entities from France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States of America to enable it to acquire nuclear power and a wide range of related nuclear fuel cycle services, but after the 1979 revolution, these contracts with a total value of around $10 billion were not fulfilled...

...apart from uranium conversion technology acquired from an entity in China, Iran was not able to acquire other nuclear fuel cycle facilities or technology from abroad.

"As a result, according to Iran, a decision was made in the mid-1980s to acquire uranium enrichment technology on the black market."...

...the "have" states are obligated under the IAEA Statute and under the NPT to facilitate that transfer – for peaceful purposes.

Hence, that history of Iran's attempts to obtain their "inalienable" rights under the IAEA Statute and NPT – if verified by the IAEA – constitutes an indictment of the IAEA's long-term abdication of its primary mission...


http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=11923

Iran's nuclear program may be a trigger for the current nuclear arms race, but the root causes are the failure of existing nuclear powers to reduce and eliminate the nuclear weapon stockpiles in clear violation of the NPT and rogue nuclear powers like Israel, Pakistan and India, which possess nukes yet are not NPT signatories.

Since all official and unofficial nuke power continue researching, improving and replacing their nuclear weapons, then why is the rest of the world including Iran obligated to continue to respect the NPT while these nations blatantly violate it?

Israel is particularly notorious nuclear power because it regularly threatens and bombs its neighbors and is the nation most likely to resort to nukes.

Quote:

June 1995

Israeli Nuclear Stockpile Undercuts U.S. Credibility at NPT Conference

By Frank Collins
The United States applied heavy pressure on Egypt, Mexico, Indonesia and many other countries to support the permanent and unconditional extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) at the month-long conference that opened April 17 in New York. However, before and during the proceedings President Bill Clinton did not put the slightest pressure on Israel to sign the NPT, saying privately that the United States "understands" the Israeli position.

In fact the U.S. government has refused to acknowledge that Israel has developed nuclear weapons at all, although specialists say Israel has a stockpile of between 200 and 300 weapons, which would place it in the class of China and Britain. It is this obfuscation that undercut U.S. credibility from the beginning of the conference, and imperiled a cornerstone of U.S. nuclear policy based upon renewal of the NPT.

The deadly nuclear arms race has been slowed by the NPT, which became effective in 1970. Many observers believe that, in the absence of this treaty, the number of countries which have declared that they possess nuclear weapons would have risen from the present five to as many as 30. Because of the misgivings of a number of the parties when the treaty was drafted, the life of the treaty was set at 25 years. Its renewal depended upon the negotiations that began this year.

The 1970 NPT was written as a compromise between the five declared nuclear powers—the United States, the U.S.S.R. (now supplanted by Russia), China, Britain and France—and the non-nuclear countries, which were assumed at the time to constitute the rest of the world. The chief inducement to the non-nuclear countries to sign was the pledge by the five nuclear powers that they would abolish their nuclear weapons and become non-nuclear like the rest of the signatories. Signatory countries were assured that the treaty would obligate their non-nuclear neighbors to forgo acquiring nuclear weapons for as long as the NPT was in effect.

Since that time, Israel, India and Pakistan are believed either to have developed or continued to develop nuclear weapons or components that could rapidly be assembled into such weapons. Thus the expected benefit of the NPT to non-nuclear countries has plummeted.

In the case of the Indian, Pakistani and Chinese triangle, a system of mutual deterrence has come into being, resembling the U.S.-U.S.S.R. stand-off in the Cold War. However, there being no other possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, Israel can directly threaten all of its neighbors under its policy of unilateral deterrence without the possibility of nuclear retaliation...

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0695/9506012.htm

Iran probably isn't working on nuclear weapons. They have no strategic need for them. Iran is well on its way to being able to carpet Israel and US targets with conventional warheads if Israel ever nukes Iran. Soon Iran will have achieved MAD with Israel by conventional weapons alone. The evidence shows Iran has put a lot of effort into improving and stockpiling ballestic missiles.

Quote:

Sep 17, 2007

Six hundred Iranian Shihab-3 missiles are pointed at targets throughout Israel, and will be launched if either Iran or Syria are attacked, an Iranian website affiliated with the regime reported on Monday.

"Iran will shoot at Israel 600 missiles if it is attacked," the Iranian news website, Assar Iran, reported. "600 missiles will only be the first reaction."

According to the report, dozens of locations throughout Iraq, which are being used by the US Army, have also been targeted.

The Shihab missile has a range of 1,300 km, and can reach anywhere in Israel...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

So the problem isn't just Iran. Nor are the US and Israel blameless. Its an international problem which won't be fixed until after the next nuclear war...
 
quandary121
Green
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one View Post

T,

I agree with your sentiments.



Q's posts also consists of alot of misinformation about Iran's nuclear program and the root causes of the nuclear proliferation.

For example, by reading the above, you wouldn't think Iran has a declared and inspected nuclear energy program or that what is known about this program is in complete compliance with the NPT. Nuclear energy research and nuclear weapon research are the same up to a point. So far it appears that Iran has not crossed any illegal NPT violating lines, despite propaganda efforts to portray a completely different perception... (See references in posts above)



Iran's nuclear program may be a trigger for the current nuclear arms race, but the root causes are the failure of existing nuclear powers to reduce and eliminate the nuclear weapon stockpiles in clear violation of the NPT and rogue nuclear powers like Israel, Pakistan and India, which possess nukes yet are not NPT signatories.

Since all official and unofficial nuke power continue researching, improving and replacing their nuclear weapons, then why is the rest of the world including Iran obligated to continue to respect the NPT while these nations blatantly violate it?

Israel is particularly notorious nuclear power because it regularly threatens and bombs its neighbors and is the nation most likely to resort to nukes.



Iran probably isn't working on nuclear weapons. They have no strategic need for them. Iran is well on its way to being able to carpet Israel and US targets with conventional warheads if Israel ever nukes Iran. Soon Iran will have achieved MAD with Israel by conventional weapons alone. The evidence shows Iran has put a lot of effort into improving and stockpiling ballestic missiles.



So the problem isn't just Iran. Nor are the US and Israel blameless. Its an international problem which won't be fixed until after the next nuclear war...

Hi i think that the worlds complete quasilinear views in telling Israel what it can or cannot do is an underlying problem there total disregard for Palestinian peoples and there constant attacking of said country any where else in the world would be stopped but because this is Israel were talking about nothing is done to curb there ever growing terrorist and military regimes the fact that they have nuclear capability's as well is crazy as do you think that they would worry about whether or not they use them the only reason they don't is because of the retaliatory effects that would come from the Arab nations and Syria.!!!

PS: I hope your wrong about it not being fixed until after the next nuclear war!!!!
 
MikeyDB
#13
The "Race" has never stopped and will never stop.

Our preparedness to embrace complete utter unyielding self-destruction will be satisfied one way or another.

When you build religions on the "afterlife" you're going with imagination with a healthy dose of wishful thinking.... A prudent choice for those deciding to.....

But it's never made any difference before so why should it now?

Through the magic of electronics and technologically sophisticated communications systems we can watch Turner or Disney or Paramount make that final appocalyptic super-feature at the actual end of human life as we destroly it along the way.

