I always find it both amusing and frustrating when American national security analysts decide they're going to pontificate on NATO and Europe. Try as they might, it seems impossible for them to see the issue in any other than a highly polarized, American exceptionalist, way. Take my friend Michael Cohen at the national Security Network, writing today:

the biggest problem with NATO funding (and this has been true for quite some time) is not that President Obama is undermining the alliance with defense cuts here at home, but rather that America's NATO allies refuse to fully pony up their share of NATO's defense budget. And why they should they? Indeed, as long as NATO funding is used as a political football then the United States will continue to be played for a sucker by the Europeans who know that for all our complaining about their lack of financial support for the military alliance . . . we're never going to pull the plug.

At some point, it's worth asking whether this makes any sense at all. Why should the US be responsible for underwriting European security (and in turn the European welfare state), especially when European countries face not a single legitimate military threat to their well-being? Moreover, it Europeans don't think it's important enough to spend their own money on their own security why should America? Now granted, the Europeans are a little short on cash these days, but then so is the United States. But of course as the House of Representatives reminded us recently - as they eviscerated key social safety net programs to restore cuts made to the defense budget -- you can't put a price tag on a huge American military that does little to keep America safe and underwrites the security of other countries.

In Romney's statement he noted "NATO is a testament to the fact that the price of weakness is always far greater than the price of strength." If anything it's increasingly becoming a testament to how divorced from reality our own national security debate has become. The new American weakness is apparently when you don't let key European allies take enough advantage of you.

Now there are exactly two unarguable facts in all that: that Europe refuses to pony up its share of the NATO budget and that European countries face not a single legitimate military threat to their well-being. Do you think the two might be connected?

Look, from a European point of view - and I don't mean the poodlish yes-men in London - the NATO budget may be agreed to by all parties but it is set to an American agenda and only agreed to after a lot of American arm-bending. It funds an organization which has outlived its original purpose, surviving now only to give a modicum of cover to American military adventurism - which is why the US will "never pull the plug". NATO only survives because the costs that would be imposed by America on any European nation who withdrew would be greater than the status quo.

It is ridiculous to suggest that European allies are "taking advantage" of the US or that the US is "underwriting European security" while admitting that there's no threat to Europe needing all that money spent on it. But Michael isn't the only smart American making the same logical mistake this week, to say nothing of what gets said by the not-so-smart hawks over on the Right.

P.S.: Is America sure it wants a well armed Europe? Remember the last time it was true? The US spent the next thirty years guaranteeing Europe's security partly so that Europe (Germany) wouldn't have to stand up seriously continental-sized armed forces itself. And if it does, why does it keep trying to put its own spanner in the works of a European Defense Force and other intra-European defense pacts?

David Usborne | New York | May 16

The Independent - The company that gave us the Instamatic has acknowledged that for 30 years it operated a small nuclear reactor in a basement on its corporate campus in Rochester, New York, unbeknown to almost everyone save a few scientists and engineers.

Kodak, which began operating the device, called a californium neutron flux multiplier (CFX), in 1974, insists there was nothing unsafe about it.

None the less, it came pre-loaded with nearly 1.5kg of uranium enriched up to a level of 93.4 per cent, which is just about right for an atomic warhead.

Just Foreign Policy does its best to decapitate once and for all any lingering zombie illusions re: consensus on Iran among teh NATSEC elite:

Listening to many politicians and pundits in the US and Israel, you may be led to believe that there is a consensus around the ideas that Iran is irrational, that it poses an existential threat to Israel, that it's currently trying to acquire a nuclear weapon, and that a military strike can help buy time to prevent such an outcome. But what many former and current top Israeli and other Western security officials are saying is precisely the opposite. We've collected some quotes to show you what these officials really think.

1. Iran's leadership is rational.
2. Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel.
3. Iran has not made the decision to acquire a nuclear weapon.
4. Attacking Iran would make Iran more likely to acquire a nuclear weapon, not less so.
5. Attacking Iran would ignite a regional conflict.
6. Attacking Iran would not be in US or Israeli national interests.
7. There is time to pursue non-military options.
8. The West needs to talk to Iran.

Keep this in mind as (bull)shit starts to hit the electoral fan after Bibi flips the switch...

h/t

Related: Another rundown of the latest on-the-record statements re: Iran from key members of the Israeli security establishment, courtesy CSM's Dan Murphy.

