logo
Iran's nuclear weapons dash hits a hurdle, but race far from over

Iran's nuclear weapons dash hits a hurdle, but race far from over

Newsroom3 days ago

It's a long time since we've been on the edge of our seats wondering if a full-blown nuclear war is about to happen.
But many had that sensation when the US President said last weekend that Iran's nuclear facilities had been 'completely and totally obliterated'.
Trump's bullseye claim is now in question but the bombing had many experts talking about the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 at the height of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union.
'They were very real fears and there were some very close calls, in particular during the Cuban Missile Crisis we now know the world came incredibly close to nuclear conflict,' international law and nuclear weapons expert Anna Hood of Auckland University says.
People feared then that the 'Cold War would turn hot'. Since then we have had volatile moments and right now the risk is heightened, she says.
'There were higher numbers of weapons during the Cold War. We have seen some level of disarmament since then but we haven't seen enough movement in the last few years. The numbers are still very high.'
Not only have the numbers stayed high, but countries are trying to upgrade and enhance the weapons they do have, she says.
'I would like to hope that most states, all states, wouldn't go there [nuclear war] or even if they've got nuclear weapons that that's not what they'll use but I think there are very serious risks in terms of what happens in the heat of a conflict, in terms of accidents.'
Hood focuses much of her time on the numerous nuclear issues afflicting the world today and how to work towards a nuclear-free world.
'We are a long way unfortunately from that,' she admits, pointing to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' annual Doomsday Clock showing we are closer than ever – 89 seconds to midnight, and catastrophe.
Hood tells The Detail why the US strike on Iran is a violation of international law and the possible consequences.
While the impact of the B2 stealth bomber attacks is still not clear, senior physics lecturer at Auckland University David Krofcheck says it does not end Iran's nuclear ambitions.
'Israel has had a go at assassinating their nuclear weapons scientists there but you can't destroy knowledge, and that's the critical thing. It can be rebuilt, you just start from scratch,' he says.
Iran insists it is not developing weapons, but Krofcheck says he can't think of another reason it would need to enrich uranium to 60 percent, as confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
But even with 60 percent enriched uranium, there's more to the process and it would have been months before it had a weapon ready.
'That nuclear device that's built might be gigantic, the size of a house. It's not something you can pick up and put on a missile and shoot at another country.'
Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.
You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Five Percenters: NATO's Promise Of War
The Five Percenters: NATO's Promise Of War