Weapons permit selection of who will die and when. What other consideration could possibly be more important?
 
quandary121
Green
#14
News Article
Browne calls for development of Nuclear disarmament technologies

A Defence Policy and Business news article

5 Feb 08

Defence Secretary Des Browne called for greater cooperation among nuclear states to develop technologies for disarmament, at a Conference being held in Geneva today, Tuesday 5 February 2008.
Defence Secretary Des Browne
[Picture: Richard Watt]

During a major speech at today's Conference on Nuclear Disarmament Mr Browne said:
"For the first time, I am proposing to host a conference for technical experts from all five recognised nuclear states, to develop technologies for nuclear disarmament.
"At the centre of this offer are the skills and expertise of UK scientists at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Those skills will form the basis of pioneering technical research into nuclear disarmament – to become a 'nuclear disarmament laboratory'."

As part of his speech, Des Browne highlighted disarmament that has already been achieved and the need to have a forward plan for a world free of nuclear weapons in order to maintain global support for countering nuclear proliferation.



"The UK is determined to have a world free of nuclear weapons. But to get there we must first create an international environment that better supports disarmament." Defence Secretary Des Browne

He said:
"Despite significant reductions in stockpiles since the Cold War, there remain thousands of nuclear warheads worldwide. The proliferation of nuclear material, technology and weapons represents a grave threat to international security.
"These challenges require a global solution. The international architecture to promote disarmament and counter proliferation is extensive, but still not sufficient. So we must continue to address these threats internationally.
"Every nation, both with and without nuclear weapons, needs to contribute to this effort. Nuclear Weapons States must show forward commitment to disarmament in order to maintain broad support from the Non-Nuclear Weapons States on countering proliferation.


Vanguard Class Submarines such as HMS Victorious, pictured here, provide the UK's strategic nuclear deterrent. The UK is the only recognised Nuclear Weapon State to have reduced to one type of platform, missile and warhead.
[Picture: Royal Navy]

"As one of the five recognised nuclear weapons states, the UK has made a significant contribution to countering proliferation, but this cannot be a unilateral approach. In the current circumstances, we cannot undermine our own national security. In renewing our own nuclear deterrent, we clearly set out our position in the 2006 White Paper as maintaining "minimum deterrence".
"The UK is determined to have a world free of nuclear weapons. But to get there we must first create an international environment that better supports disarmament. The UK has and will continue to pursue this until nuclear weapons no longer exist."
The Defence Secretary's speech builds on the Prime Minister's speech in Delhi last month and the Foreign Secretary's Carnegie Speech in June last year.
Examples of the UK's initiatives include:
  • Maintaining a moratorium on nuclear testing since 1991;
  • Continuing to be a leading advocate for UN Security Council Resolution 1540 which puts legally binding obligations on all UN Member States to combat proliferation of WMD.
  • UK is the only recognised Nuclear Weapon State to have reduced to one type of platform, missile and warhead;
  • As part of the White Paper in 2006, the UK announced a reduction of 20 per cent in the number of operationally available warheads to fewer than 160 - this has now been achieved;
  • Continuing to push for a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear devices (UK has not produced any fissile material for nuclear weapons since 1995);
  • UK has pledged up to $750M over ten years to the G8 Global Threat Reduction Programme which includes dismantling old Russian nuclear submarines.
  • Proposing an 'Enrichment Bond' to help non-nuclear states acquire the new sources of energy they require. The bond will allow internationally agreed access to nuclear fuel in return for demonstrable commitment to non-proliferation and strict compliance with the highest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) standards, thus ensuring the safe, secure and peaceful development of nuclear energy as envisioned by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The technical conference of the laboratories from the five recognised Nuclear Weapon States (China, France, Russia, UK and US), ideally before the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2010, will enable these five states to demonstrate their engagement in a process of mutual confidence building and trust.
 
quandary121
Green
#15
2008/02/05 'Laying the Foundations for Multilateral Disarmament'

Secretary of State for Defence, Des Browne addresses Geneva's Conference on Disarmament. 5th Feb 2008


I know it is rare for a defence Minister to address a conference on disarmament. That is precisely why I wanted to come here today. I want the fact that the British Secretary of State for Defence is addressing this Conference to send a strong message about the priority we give to our disarmament commitments.
These are commitments not just theoretical obligations. They are priorities against which we have made real progress since we came to power in 1997. The UK has a vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and, in partnership with everyone who shares that ambition, we intend to make further progress towards this vision in the coming years.
Problem
Over the past 15 years, we have seen some nations expanding their nuclear arsenals, some surreptitiously seeking nuclear weapons under the guise of a civil energy programme and others detonating nuclear test devices in the face of international condemnation.
The proliferation of nuclear material, technology, know-how and weapons represents a grave threat to international security. There remain many thousands of nuclear warheads around the world. We must take action now to ensure such material is properly protected.
We all want to see the world become a much safer place. International security architecture, in the form of Treaties and initiatives, exists to help us achieve that objective. The international community has been active in bolstering that architecture. It has not completely stopped proliferation. Nor is it yet strong enough to permit immediate unilateral disarmament by any recognised Nuclear Weapon State.
We need to do more.
But nuclear weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction are not the only concern, we must also maintain a focus on conventional weapons.
Last month, Gordon Brown set out the key challenges facing the international community. He highlighted some of the ways international institutions need to reform to enable us all, collectively, to meet those challenges. He reminded us that one person is killed every minute by a conventional weapon. Kofi Annan famously called them “WMD in slow motion”.

These weapons have an enormous effect in terms of lost human lives, in terms of broken communities, environmental impact and damage to economic prosperity and development. I have witnessed their devastating impact on the lives of people in Central Africa, Colombia, Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
Consequently, I am proud support efforts such as the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons and the UK's Arms Trade Treaty initiative. These efforts aim to contribute to a global control architecture which both meets the requirements of the 21st century and gives focus and coherence to existing measures.