Update: Via Tina in comments -- it's on like Donkey Kong:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for an early general election in four months' time.

The vote is expected to take place in September, a year before he is required by law to seek a new mandate.

Mr Netanyahu leads a centre-right coalition which includes his own Likud and ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu.

Mr Netanyahu has been prime minister since 2009. Opinion polls suggest that he is by some distance the most popular politician in Israel.

Fredrik Dahl | Vienna | Apr 30

Reuters - China called on the United States and Russia - which hold the vast majority of the world's nuclear warheads - on Monday to make further "drastic" cuts in their atomic arsenals.

A senior Chinese diplomat also told a meeting in Vienna that the development of missile defense systems which "disrupt" the global strategic balance should be abandoned, a possible reference to U.S. plans in Europe that have angered Russia.

A new U.S.-Russian arms reduction treaty will cut long-range, strategic nuclear weapons deployed by the two Cold War-era foes to no more than 1,550 on each side within seven years after it came into force in February 2011.

But they still have by far the most nuclear arms - a fact stressed by the Chinese representative on the opening day of a two-week conference to discuss the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a 1970 pact to prevent the spread of atomic bombs.

China, Britain and France are the other three recognized nuclear weapons states. But the size of their arsenals are in the low hundreds, well below those of the United States and Russia which have thousands of nuclear warheads. read the rest!

Jeffrey Lewis and his team at Arms Control Wonk have done some great work ferreting out North Korea's missile program beyond it's recent failed test. "Hey! Look! ICBMs! Road-mobile ICBMs!". However, it remains true that there's one rule for nations the West likes and another for those it doesn't. Contrast the noise and pearl-clutching over North Korea's damp squib with the utter lack of same for India's very successful ICBM test.

New Delhi's missile development is understandable, given its strategic situation. But the timing of the launch — hot on the heels of the North Korean rocket failure — has put India's friends in an awkward spot. The United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), Australia and others who generally wish India well in its strategic rise are being compelled openly to acknowledge that some countries' strategic missile tests are much more acceptable than others.

The fact is a stable deterrent relationship between India and China is in the interest of most nations.

The problem is, much needs to be done to ensure that the current state of competitive coexistence between the two rising Asian giants does not deteriorate into one of strategic rivalry.

Two things. One, the very fact that there is no universal and universally applied law on the build-up of weapons of mass destruction makes it very much harder to ensure such a build-up doesn't happen. And two, the chances of India and China or Pakistan ending up in a nuclear exchange over the next, say, two decades, may arguably be less than that of North Korea and its immediate neighbours - but it's certainly still very much more than zero. As a matter of the Rule of Law and as a matter of long-term realist international relations, the short-term hypocrisy on display over the two nations' programs make no sense.

Vienna | Mar 20 | IPS

The first detailed account of negotiations between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran last month belies earlier statements by unnamed Western officials portraying Iran as refusing to cooperate with the IAEA in allaying concerns about alleged nuclear weaponisation work.

The detailed account given by Iran's permanent representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, shows that the talks in February came close to a final agreement, but were hung up primarily over the IAEA insistence on being able to reopen issues even after Iran had answered questions about them to the organisation's satisfaction.

It also indicates that the IAEA demand to visit Parchin military base during that trip to Tehran reversed a previous agreement that the visit would come later in the process, and that IAEA Director General Yukia Amano ordered his negotiators to break off the talks and return to Vienna rather than accept Iran's invitation to stay for a third day.

Soltanieh took the unprecedented step of revealing the details of the incomplete negotiations with the IAEA in an interview with IPS in Vienna last week and in a presentation to a closed session of the IAEA's Board of Governors Mar. 8, which the Iranian mission has now made public.

The Iranian envoy went public with his account of the talks after a series of anonymous statements to the press by the IAEA Secretariat and member states had portrayed Iran as being uncooperative on Parchin as well as in the negotiations on an agreement on cooperation with the agency.

Those statements now appear to have been aimed at building a case for a resolution by the Board condemning Iran's intransigence in order to increase diplomatic pressure on Iran in advance of talks between the P5+1 and Iran.

