- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,589
- Reaction score
- 7,252
Evacuation centres in Kyiv are being given iodine pills in case of a nuclear strike on the capital, the city council has announced.
In a statement, authorities said pills will be distributed to residents in areas contaminated by nuclear radiation if there is a need to evacuate.
Potassium iodine pills can help block the absorption of harmful radiation by the thyroid gland if taken just before or immediately after exposure to nuclear radiation.
It comes after the Kremlin said on Tuesday that it did not want to take part in "nuclear rhetoric" spread by the West after a media report that Russia was preparing to demonstrate its willingness to use nuclear weapons in its conflict with Ukraine.
It was reported on Monday that the Nato military alliance had warned members that President Vladimir Putin was set to demonstrate his willingness to use nuclear weapons by carrying out a nuclear test on Ukraine's border.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: "The Western media, Western politicians and heads of state are engaging in a lot of exercises in nuclear rhetoric right now. We do not want to take part in this."
China’s Nuclear Expansion and its Implications for U.S. Strategy and Security
The U.S. Department of Defense considers China the pacing threat to the United States as its military buildup, economic coercion, and political warfare threaten the U.S.-led world order that serves the interests of Americans.[1]www.heritage.org
Remember, he is briefing for politicians here.One assumes the officer who wrote that assessment was Captain Obvious.
Regardless of what his intentions were, it was a mistake to publicise them.France will not trade nuclear strikes with Russia over Ukraine (The National, via MSN)
Rising nuclear fears spur debate over red lines in Ukraine war
Mounting fears that Russian President Vladimir Putin could resort to a nuclear weapon to stem his losses in Ukraine have prompted debate about what are the real “red lines” for Moscow and Washingto…thehill.com
The AWE, which is headquartered in Aldermaston, Berkshire, was previously owned by a consortium of defence and aerospace companies but was absorbed by the Ministry of Defence in July 2021.
Prospect complained that the arms-length body had failed to take advantage of the “associated freedoms on pay awards” that came with its new status.
On Wednesday the Ministry of Defence confirmed that the AWE is not currently classed as an “important public service” under industrial action laws, meaning the quango does not have to meet higher thresholds for vote turnouts.
I worked for a US Department of Energy National Laboratory. Let's just say that the 200 is closer to the truth than Scarbrough's 60-80.CFE said:The estimates of the Israeli arsenal vary wildly. Israel will publicly deny having any warheads. Watchdog groups claim as many as 200 (based primarily on the claims of Mordecai Vanunu, a less-than-reliable source.) Pentagon estimates published by Rowan Scarbrough guess there are 60-80 warheads.
Why is Mordecai Vanunu "a less-than-reliable source"? ???
What about 1983?
The Biden administration has declared that the “fundamental” purpose of US nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attacks on America and its allies, a new policy that avoided a more radical shift towards a lower level of deterrence that was opposed by allies in Europe and Asia.
The Pentagon on Thursday released the Nuclear Posture Review — a document that each administration produces to outline the cases under which the US would use nuclear weapons. The NPR said the US would “only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances” to defend the interests of the nation in addition to allies and partners.
The report will be welcomed by US allies from Tokyo to Berlin who at one point became alarmed that President Joe Biden might declare a narrower set of situations under which he would consider using the weapons.
The NPR said officials had considered several options, including a “no first use” policy and a narrow formula known as “sole purpose” — in which the US would only use nuclear weapons to prevent or respond to a nuclear attack — but decided against them.
It said both options would have resulted in “an unacceptable level of risk” given the non-nuclear capabilities being developed by nations that could inflict extreme harm on the US and its allies.
European and Asian allies had strongly urged Washington not to weaken its declaratory policy in a way that could embolden China and Russia and reduce the deterrent effect of what is known as the US nuclear umbrella.
Matthew Kroenig, a nuclear weapons policy expert at the Atlantic Council think-tank, said some administration officials had advocated that the US should adopt a “sole use” policy.
“As a nod to that position, the NPR states that the ‘fundamental purpose’ of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack, even while recognising that they fill other roles,” said Kroenig. “The change to ‘fundamental purpose’ is a wordsmithing exercise that will have no practical implications for actual strategy.
In rejecting “sole purpose, the NPR said the US recognised that some allies and partners were “particularly vulnerable to attacks with non-nuclear means that could produce devastating effects”. But in language that could cause concern, the NPR said the administration retained “the goal of moving to a sole purpose determination”.
While the decision will reassure allies, non-proliferation groups were unhappy at the decision not to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in US defence policy.
[snip]
The US also released its national defence strategy, which said it faced a “decisive decade” and that China would remain the “most consequential strategic competitor” for several decades. “The most . . . serious challenge to US national security is the PRC’s coercive and increasingly aggressive endeavour to refashion the Indo-Pacific region and the international system to suit its interests and authoritarian preferences,” the report said.
While the document ranks China as the US’s main long-term defence focus, it describes Russia as an “acute threat” that must be deterred, with its invasion of Ukraine providing an example of the importance of the US’s efforts to preserve international alliances, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
[snip]