In addition, Gordon Brown and I have made clear our goal of securing an international instrument that bans those cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. Last year I withdrew from service the two types of cluster munitions for exactly this reason and only last week with my colleagues I met with NGOs and politicians concerned about the impact of cluster munitions to discuss both Oslo and CCW.
Controlling and reducing the proliferation of conventional arms is important, but I have come here to focus on nuclear disarmament.
As the preamble to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty makes clear, all States party to the Treaty should work towards “the easing of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the elimination of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery…”
This is not some “get out” clause for the five recognised Nuclear Weapon States. Rather it is recognition that all signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty already have agreed to strive for measures which provide an environment for all Nuclear Weapon States to eliminate their holdings. This is a joint commitment and it is a joint responsibility.
As this Conference knows too well, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty has not yet entered into force and there is an ongoing stalemate on a Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty. This hardly gives the impression that progress is being made.
I commend this Conference for playing a crucial role in moving forward the debate and seeking solutions. And I encourage all experts and representatives engaged in this process to redouble their efforts.
Solutions
It may be a truism but global challenges require global solutions. The solutions must take us all towards an increase in the pace of multilateral disarmament as well as a reduction in proliferation.
The international community needs a transparent, sustainable and credible plan for multilateral nuclear disarmament. A plan that also addresses proliferation, so that disarmament and counter-proliferation both move forward together, each supporting the other. Although, we all understand that there is no formal conditionality between progress on disarmament and non-proliferation, our goal should be a virtuous circle, where progress on one reinforces the other.
Our chances of eliminating nuclear weapons will be enhanced immeasurably if the Non-Nuclear Weapon States can see forward planning, commitment and action toward multilateral nuclear disarmament by Nuclear Weapon States. Without this, we risk generating the perception that the Nuclear Weapon States are failing to fulfil their disarmament obligations and this will be used by some states as an excuse for their nuclear intransigence.
What then should this plan comprise of?
Let me start with the question of reductions to the major nuclear arsenals.
There is little public acknowledgement of the vast cuts so far in US and Russian warheads, especially since the Cold War. Nor, for that matter, the cuts to the much smaller French and UK stocks.
I welcome the recent news by the US that, by 2012, their stockpile will be at its lowest for 50 years – less than one quarter of the level at the end of the Cold War. We all need to maintain this effort but we also need to get better at publicising the fact that we are on this path.
We must also welcome the ongoing bilateral discussions between the US and Russia for a follow-on arrangement after the current START treaty expires. Success would provide a powerful signal that the post Cold War disarmament trend towards zero will continue.
States also need to explore whether there is scope to reduce further the number of nuclear weapons they need to maintain an effective deterrent. The UK set an example by reducing our operationally available warheads by a further 20% when we decided last year to maintain our own minimum nuclear deterrent beyond the life of the current Vanguard-class submarines ,
The international climate must become one that gives all Nuclear Weapon States the confidence to continue to make similar changes.
I welcome the discussions on how to deal with States who may leave the NPT. Leaving any treaty is always a sovereign decision, but the NPT Review Conference in 2010 should send a message to any States considering withdrawal that such a decision will have consequences.
We must be resolute in tackling proliferation challenges. We must confront states who are looking to breach their obligations and undermine global security by developing WMD. And within the international community we must ensure there is no space for such proliferators.
The UK is committed to supporting the universal right of access to safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technology. But this cannot be at the risk of further proliferation. It is in this context that we have developed the concept of an Enrichment Bond – whereby assistance is granted in return for demonstrable commitment to non-proliferation.
We should also continue to strive for the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and progress in its verification system. I warmly welcome the ratification last week by Columbia – real evidence of progress on this key piece of our security architecture. Since 1991, the UK has not tested a nuclear weapon and I call on all states to ratify the CTBT as soon as possible, especially those so-called Annex II states whose ratification is required for the Treaty’s entry into force
I believe a key milestone towards building this climate for disarmament is securing a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, which, in real ways, will limit the ability of signatory states to expand their nuclear arsenals and which will provide the necessary reassurance to their neighbours and the international community.
Since 1995, the UK has had a moratorium on production of fissile material for nuclear weapons purposes and permanently placed excess defence material under international safeguards. The US, France and Russia have announced similar formal arrangements. But we want to see that political commitment transformed into a legal one through a treaty.
In 2007, the International Community came very close to starting negotiations in 2007 and I commend all those states who were willing to take part. And I call on those three states that did not, to do so this year. As UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, said last month, we all have legitimate national security concerns, but without any preconditions, let’s at least get to negotiations of a Treaty, where these security concerns can then be addressed.
Some commentators have raised the idea of taking the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty out of the Conference and negotiating a treaty amongst a smaller group of like-minded nations. Frankly this misses the very point of the Conference – it is the only body where all nuclear armed States and Non-Nuclear Weapon States sit together to discuss security issues of the highest sensitivity.

Safeguarding fissile material is a crucial responsibility of those who possess nuclear weapons. So let us work together within this Conference to make real multilateral progress.
But just as the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty is a high priority for the UK, I acknowledge other nations have other priorities, such as negotiating a new legal instrument on preventing an arms race in space.
At the UN, the UK consistently has supported the annual resolution on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space. But there is no international consensus on the need to start negotiations on a new international legal instrument governing the military use of space. So rather than allowing this stalemate to continue, efforts should instead be focused on areas such as transparency and confidence building to allow us all to move forward.
UK / Defence Contribution
So what is the UK, and more specifically the Ministry of Defence, doing to help move this agenda along, and to help create an environment conducive to multilateral nuclear disarmament?
Already we have contributed in the most tangible way through reducing the number of operationally available warheads to fewer than 160. This has now been achieved. And if we are able to reduce further, we will do that.
With a contribution from the UK government, the International Institute for Strategic Studies is examining the political and technical requirements for a world free from nuclear weapons. And I look forward to the final report, which will be published later this year.
However, one area on which I would like to focus is our work on verification of nuclear disarmament.
Just as Margaret Beckett said last year, I too want the UK to be seen as a ‘disarmament laboratory’. By that I mean the UK becoming a role model and testing ground for measures that we and others can take on key aspects of disarmament. In particular, measures needed to determine the requirements for the verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons.
Any verification regime will have to be robust, effective and mutually trusted and, crucially, one that doesn’t give away national security or proliferation-sensitive information.
The more reductions states make, the more confidence they will require that no one is cheating and secretly retaining a “marginal nuclear weapon”. It is therefore of paramount importance that verification techniques are developed which enable us all – Nuclear Weapon States and Non-Nuclear Weapon States – to have confidence that when a state says it has fully and irrevocably dismantled a nuclear warhead, we all can be assured it is telling the truth.
The UK is ready to lead the way on this. Research into how one technically verifies the dismantlement of a warhead continues at the UK’s Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston.
Developing such techniques will take time but it is very important it is not undertaken in ‘splendid isolation’. It must be built on the requirements of Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Weapon States alike. We need to consider not only what information we are willing to divulge but also what information a Non-Nuclear Weapon State will want to receive.
With this in mind, over the last year AWE has developed a technical cooperation initiative with several Norwegian defence laboratories. The process of engaging with Norway must avoid breaching our mutual NPT obligations, which in itself serves as useful insight into how future multilateral discussions might proceed.
The difficulty is in developing technologies which strike the right balance between protecting security and proliferation considerations and, at the same time, providing sufficient international access and verification. But this is a challenge we can overcome.
If we are serious about doing our bit to create the conditions for complete nuclear disarmament, we must now also begin to build deeper technical relationships on disarmament between nuclear weapon states.
So I come to this Conference with a proposal.
As a next step, and following on from the AWE research, the UK is willing to host a technical conference of P5 nuclear laboratories on the verification of nuclear disarmament before the next NPT Review Conference in 2010. We hope such a conference will enable the five recognised nuclear weapons states to reinforce a process of mutual confidence building: working together to solve some of these difficult technical issues.
As part of our global efforts, we also hope to engage with other P5 states in other confidence-building measures on nuclear disarmament throughout this NPT Review Cycle. The aim here is to promote greater trust and confidence as a catalyst for further reductions in warheads - but without undermining the credibility of our existing nuclear deterrents.
So to summarise, we face serious threats. But we face them together – that is the nature of today’s globalised interdependent world. We need a transparent, sustainable and credible plan for multilateral nuclear disarmament. A plan shared by Nuclear Weapon States and Non-Nuclear Weapon States alike.
I have suggested some of the elements of that plan. But the UK certainly does not have a monopoly on good ideas – others have put equally good proposals on the table, and I encourage states to suggest further initiatives.
So, Conference, let us all work together with resolve and ambition to lay the foundations that will allow us to move towards that shared vision of a world free of nuclear weapons.
 