Darin Liston | Mar 11 | DipNote

Last month, I was privileged to be a part of the team for a joint U.S.-Russian Antarctic Treaty inspection in Antarctica. The Russians had four members on the team: two lawyers, a scientist and an environmental expert, while the U.S. also had four members on the team. I was the only one with military experience. At its inception, the Antarctic Treaty was, in part, an arms control treaty. In fact, it was the first multilateral arms control treaty that allowed unannounced on-site inspections. It has been a resounding success in that regard, so the main focus of the Treaty now relates to science. This was also an important milestone for us: it was the first inspection we have ever done jointly with another Antarctic Treaty party.

Darin Liston is a Commander in the United States Navy and Political Military Advisor to the Office of Euro-Atlantic Security Affairs in the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance.

This is the first major global report on the financing of companies that manufacture, modernize and maintain nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles. It identifies more than 300 banks, insurance companies, pension funds and asset managers from 30 countries that invest significantly in 20 major nuclear weapons producers. Visit Don't Bank on the Bomb

ICAN:
A groundbreaking report released on 5 March 2012 by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) identifies more than 300 banks, pension funds, insurance companies and asset managers in 30 countries with substantial investments in nuclear arms producers. The 180-page study, Don’t Bank on the Bomb: The Global Financing of Nuclear Weapons Producers, provides details of financial transactions with 20 companies that are heavily involved in the manufacture, maintenance and modernization of US, British, French and Indian nuclear forces.

Nuclear disarmament campaigners are appealing to financial institutions to stop investing in the nuclear arms industry. “Any use of nuclear weapons would violate international law and have catastrophic humanitarian consequences. By investing in nuclear weapons producers, financial institutions are in effect facilitating the build-up of nuclear forces. This undermines efforts to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world and heightens the risk that one day these ultimate weapons of mass destruction will be used again,” said ICAN campaigner Tim Wright, a co-author of the report.

South African activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu, a supporter of ICAN, contributed the foreword to the report, in which he called on financial institutions to “do the right thing and assist, rather than impede, efforts to eliminate the threat of radioactive incineration”, noting that divestment was a vital part of the successful campaign to end apartheid in South Africa. “Today, the same tactic can – and must – be employed to challenge man’s most evil creation: the nuclear bomb. No one should be profiting from this terrible industry of death, which threatens us all,” he wrote

Seoul | Feb 21

AFP - North Korea's delegation left for talks about its nuclear programme with the United States Tuesday, in what will be the first significant contact by the two sides since the death of leader Kim Jong-Il.

The team headed by First Vice-Foreign Minister Kim Kye-Gwan departed to attend "high-level talks" with the US, the state news agency said in a one-sentence report.

Kim will meet Glyn Davies, coordinator for US policy on North Korea, in Beijing Thursday for discussions expected to provide clues about policy directions under Pyongyang's new leaders.

The bilateral meeting will be the third since last July. The two sides had been scheduled to meet in December but the plan was shelved after Kim's death on December 17.

Kim's youngest son Jong-Un has taken over but the regime has warned the world not to expect major policy changes.

Emilio Godoy | Feb 15

Mexico City(IPS) - Latin America and the Caribbean are discussing ways to step up supervision of the use of nuclear materials in the region and contribute to the creation of more nuclear weapon free zones around the world, on the 45th anniversary of the treaty that banned nuclear arms in the region.

"Disarmament is still our priority" Vera Machado, under-secretary of political affairs in Brazil’s foreign ministry, told IPS. "It is a legitimate interest of nuclear weapon free countries to receive a binding guarantee that the countries that do have them will not use these weapons against them, or threaten to use them."

The official was one of the delegates of the 33 countries attending a conference in Mexico City held to celebrate the 45th anniversary of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, also known as the Treaty of Tlatelolco.

The states party to the treaty agree to prohibit and prevent the "testing, use, manufacture, production or acquisition by any means whatsoever" and the "receipt, storage, installation, deployment and any form of possession of any nuclear weapons."

The anniversary, celebrated on Feb. 14-15 with a commemorative ceremony and international seminar, was also attended by representatives of international bodies and non-governmental organisations from different regions of the world.

The Treaty of Tlatelolco created the Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ) in 1967 – the first of the five such zones that currently include 114 countries around the world, in Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, Central Asia, Southeast Asia and the South Pacific.

David Alexander | Washington | Feb 10

Reuters - The next round of U.S.-Russian nuclear arms talks is likely to focus on the delicate task of reducing a much broader range of atomic weapons, U.S. negotiators said on Friday as they discussed the first anniversary of the New START treaty.