Scoop

time6 hours ago

  • Scoop

The Five Percenters: NATO's Promise Of War

The confidence trickster was at it again on his visit to The Hague, reluctantly meeting members of the overly large family that is NATO. President Donald Trump was hoping to impress upon all present that allies of the United States, whatever inclination and whatever their domestic policy, should spend mightily on defence, inflating the margins of sense and sensibility against marginal threats. Never mind the strain placed on the national budget over such absurd priorities as welfare, health or education. The marvellous irony in this is that much of the budget increases have been prompted by Trump's perceived unreliability and capriciousness when it comes to European affairs. Would he, for instance, treat obligations of collective defence outlined in Article 5 of the organisation's governing treaty with utmost seriousness? Since Washington cannot be relied upon to hold the fort against the satanic savages from the East, various European countries have been encouraging a spike in defence spending to fight the sprites and hobgoblins troubling their consciences at night. The European Union, for instance, has put in place initiatives that will make getting more weaponry and investing in the military industrial complex easier than ever, raising the threshold of defence expenditure across all member countries to 3.5% of GDP by the end of the decade. And then there is the Ukraine conflict, a war Brussels cannot bear to see end on terms that might be remotely favourable to Russia. The promised pecuniary spray made at the NATO summit was seen by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte as utterly natural if not eminently sensible. Not much else was. It was Rutte who remarked with infantile fawning that 'Sometimes Daddy has to use tough language' when it came to sorting out the murderous bickering between Israel and Iran. Daddy Trump approved. 'He likes me, I think he likes me,' the US president crowed with glowing satisfaction. Rutte's behaviour has been viewed with suspicion, as well it should. Under his direction, NATO headquarters have made a point of diminishing any focus on climate change and its Women, Peace, and Security agenda. He has failed to make much of Trump's mania for the annexation of Greenland, or the President's gladiatorial abuse of certain leaders when visiting the White House – Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky and South Africa's Cyril Ramaphosa come to mind. 'He is not paid to implement MAGA policy,' grumbled a European NATO diplomat to Euroactive. In his doorstep statement of June 25, Rutte made his wish known that the NATO collective possess both the money and capabilities to cope, not just with Russia 'but also the massive build-up of military in China, and the fact that North Korea, China and Iran, are supporting the war effort in Ukraine'. Lashings of butter were also added to the Trump ego when responding to questions. 'Would you really think that the seven or eight countries not at 2% [of GDP expenditure on defence] at the beginning of this year would have reached the 2% if Trump would not have been elected President of the United States?' It was only appropriate, given the contributions of the US ('over 50% of the total NATO economy'), that things had to change for the Europeans and Canadians. The centrepiece of the Hague Summit Declaration is a promise that 5% of member countries' gross GDP will go to 'core defence requirements as well as defence and security-related spending by 2035 to ensure our individual and collective obligations'. Traditional bogeyman Russia is the predictable antagonist, posing a 'long-term threat […] to Euro-Atlantic security', but so was 'the persistent threat of terrorism'. The target is optimistic, given NATO's own recent estimates that nine members spend less than the current target of 2% of GDP. What is misleading in the declaration is the accounting process: the 3.5% of annual GDP that will be spent 'on the agreed definition of NATO defence expenditure by 2035 to resource core defence requirements, and to meet NATO Capability Targets' is one component. The other 1.5%, a figure based on a creative management of accounts, is intended to 'protect our critical infrastructure, defend our networks, ensure our civil preparedness and resilience, unleash innovation, and strengthen our defence industrial base.' Another misleading element in the declaration is the claimed unanimity of member states. The Baltic countries and Poland are forever engaged in increasing their defence budgets in anticipation of a Russian attack, but the same cannot be said of other countries less disposed to the issue. Slovakia's Prime Minister Robert Fico, for instance, declared on the eve of the summit that his country had 'better things to spend money on'. Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has also called the 5% target 'incompatible with our world view', preferring to focus on a policy of prudent procurement. Rutte seemed to revel in his role as wallah and jesting sycophant, making sure Trump was not only placated but massaged into a state of satisfaction. It was a sight all the stranger for the fact that Trump's view of Russian President Vladimir Putin, is a warm one. Unfortunately for the secretary general, his role will be forever etched in the context of European history as an aspiring warmonger, one valued at 5% of the GDP of any of the NATO member states. Hardly a flattering epitaph.

Trump says he would consider bombing Iran again, drops plan to lift sanctions
Trump says he would consider bombing Iran again, drops plan to lift sanctions

RNZ News

time7 hours ago

  • RNZ News

Trump says he would consider bombing Iran again, drops plan to lift sanctions

By Trevor Hunnicutt and Steve Holland , Reuters US President Donald Trump Photo: SAUL LOEB / AFP US President Donald Trump sharply criticised Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei, dropped plans to lift sanctions on Iran, and said he would consider bombing Iran again if Tehran is enriching uranium to worrisome levels. Trump reacted sternly to Khamanei's first remarks after a 12-day conflict with Israel that ended when the United States launched bombing raids last weekend against Iranian nuclear sites. Khamanei said Iran "slapped America in the face" by launching an attack against a major US base in Qatar following the US bombing raids. Khamanei also said Iran would never surrender. Trump said he had spared Khamanei's life. US officials told Reuters on 15 June that Trump had vetoed an Israeli plan to kill the supreme leader. "His Country was decimated, his three evil Nuclear Sites were OBLITERATED, and I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life," Trump said in a social media post. "I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH," he said. Iran said a potential nuclear deal was conditional on the US ending its "disrespectful tone" toward the Supreme Leader. "If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and stop hurting his millions of heartfelt followers," Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in a post on X. Trump also said that in recent days he had been working on the possible removal of sanctions on Iran to give it a chance for a speedy recovery. He said he had now abandoned that effort. "I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust, and immediately dropped all work on sanction relief, and more," he said. Trump said at a White House news conference that he did not rule out attacking Iran again, when asked about the possibility of new bombing of Iranian nuclear sites if deemed necessary at some point. "Sure, without question, absolutely," he said. Trump said he would like inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency - the UN nuclear watchdog - or another respected source to be able to inspect Iran's nuclear sites after they were bombed last weekend. Trump has rejected any suggestion that damage to the sites was not as profound as he has said. The IAEA chief, Rafael Grossi, said that ensuring the resumption of IAEA inspections was his top priority as none had taken place since Israel began bombing on 13 June. However, Iran's parliament approved moves to suspend such inspections. Araqchi indicated that Tehran may reject any request by the head of the agency for visits to Iranian nuclear sites. Trump said Iran still wants to meet about the way forward. The White House said that no meeting between the US and an Iranian delegation has been scheduled thus far. - Reuters

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store