quandary121
Green
#16
Brief Background
The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. A total of 187 parties have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty's significance.
To further the goal of non-proliferation and as a confidence-building measure between States parties, the Treaty establishes a safeguards system under the responsibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Safeguards are used to verify compliance with the Treaty through inspections conducted by the IAEA. The Treaty promotes co-operation in the field of peaceful nuclear technology and equal access to this technology for all States parties, while safeguards prevent the diversion of fissile material for weapons use.
The provisions of the Treaty, particularly article VIII, paragraph 3, envisage a review of the operation of the Treaty every five years, a provision which was reaffirmed by the States parties at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference.
The 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) met at the United Nations in New York from 24 April to 19 May 2000. The Conference was the first to meet following the Treaty's indefinite extension at the 1995 Conference. States parties examined the implementation of the Treaty's provisions since 1995, taking into account the decisions on the principles and objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament and the strengthening of the review process for the Treaty as well as the resolution on the Middle East adopted at the 1995 Conference.
ENTRY INTO FORCE: 5 March 1970*
DEPOSITARY GOVERNMENTS: Russian Federation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTIES AS OF March 2002: 187 Parties
____________
*On 11 May 1995, in accordance with article X, paragraph 2, the Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons decided that the Treaty should continue in force indefinitely
 
quandary121
Green
#17
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR 2010 NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY REVIEW CONFERENCE


TO MEET IN GENEVA, 28 APRIL - 9 MAY


NEW YORK, 25 April (Office for Disarmament Affairs) -- The Preparatory Committee for the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons will hold its second session from 28 April to 9 May in the Assembly Hall at the United Nations Office at Geneva, Switzerland. This is the second of three sessions of the Preparatory Committee that will be held prior to the 2010 Review Conference.

This session, which is open to all parties to the Treaty, observer States, specialized agencies, international and regional intergovernmental organizations, and non-governmental organizations, will address substantive and procedural issues related to the Treaty and the upcoming Review Conference in 2010. The Chairman of the second session is Ambassador Volodymyr Yel’chenko of Ukraine.

The purpose of the session is to consider principles, objectives and ways to promote the full implementation of the Treaty, as well as its universality, and to factually summarize its results and submit it to the third session of the Preparatory Committee, which has the task of taking into account the deliberations of the previous sessions and making recommendations to the Review Conference.

The Treaty, which entered into force in 1970 and was extended indefinitely in 1995, requires that review conferences be held every five years.

The Treaty is regarded as the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. It is designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to further the goal of nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament, and to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

For accreditation and further information, please contact Elena Ponomareva-Piquier, Chief, Press and External Relations Section, United Nations Information Service at Geneva, tel.: +41 22 917 2336; e-mail: eponomareva@unog.ch.

Some meetings of the Conference may be closed to the media. Further information on the second session of the Preparatory Committee may be found at www.un.org/NPT2010/SecondSession.
 
quandary121
Green
#18
Weapons of Mass Destruction Branch
of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs
The Weapons of Mass Destruction Branch provides substantive support for the activities of the United Nations in the area of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological weapons), including the threat of use of weapons of mass destruction in terrorist acts, as well as missiles. The Branch follows closely all developments and trends with regard to weapons of mass destruction in all their aspects in order to keep the Secretary-General fully informed and to provide information to Member States and the international community. The Branch supports, and participates in, multilateral efforts to strengthen the international norm on disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and, in this connection, it cooperates with relevant intergovernmental organizations and specialized agencies of the United Nations system, in particular the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO PrepCom).

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is a landmark multilateral treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment by the nuclear-weapon States at the multilateral level to the goal of nuclear disarmament. Opened for signature on 1 July 1968, the Treaty entered into force on 5 March 1970. A total of 190 States have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty's significance. NPT page
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)
The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) bans all nuclear explosions, for military or civil purposes. After three years of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament (CD), the CTBT was adopted on 10 September 1996 by the United Nations General Assembly and opened for signature on 24 September 1996. The CTBT will enter into force 180 days after it has been ratified by the 44 States that are identified in Annex II to the Treaty and that possess nuclear power or research reactors. CTBT page
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention)
After 12 years of negotiations, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) was adopted by the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on 3 September 1992. The CWC contains a mechanism for verifying compliance by States with the provisions of the Convention that is unprecedented in scope and in the stringency of its verification regime. The CWC opened for signature in Paris on 13 January 1993 and entered into force on 29 April 1997. The CWC is the first disarmament agreement negotiated within a multilateral framework that provides for the elimination of an entire category of weapons of mass destruction under universally applied international control. CWC page
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention)
As a result of prolonged efforts by the international community to establish a new instrument that would supplement the 1925 Geneva Protocol, the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), the first multilateral disarmament treaty banning the production and use of an entire category of weapons, was opened for signature on 10 April 1972. The BWC entered into force on 26 March 1975. However, the absence of any formal verification regime to monitor compliance has limited the effectiveness of the Convention. BWC page
Missiles
The international community has long been concerned by the accumulation, proliferation, technical refinement and threat and use of ballistic and other types of missiles. In response, States have pursued various unilateral, bilateral and multilateral measures. Nonetheless, there is no universally accepted norm or instrument specifically governing the development, testing, production, acquisition, transfer, deployment or use of missiles. By its resolution 55/33 A of 20 November 2000, entitled "Missiles", the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a Panel of Governmental Experts, to prepare a report for the consideration of the General Assembly at its 57th session on the issue of missiles in all its aspects. The Panel, after holding three sessions in 2001 and 2002, adopted a report by consensus and submitted it to the General Assembly at its 57th session. Missiles page
WMD Terrorism
The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 in the United States of America caused the international community to focus on the issue of terrorism with renewed intensity. Terrorism is a global threat with global effects and its consequences affect every aspect of the United Nations agenda -- from development to peace to human rights to the rule of law. In its Outcome Document, adopted 13 September 2005, the 2005 World Summit condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and acknowledged the important role played by the United Nations in combating it. Terrorism page
 
quandary121
Green
#19
Security Council
5877th Meeting (AM)

SECURITY COUNCIL EXTENDS ‘1540 COMMITTEE’ FOR THREE YEARS TO HALT PROLIFERATION


OF MASS DESTRUCTION WEAPONS, ENCOURAGES STATES TO MAP OUT IMPLEMENTATION PLANS


Reaffirming that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their delivery means was a threat to international peace and security, the Security Council today extended for three years the mandate of the Committee created to monitor implementation of its resolution 1540 (2004), which called on all States to establish domestic controls and adopt legislation to prevent the proliferation and use by non-State actors of weapons of mass destruction.

Unanimously adopting resolution 1810 (2008) under the Charter’s Chapter VII, the Council decided that the 1540 Committee should intensify its efforts through its work programme to promote full implementation by all States of resolution 1540 (2004). That included compiling information on the status of States’ implementation of 1540, outreach, dialogue, assistance and cooperation, and which addressed in particular all aspects of paragraph 1 and 2 as well as paragraph 3 on accountability, physical protection, border controls and law enforcement efforts, and national export and trans-shipment controls including controls on providing funds and services such as export and trans-shipment financing.

Paragraph 1 of resolution 1540 mandated that States shall refrain from providing any form of support to non-State actors that attempted to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. Paragraph 2 of that resolution mandated that States, in accordance with national procedures, shall adopt and enforce appropriate effective laws that prohibited any non-State actor from developing or acquiring weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, in particular for terrorist purposes.

In that connection, the Council today encouraged all States to prepare on a voluntary basis summary action plans, with the assistance of the 1540 Committee, mapping out their priorities and plans for implementing the key provisions of resolution 1540 and to submit those plans to the Committee.