Ted Warner, senior adviser to the undersecretary of defense for arms control, said the United States and Russia had reached a point where negotiations needed to include strategic and tactical weapons, regardless of whether they are in storage or mounted on delivery vehicles.

New START, which went into force in February last year, commits the two sides to reducing their strategic, or longer-range, deployed nuclear weapons to 1,550 per side, down from the previous ceiling of 2,200.

The treaty did not address tactical, or shorter-range, nuclear weapons, or even stockpiles of strategic warheads held at storage facilities apart from their delivery vehicles.

The United States said in 2010 that its total nuclear stockpile, including deployed and non-deployed, tactical and strategic nuclear weapons was 5,113.

Russia has not made public its total arsenal, but is believe to have a stockpile "in shouting distance of that," Warner told a forum at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington.

Shorter version of the neocon think-tank's latest fearmongering: "Russia is still the real enemy! EMP! Iran missiles in New York! Chavez With Nukes! Aargh! Obama Bad! Brilliant Pebbles!!!!"

It always comes back to Reaganesque "Star Wars" weapons in space for Heritage. The wingnuts don't want missile defense systems to protect against rogue states. They want them so that the U.S. can attack Russia or China with a better chance of success than Russia or China could attack America. I looked hard at their wish for a U.S. first strike capability as part of their dreams of American hegemony back in 2008 and nothing about their position has changed since then.

Recently a group of scientists at the Royal Society were asked by the UK government to investigate a range of "incapacitating chemical agents" and their uses. Worried about a 2009 shift by the government that relaxed the definitions of chemicals allowable for domestic law enforcement, the experts concluded:

that the Government may be preparing to exploit a loophole in the Chemical Weapons Convention allowing the use of incapacitating chemical agents for domestic law enforcement.

It is important that today, one year after the tragedy at Tucson, we remember those who were senselessly slaughtered there, including a 9-year old girl. It is important that we honor them by doing all we can to make sure this kind of thing never happens again, by making it at least a bit harder for criminals, terrorists and the mentally ill to get their hands on weapons that can kill in a heartbeat.

We must always respect our Bill of Rights, but we must also remember

Jim Wolf | Washington D.C. | December 28

Reuters - North Korea likely is closer to mounting nuclear warheads on its ballistic missiles than generally reported, possibly only one or two years away, the Congress's former top expert on the issue has concluded.

Larry Niksch, who tracked North Korea for the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service for 43 years, concludes in a new paper that the North probably would need as little as one to two years to miniaturize and mount a nuclear warhead atop its medium-range Nodong missile once it has produced enough highly enriched uranium as the warhead's core fuel.

A North Korea armed with nuclear-tipped missiles would rattle East Asia and present new policy and military challenges to the United States and its allies.

Washington/Geneva | December 24

AFP - Progress has been made in protecting against the threat of biological weapons, the State Department said Friday at the end of global talks which agreed to boost moves to thwart their spread.

“We will continue to face new and emerging biological threats that will require the coordinated and connected efforts of a broad range of domestic and international partners,” the department said in a statement.

“As we take action to counter these threats, we will work together to advance our own health security and provide for the improved condition of all humanity.”

Zurich | December 14

Reuters - Switzerland has charged a father and two sons with involvement in the smuggling ring of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's atom bomb who sold nuclear secrets to North Korea, Iran and Libya, prosecutors said on Tuesday.

The three Swiss men were engineers who worked with centrifuges - used to enrich nuclear material - and became friends with Khan, media reported.

The office of Switzerland's attorney general said the men had admitted to offences including forgery and money laundering in the hope of a reduced sentence.

William Wan | Washington D.C. | November 24

WaPo - The Senate Foreign Relations Committee received information roughly five years ago that the Burmese government intended to develop nuclear weapons with the help of North Korea, according to Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.).

The committee at the time relayed the details to U.S. officials but did not release the information publicly, according to Keith Luse, a committee staff member.

Lugar’s statement, to be released Friday, comes ahead of a trip to Burma by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will be the first of her rank to travel to the isolated and authoritarian country in half a century.

Christian Hill | Tacoma, WA | November 24

The News Tribune - The active-duty Air Force wing at Joint Base Lewis-McChord is the only one in the U.S. military tasked with one of the nation's most sensitive and secretive missions: transporting nuclear weapons.

In military parlance, the mission is called Prime Nuclear Airlift Force, or PNAF.

The 62nd Airlift Wing has a motto for that mission: "PNAF... Perfect... Always!"