Further to the text, the Council encouraged ongoing dialogue between the 1540 Committee and States on their further actions to fully implement resolution 1540 (2004) and on technical assistance needed and offered. The Council requested that the Committee continue to organize and participate in regional, subregional and national outreach events to promote States’ implementation of the resolution as well as actively engage with States and relevant international, regional and subregional organizations to promote the sharing of experiences and lessons learned in areas covered by the resolution.

The text was sponsored by China, Croatia, France, Italy, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and the United States.

The meeting convened at 12:02 p.m. and adjourned at 12:05 p.m.

Resolution

The full text of Council resolution 1810 (2008) reads as follows:

The Security Council,

Reaffirming its resolutions 1540 (2004) of 28 April 2004 and 1673 (2006) of 27 April 2006,

Reaffirming that proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constitutes a threat to international peace and security,

Reaffirming the Statement of its President adopted at the Council’s meeting at the level of Heads of State and Government on 31 January 1992 (S/23500), including the need for all Member States to fulfil their obligations in relation to arms control and disarmament and to prevent proliferation in all its aspects of all weapons of mass destruction,

Reaffirming that prevention of proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons should not hamper international cooperation in materials, equipment and technology for peaceful purposes while goals of peaceful utilization should not be used as a cover for proliferation,

Affirming its resolve to take appropriate and effective actions against any threat to international peace and security caused by the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery, in conformity with its primary responsibilities, as provided for in the United Nations Charter,

Reaffirming its decision that none of the obligations in resolution 1540 (2004) shall be interpreted so as to conflict with or alter the rights and obligations of State Parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention or alter the responsibilities of the International Atomic Energy Agency or the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,

Noting also that international co-operation between States, in accordance with international law, is required to counter the illicit trafficking by non-State actors in nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, their means of delivery, and related materials,

Endorsing the work already carried out by the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004), hereafter the 1540 Committee, in accordance with its fifth Programme of Work,

Bearing in mind the importance of the report requested in paragraph 6 of resolution 1673 (2006),

Noting that not all States have presented to the 1540 Committee their national reports on implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), and that the full implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) by all States, including the adoption of national laws and measures to ensure implementation of these laws, is a long-term task that will require continuous efforts at national, regional and international levels,

Recognizing in that regard the importance of dialogue between the 1540 Committee and Member States and stressing that direct contact is an effective means of such dialogue,

Recognizing the need to enhance coordination of efforts on national, regional, subregional and international levels, as appropriate, in order to strengthen a global response to this serious challenge and threat to international security,

Emphasizing in that regard the importance of providing States, in response to their requests, with effective assistance that meets their needs and stressing the importance of ensuring that the clearinghouse function for assistance is efficient and accessible,

Taking note of international efforts towards full implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), including on preventing the financing of proliferation-related activities, taking into consideration the guidance of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF),

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

“1. Reiterates its decisions in and the requirements of resolution 1540 (2004) and emphasizes the importance for all States to implement fully that resolution;

“2. Again calls upon all States that have not yet presented a first report on steps they have taken or intend to take to implement resolution 1540 (2004) to submit such a report to the 1540 Committee without delay;

“3. Encourages all States that have submitted such reports to provide, at any time or upon the request of the 1540 Committee, additional information on their implementation of resolution 1540 (2004);

“4. Encourages all States to prepare on a voluntary basis summary action plans, with the assistance of the 1540 Committee as appropriate, mapping out their priorities and plans for implementing the key provisions of resolution 1540 (2004), and to submit those plans to the 1540 Committee;

“5. Encourages States that have requests for assistance to convey them to the 1540 Committee, and encourages them to make use of the Committee’s assistance template to that effect; urges States and international, regional and subregional organizations to inform the Committee as appropriate by 25 June 2008 of areas in which they are able to provide assistance; calls upon States and such organizations, if they have not done so previously, to provide the 1540 Committee with a point of contact for assistance by 25 June 2008;

“6. Decides to extend the mandate of the 1540 Committee for a period of three years, with the continued assistance of experts, until 25 April 2011;

“7. Requests the 1540 Committee to complete its report as set out in paragraph 6 of resolution 1673 (2006), and to submit it to the Security Council as soon as possible but no later than 31 July 2008;

“8. Requests the 1540 Committee to consider a comprehensive review of the status of implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) and to report to the Council on its consideration on the matter by no later than 31 January 2009;

“9. Decides that the Committee should submit an annual Programme of Work to the Security Council before the end of each January;

“10. Decides that the 1540 Committee shall continue to intensify its efforts to promote the full implementation by all States of resolution 1540 (2004), through its Programme of Work which includes the compilation of information on the status of States’ implementation of all aspects of resolution 1540 (2004), outreach, dialogue, assistance and cooperation, and which addresses in particular all aspects of paragraphs 1 and 2 of that resolution, as well as of paragraph 3 which encompasses (a) accountability, (b) physical protection, (c) border controls and law enforcement efforts and (d) national export and trans-shipment controls including controls on providing funds and services such as financing to such export and trans-shipment;

“11. Decides in that regard to:

“(a) encourage the pursuit of the ongoing dialogue between the 1540 Committee and States on their further actions to implement fully resolution 1540 (2004) and on technical assistance needed and offered;

“(b) request the 1540 Committee to continue to organize and participate in outreach events at the regional, subregional and, as appropriate, national level promoting States’ implementation of resolution 1540 (2004);

“(c) urge the 1540 Committee to continue strengthening the Committee’s role in facilitating technical assistance for implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), including by engaging actively in matching offers and requests for assistance through such means as assistance templates, action plans or other information submitted to the 1540 Committee;

“(d) encourage the 1540 Committee to engage actively with States and relevant international, regional and subregional organizations to promote the sharing of experience and lessons learned in the areas covered by resolution 1540 (2004), and to liaise on the availability of programmes which might facilitate the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004);

“(e) request the 1540 Committee to provide opportunities for interaction with interested States and relevant international, regional and subregional organizations to promote implementation of resolution 1540 (2004);

“12. Reiterates the need to enhance ongoing cooperation between the 1540 Committee, the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999), concerning Al-Qaida and the Taliban, and the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001), concerning counter-terrorism, including through, as appropriate, enhanced information sharing, coordination on visits to countries, within their respective mandates, technical assistance and other issues of relevance to all three committees, and expresses its intention to provide guidance to the committees on areas of common interest in order better to coordinate their efforts;

“13. Urges the 1540 Committee to encourage and take full advantage of voluntary financial contributions to assist States in identifying and addressing their needs for the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), and requests the 1540 Committee to consider options for developing and making more effective existing funding mechanisms, and to report to the Council on its consideration of the matter by no later than 31 December 2008;

“14. Decides that the 1540 Committee will submit to the Security Council a report no later than 24 April 2011 on compliance with resolution 1540 (2004) through the achievement of the implementation of its requirements;

“15. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”
 
quandary121
Green
#20
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
Background
The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. On 11 May 1995, the Treaty was extended indefinitely. A total of 190 parties have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty's significance.
The provisions of the Treaty, particularly article VIII, paragraph 3, envisage a review of the operation of the Treaty every five years, a provision which was reaffirmed by the States parties at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference.
To further the goal of non-proliferation and as a confidence-building measure between States parties, the Treaty establishes a safeguards system under the responsibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Safeguards are used to verify compliance with the Treaty through inspections conducted by the IAEA. The Treaty promotes cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear technology and equal access to this technology for all States parties, while safeguards prevent the diversion of fissile material for weapons use.

The 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) met at the United Nations in New York from 2 to 27 May 2005. A total of 153 States parties to the Treaty participated in the event. The Conference was unable to produce a consensus substantive outcome on the review of the implementation of the provisions of the Treaty. Several of the Conference side events, such as the Mayors for Peace appeal, in particular commemorated the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by quandary121 View Post

I agree totaly with you an the point about " Lets run em out of town" but there are so many pubic order rules about now days that we the people would be gunned down in the streets by the military or the police the only way that i can see any change is to have some sort of boycott in which the whole world took part but of what i don't know as we in Britain tried to do it with petrol (gasoline) but in my mind not enough people were committed to it and even though it did cause some minor disruption and the government did decrease the value of petrol ( for about 2 seconds no in reality it did work for a bit then they hiked up the price again) the trouble we us over here there is no backbone in people any more to take a stand or to dissent.!!!!!

You are right of course, as all of us who 'just' want to live in peace, arent' driven by power and aren't violantly aggressive, and don't want to dictate to others how to run
their lives, and we don't want to take their land. BUT, something has to change as we
being the masses, seem to be satisfied to sit back and allow these people to slowly destroy our world. In the private sector, it is a crime to behave in those ways, and those
criminals are rounded up, put on trial, and stored away in jails, and the leaders who are
finding ways to get to the top of the heap, are doing the same thing, and we can't do
anything, because of their position in the country. The Charles Mansons of the world, and others aren't much different than the leaders I'm talking about,as he had his sucky and dumb followers, and so do the violant leaders who kill by the thousands, only the leaders are willing, to publicly murdur hundreds of thousands of people, in the name of 'whatever',
self defence, religion, etc., which is a pile of horse dung. Sadamm Hussein did it in Iraq,
he was booted out, and George Bush took over, and it is now worse. In the Suddan, crazy
people are allowed to murdur and rape in huge numbers.
I guess there are many bad people in the world, but there has to be a way to stop them
from becoming leaders of the masses.

The united nations should gradually become 'huge', supported by the masses, not leaders
of countries, but people who will monitor those leaders, and prevent genocide, wars, and other insane moves that will eventually destroy our world. There should be a gigantic
'WORLD' army, who work together to make sure that countries leaders do not abuse their own people or other countries.
 
quandary121
Green
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by talloola View Post

You are right of course, as all of us who 'just' want to live in peace, arent' driven by power and aren't violantly aggressive, and don't want to dictate to others how to run
their lives, and we don't want to take their land. BUT, something has to change as we
being the masses, seem to be satisfied to sit back and allow these people to slowly destroy our world. In the private sector, it is a crime to behave in those ways, and those
criminals are rounded up, put on trial, and stored away in jails, and the leaders who are
finding ways to get to the top of the heap, are doing the same thing, and we can't do
anything, because of their position in the country. The Charles Mansons of the world, and others aren't much different than the leaders I'm talking about,as he had his sucky and dumb followers, and so do the violant leaders who kill by the thousands, only the leaders are willing, to publicly murdur hundreds of thousands of people, in the name of 'whatever',
self defence, religion, etc., which is a pile of horse dung. Sadamm Hussein did it in Iraq,
he was booted out, and George Bush took over, and it is now worse. In the Suddan, crazy
people are allowed to murdur and rape in huge numbers.
I guess there are many bad people in the world, but there has to be a way to stop them
from becoming leaders of the masses.

The united nations should gradually become 'huge', supported by the masses, not leaders
of countries, but people who will monitor those leaders, and prevent genocide, wars, and other insane moves that will eventually destroy our world. There should be a gigantic
'WORLD' army, who work together to make sure that countries leaders do not abuse their own people or other countries.

talloola as we speak more and more of our laws that were put there to protect us are being taken away or changed to accommodate there ideas of a NWO and by the time the masses realise this it will inevitably be to late they are making laws in your country now that will make you a internet terrorist just because you decide to make a valid point on what you see going on aroud you take a look at this video i watched last week

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=szQpFJv8UBE

ALL THESE LINKS ARE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT IF ONE FAILS TO WORKS PLEASE LET ME KNOW ASAP!
USA180 New Home
http://www.usa180.org
DONATE PLEASE TO HELP IN OUR FIGHT FOR AMERICA AND LINK
TO PROVE OUR LEGAL STANDING
http://www.usa180.org/donate
TOP POLITICAL VIDEOS
http://www.usa180.org/top-videos
JOIN USA180 ITS FREE
http://www.usa180.org/join-usa180
ABOUT US
http://www.usa180.org/about
USA180 Bylaws and Constitution
http://www.usa180.org/bylaws-constitu...
PETITION TO STOP S 1959 or HR Bill 1955
http://www.petitiononline.com/drop1959
PETITION AGAINST OUT OF CONTROL POLICE BRUTALITY
http://www.petitiononline.com/usa18001
SIGN CONGRESSMAN WEXLER PETITION TO STOP THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
http://wexlerwantshearings.com
Friends, and Members of USA180 I am proud to announce the new home of USA180 at The above link. There you will be able to read our bylaws as they stand until they can be amended. You can read the about section on what we stand for and how we formed. Further you will find a page dedicated solely to political videos. If you have a video you feel of importance email me and get it to me, and explain the importance, and we will consider using it. Keep in mind we only use material that can be verified. Whether true or not. If we cannot verify it we cannot use it. We have to preserve our integrity to continue to be the fastest growing political movement in this country. Also if you write articles etc we will consider those as well. We desperately need people that will join or existing members to take State and National positions. We need regular members. We have to reach folks that have no access to the Internet which is 60 percent of households. You will find above links to petitions that need to be signed and spread as far and wide as you possibly can. We cannot let the petitions be forgotten. We have links above taking you our donations page. You can give in any way possible its all there. Money gram is the fastest being that we are pressed for time. Please consider giving it is critical. It will be months before we gain operating money from grants and this country cannot wait. Please just view each link above thoroughly and pass to every contact you have. Look at the one about joining, and the one for those without Internet.

I pray this note reaches the right people, hearts, and spirits

Respectfully,
Dr. Mark Taylor
USA180
National Director
404-287-0414
Fax 206-350-8788
Email usa180@gmail.com
Skype mark.taylor11
Category: News & Politics
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
#23
[quote=talloola;955278]

A gradual formation of a WORLD army/organization to oversee and monitor the behavior
of countries leaders with each other, and put a stop to any leader threatening another
could benefit all of us.
The 'WORLD ARMY' should be the only SUPER power in the world, in regards to weapons.
 
quandary121
Green
#24
[quote=talloola;955281]
Quote: Originally Posted by talloola View Post


A gradual formation of a WORLD army/organization to oversee and monitor the behavior
of countries leaders with each other, and put a stop to any leader threatening another
could benefit all of us.
The 'WORLD ARMY' should be the only SUPER power in the world, in regards to weapons.

H.R. 1955 would direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States. The bill also would establish a commission to investigate the causes of terrorist acts committed by persons raised or living in the United States and would require DHS to prepare reports on..

they are out to stop us talking to one another and making it law now!!!!
if they can police the internet this is the first step
 
quandary121
Green
#25
Rep. Bennie Thompson [D-MS]: Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1955) to prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
Quick Info
H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
Last Action: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Status: Passed House (Bipartisan support.)