Not anymore.

For the first time, the wing received an overall rating of "unsatisfactory" after a weeklong inspection that concluded Monday.

November 18, 2011 | The New Yorker

The first question in last Saturday night’s Republican debate on foreign policy dealt with Iran, and a newly published report by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The report, which raised renewed concern about the “possible existence of undeclared nuclear facilities and material in Iran,” struck a darker tone than previous assessments. But it was carefully hedged. On the debate platform, however, any ambiguity was lost. One of the moderators said that the I.A.E.A. report had provided “additional credible evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon” and asked what various candidates, upon winning the Presidency, would do to stop Iran. Herman Cain said he would assist those who are trying to overthrow the government. Newt Gingrich said he would coördinate with the Israeli government and maximize covert operations to block the Iranian weapons program. Mitt Romney called the state of Iran’s nuclear program Obama’s “greatest failing, from a foreign-policy standpoint” and added, “Look, one thing you can know … and that is if we reëlect Barack Obama Iran will have a nuclear weapon.” The Iranian bomb was a sure thing Saturday night.

I’ve been reporting on Iran and the bomb for The New Yorker for the past decade, with a focus on the repeatedly inability of the best and the brightest of the Joint Special Operations Command to find definitive evidence of a nuclear-weapons production program in Iran. The goal of the high-risk American covert operations was to find something physical—a “smoking calutron,” as a knowledgeable official once told me—to show the world that Iran was working on warheads at an undisclosed site, to make the evidence public, and then to attack and destroy the site.

Bradley Klapper | Washington | Oct 19

AP - The United States will hold a fresh round of talks with North Korea on its nuclear weapons program next week and appoint a new full-time envoy in a reach for deeper engagement with the reclusive regime, officials said Wednesday.

The U.S. ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Glyn Davies, will replace current envoy Stephen Bosworth, after Bosworth leads the U.S. delegation to the talks to be held in Geneva on Monday and Tuesday, the State Department said.

Both developments indicate Washington wants to step up negotiations with Pyongyang, amid enduring worries over its nuclear weapons program. North Korea unveiled a uranium enrichment program last year in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

In Geneva, Bosworth will introduce Davies to the North Korean delegation led by Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said.
Toner described the talks as "exploratory" and aimed at determining whether North Korea is prepared to fulfill commitments it made in 2005 during six-nation disarmament talks and take concrete steps toward denuclearization.

"We are not going to reward North Korea just for returning to the table, nor give them anything new for action they have agreed to take, but we want to see that they're committed to move the process forward," Toner said.

Any Questions

Nick Hopkins | Sept 16

The Guardian - Violation of Oslo accord discovered by MP who calls for action to investigate 'what other breaches are occurring' at the fair

The world's largest arms fair has thrown out two exhibitors after they were found to be promoting cluster munitions that have been banned by the UK and condemned by more than 100 other countries.

The organisers of the London exhibition said they had been unaware that the material was available and an investigation had been launched. But campaigners rounded on the Defence and Security Equipment International fair, saying it was "unbelievable" that more thorough checks had not been undertaken.

The action was taken after Caroline Lucas, the Green party leader, discovered that Pakistani arms manufacturers were actively promoting "banned cluster bombs" at their pavilions. Details of the munitions were in brochures readily available to potential customers.

NRA lobbyist Chris Cox recently authored an op-ed for The Daily Caller in which he argued in favor of the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822). Sadly, as is often all-too true with the arguments made by the NRA regarding our nation’s gun laws, his reasoning was misleading at best.

First, Mr. Cox argues that this legislation “explicitly protects the right of each state to issue its own permits and determine its own rules and regulations with regard to concealed carry,” which is actually the opposite of what this legislation hopes to accomplish. If one can get a permit in a state with such lax standards that even convicted criminals can get one, and then retain these rights while simply crossing the border and entering another state where there are laws in place to protect its citizens from criminals, then what control does the latter state have over the permitting process for its residents?

Geneva | August 24

Granma - He (Deputy Foreign Minister, Abelardo Moreno) lamented that, for more than 10 years, the Disarmament Conference has been unable to achieve substantive agreements, particularly on nuclear weapons, one of the principal threats to humanity’s very existence.

It is simply unacceptable that there are almost 23,000 nuclear weapons in the world, 7,560 of them ready to be deployed immediately, Moreno asserted.