H.R. 1955
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This Act may be cited as the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007".<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (a) In General.--Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new subtitle:
"Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
"SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "For purposes of this subtitle:<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(1) COMMISSION.--The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION.--The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.--The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE.--The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "The Congress finds the following:<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(6) Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"SEC. 899C. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE PREVENTION OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(a) Establishment.--There is established within the legislative branch of the Government the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(b) Purpose.--The purposes of the Commission are the following:
"(1) Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States, including United States connections to non-United States persons and networks, violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in prison, individual or `lone wolf' violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and other faces of the phenomena of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the Commission considers important.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(2) Build upon and bring together the work of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of--<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(A) the Center of Excellence established or designated under section 899D, and other academic work, as appropriate;<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(B) Federal, State, local, or tribal studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence; and<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(C) foreign government studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(c) Composition of Commission.--The Commission shall be composed of 10 members appointed for the life of the Commission, of whom--<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(1) one member shall be appointed by the President from among officers or employees of the executive branch and private citizens of the United States;<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(2) one member shall be appointed by the Secretary;<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(3) one member shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate;<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(4) one member shall be appointed by the minority leader of the Senate;<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(5) one member shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives;<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(6) one member shall be appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives;<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(7) one member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives;<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(8) one member shall be appointed by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives;<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(9) one member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(10) one member shall be appointed by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(d) Chair and Vice Chair.--The Commission shall elect a Chair and a Vice Chair from among its members.
"(e) Qualifications.--Individuals shall be selected for appointment to the Commission solely on the basis of their professional qualifications, achievements, public stature, experience, and expertise in relevant fields, including, but not limited to, behavioral science, constitutional law, corrections, counterterrorism, cultural anthropology, education, information technology, intelligence, juvenile justice, local law enforcement, organized crime, Islam and other world religions, sociology, or terrorism.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(f) Deadline for Appointment.--All members of the Commission shall be appointed no later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this subtitle.
"(g) Quorum and Meetings.--The Commission shall meet and begin the operations of the Commission not later than 30 days after the date on which all members have been appointed or, if such meeting cannot be mutually agreed upon, on a date designated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Each subsequent meeting shall occur upon the call of the Chair or a majority of its members. A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold meetings.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(h) Authority of Individuals to Act for Commission.--Any member of the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any action that the Commission is authorized to take under this Act.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(i) Powers of Commission.--The powers of the Commission shall be as follows:<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(1) IN GENERAL.--<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(A) HEARINGS AND EVIDENCE.--The Commission or, on the authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this section, hold hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the Commission considers advisable to carry out its duties.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(B) CONTRACTING.--The Commission may, to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its duties under this section.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(2) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.--
"(A) IN GENERAL.--The Commission may request directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the Government, information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the purposes of this section. The head of each such department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality shall, to the extent practicable and authorized by law, furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the Commission, upon request made by the Chair of the Commission, by the chair of any subcommittee created by a majority of the Commission, or by any member designated by a majority of the Commission.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(B) RECEIPT, HANDLING, STORAGE, AND DISSEMINATION.--The Committee and its staff shall receive, handle, store, and disseminate information in a manner consistent with the operative statutes, regulations, and Executive orders that govern the handling, storage, and dissemination of such information at the department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality that responds to the request.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(j) Assistance From Federal Agencies.--<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(1) GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.--The Administrator of General Services shall provide to the Commission on a reimbursable basis administrative support and other services for the performance of the Commission's functions.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(2) OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES.--In addition to the assistance required under paragraph (1), departments and agencies of the United States may provide to the Commission such services, funds, facilities, and staff as they may determine advisable and as may be authorized by law.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(k) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as departments and agencies of the United States.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(l) Nonapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Commission.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(m) Public Meetings.--<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(1) IN GENERAL.--The Commission shall hold public hearings and meetings to the extent appropriate.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(2) PROTECTION OF INFORMATION.--Any public hearings of the Commission shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the protection of information provided to or developed for or by the Commission as required by any applicable statute, regulation, or Executive order including subsection (i)(2)(B).<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(n) Staff of Commission.--
"(1) APPOINTMENT AND COMPENSATION.--The Chair of the Commission, in consultation with the Vice Chair and in accordance with rules adopted by the Commission, may appoint and fix the compensation of a staff director and such other personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its functions, without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that no rate of pay fixed under this subsection may exceed the maximum rate of pay for GS-15 under the General Schedule.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(2) STAFF EXPERTISE.--Individuals shall be selected for appointment as staff of the Commission on the basis of their expertise in one or more of the fields referred to in subsection (e).<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(3) PERSONNEL AS FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.--<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(A) IN GENERAL.--The executive director and any employees of the Commission shall be employees under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of that title.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(B) MEMBERS OF COMMISSION.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to apply to members of the Commission.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(4) DETAILEES.--Any Federal Government employee may be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement from the Commission, and during such detail shall retain the rights, status, and privileges of his or her regular employment without interruption.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(5) CONSULTANT SERVICES.--The Commission may procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(6) EMPHASIS ON SECURITY CLEARANCES.--The Commission shall make it a priority to hire as employees and retain as contractors and detailees individuals otherwise authorized by this section who have active security clearances.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(o) Commission Personnel Matters.--<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(1) COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS.--Each member of the Commission who is not an employee of the government shall be compensated at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day during which that member is engaged in the actual performance of the duties of the Commission.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(2) TRAVEL EXPENSES.--While away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(3) TRAVEL ON ARMED FORCES CONVEYANCES.--Members and personnel of the Commission may travel on aircraft, vehicles, or other conveyances of the Armed Forces of the United States when such travel is necessary in the performance of a duty of the Commission, unless the cost of commercial transportation is less expensive.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(4) TREATMENT OF SERVICE FOR PURPOSES OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS.--A member of the Commission who is an annuitant otherwise covered by section 8344 or 8468 of title 5, United States Code, by reason of membership on the Commission shall not be subject to the provisions of such section with respect to membership on the Commission.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(5) VACANCIES.--A vacancy on the Commission shall not affect its powers and shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made. The appointment of the replacement member shall be made not later than 60 days after the date on which the vacancy occurs.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(p) Security Clearances.--The heads of appropriate departments and agencies of the executive branch shall cooperate with the Commission to expeditiously provide Commission members and staff with appropriate security clearances to the extent possible under applicable procedures and requirements.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(q) Reports.--
"(1) FINAL REPORT.--Not later than 18 months after the date on which the Commission first meets, the Commission shall submit to the President and Congress a final report of its findings and conclusions, legislative recommendations for immediate and long-term countermeasures to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and measures that can be taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence from developing and spreading within the United States, and any final recommendations for any additional grant programs to support these purposes. The report may also be accompanied by a classified annex.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(2) INTERIM REPORTS.--The Commission shall submit to the President and Congress--<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(A) by not later than 6 months after the date on which the Commission first meets, a first interim report on--<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(i) its findings and conclusions and legislative recommendations for the purposes described in paragraph (1); and<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(ii) its recommendations on the feasibility of a grant program established and administered by the Secretary for the purpose of preventing, disrupting, and mitigating the effects of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and, if such a program is feasible, recommendations on how grant funds should be used and administered; and<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(B) by not later than 6 months after the date on which the Commission submits the interim report under subparagraph (A), a second interim report on such matters.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(3) INDIVIDUAL OR DISSENTING VIEWS.--Each member of the Commission may include in each report under this subsection the individual additional or dissenting views of the member.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(4) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY.--The Commission shall release a public version of each report required under this subsection.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(r) Availability of Funding.--Amounts made available to the Commission to carry out this section shall remain available until the earlier of the expenditure of the amounts or the termination of the Commission.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "(s) Termination of Commission.--The Commission shall terminate 30 days after the date on which the Commission submits its final report.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"SEC. 899D. CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR THE STUDY OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM IN THE UNITED STATES.
"(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States (hereinafter referred to as `Center') following the merit-review processes and procedures and other limitations that have been previously established for selecting and supporting University Programs Centers of Excellence. The Center shall assist Federal, State, local and tribal homeland security officials through training, education, and research in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. In carrying out this section, the Secretary may choose to either create a new Center designed exclusively
"(c) Auditing Mechanism.--The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and shall include the results of audits under such mechanism in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.".<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting at the end of the items relating to title VIII the following:
"Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
"Sec..899A..Definitions.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Sec. .899B..Findings.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Sec..899C..N ational Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Sec..899D..Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States.<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;"Sec..899E..Preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism through international cooperative efforts.
"Sec..899F..Protecting civil rights and civil liberties while preventing ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism.
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
#26
[quote=quandary121;955282]
Quote: Originally Posted by talloola View Post


H.R. 1955 would direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States. The bill also would establish a commission to investigate the causes of terrorist acts committed by persons raised or living in the United States and would require DHS to prepare reports on..

they are out to stop us talking to one another and making it law now!!!!
if they can police the internet this is the first step

The worse the neo cons become, and act more like dictators, the more democrats will
step forward, for the good, and the vote of every citizen can make a difference, the
vote still has power, and the bad guys can be voted 'out'.
 
quandary121
Green
#27
[quote=talloola;955360]
Quote: Originally Posted by quandary121 View Post


The worse the neo cons become, and act more like dictators, the more democrats will
step forward, for the good, and the vote of every citizen can make a difference, the
vote still has power, and the bad guys can be voted 'out'.

talloola once marshal law has been declared there wont be any voteing
 
talloola
No Party Affiliation
#28
[quote=quandary121;955362]
Quote: Originally Posted by talloola View Post


talloola once marshal law has been declared there wont be any voteing

I don't believe that will happen. The people would not stand by and accept marshall law.
It isn't Pakistan, etc. There would be huge backlash. The u.s. constitution would be upheld.
Whatever I'm missing in the long articles above, I will 'just' have to miss, as I wont take
the time to do all of that reading, sorry.
 
quandary121
Green
#29
[quote=talloola;955382]
Quote: Originally Posted by quandary121 View Post


I don't believe that will happen. The people would not stand by and accept marshall law.
It isn't Pakistan, etc. There would be huge backlash. The u.s. constitution would be upheld.
Whatever I'm missing in the long articles above, I will 'just' have to miss, as I wont take
the time to do all of that reading, sorry.

Official government documentation outlining how the US Government will handle the US population on a grand scale. This is not a hoax.

Here is the OFFICIAL US GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE ORDER found in this video in a PDF that will surely get your attention.

http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r...

_____________

Here are a couple more interesting links.
http://www.populistamerica.com/americ...


And lastly this Google link:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=...

((THIS IS NOT A HOAX)))

Any month now, you, your family, and anyone else who lives in Canada, the United States or Mexico may soon be subject to marshal law to make way for the NWO. CNN, Fox News, CBS News, ABC News, C-Span, The Washington Post, The New York Times, etc. have all reported or covered the coming issues at hand in depth.

The scope of what is about to go down is so huge and complex that the majority of North American Citizens are mostly unaware of the fact that Canada, the United States and Mexico are about to become one country under the NWO, under the North American Union Act of 2005.




Major news agencies are also painfully aware of the Top Secret Plans for the US Constitution To Be Suspended at some point when the time calls for it under the code name, REX-84.

Are you aware of it? Neither was most of congress!

The United States (NWO) understands that potentially 10's of millions will pickup arms over the forced changed upon its people; especially if and when they should lose their current constitution.

The Concentration Camps are to be used to address unruly people; those who pickup arms, and to deal with the sudden migration of tens of millions of Mexicans from the south from America dropping its borders, which will further exacerbate things in North America.

A real concern that the NWO has is that North America could turn into a civil war unlike anything ever seen in written history. Thus once again, the need for all of the NWO Run Concentration Camps in the current United States.

Today hundreds of Army Run Concentration Camps for Civilians have been set up throughout North America beside railroads to to help forge the way for the NWO. The NWO has also ordered thousands of specially made prison trains made to ship hundreds of thousands of people at a time to these US/NWO Concentration Camps.


This is what we have come to understand.

(1) It is theorized by many, that something bigger than the World Trade Tower event most likely will go down to put all this into motion between 2008-12 A possible exact date will be 9.11.12

(2) Canada, United States and Mexico join together as one nation under the NWO.

(3) The US constitution is suspended.

(4) The American dollar is no more and is replaced with the Amero.

(5) A new law of the land is introduced under the NWO which will one day soon apply world wide.

(6) The rights that men and women died for that most take for granted today will be replaced by a set of universal NWO laws.

(7) Resistance from anyone who fights the NWO will be placed in concentrations camps.

( RFID chip required by every north American citizen; eventually everyone in the world within 1 to 5 years.

(9) An international ultra wide 18 to 24 lane super highway will run down from Canada, through the middle of the United States deep into Mexico. (see video)

The videos found here will get you off on the right foot to seeing that this plan goes way back in history. The final plans are now all in place, and will be set into motion no later than 9.11.2012

REMEMBER THIS IS NOT A HOAX OR A CULT
If you are a service man, understand what you are about to be asked to do against your own fellow man is immoral. The lives of your family and friends will be changed forever.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0kf_n35-ZgY
 
earth_as_one
#30
I also don't believe the above will happen. Certainly Canadians wouldn't go along with that. I'm talking about our leaders as well as the average person. Quebecers barely want unity with the rest of Canada, let alone the US.

I hear talk occasionally of unifying US and Canadian currencies, but given the current fiscal irresponsibility of the US government, that would be bad for Canada. For more than a decade, Canada has maintained budget surpluses and we are paying down our down debt. Our economy is more resource based than the US. Yes many industries have moved off shore hurting mostly Ontario and Quebec, but resources (oil, gold, nickel...) are booming in the rest of Canada. Overall Canada is not spiralling into a recession. Central Canada is becoming poorer, but western and eastern Canada are becoming wealthier.

In order for q's scenario to unfold, a massive economic/political crisis would have to happen first. I see no sign of that happening. The US is in a mild recession brought about by the sub-prime mortgage debacle.

Even though the US is currently running up huge deficits, their public debt as percentage of gross domestic product is better than many countries including Canada.

Check out #2, 27, 31 and 61

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of...ebt?cat=travel

The US still has a long way to go before it becomes like Japan. Current US fiscal irresponsibility is a problem in the longterm, not the short term.

Back on track. Any comments about the nuclear arms race?
 

Similar Threads

5
C.B. seal hunt begins
by Praxius | Feb 5th, 2009
60
Life begins...
by LittleRunningGag | Sep 7th, 2006
3
Boar war begins.
by Blackleaf | Jan 4th, 2006
6
Torture Begins at the Top
by moghrabi | Dec 19th, 2004