Latest news with #nuclearweapons
Al Arabiya
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
US President Trump says he will ‘get the conflict solved with North Korea'
US President Donald Trump on Friday said he will 'get the conflict solved with North Korea.' At an Oval Office event where he highlighted his efforts to resolve global conflicts, Trump was asked whether he had written a letter to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, as was reported this month. Trump did not directly answer the question, but said: 'I've had a good relationship with Kim Jong Un and get along with him, really great. So we'll see what happens. 'Somebody's saying there's a potential conflict, I think we'll work it out,' Trump said. 'If there is, it wouldn't involve us.' Seoul-based NK News, a website that monitors North Korea, reported this month that North Korea's delegation at the United Nations in New York had repeatedly refused to accept a letter from Trump to Kim. Trump and Kim held three summits during Trump's 2017-2021 first term and exchanged a number of letters that Trump called 'beautiful,' before the unprecedented diplomatic effort broke down over US demands that Kim give up his nuclear weapons. In his second term Trump has acknowledged that North Korea is a 'nuclear power.' The White House said on June 11 that Trump would welcome communications again with Kim, while not confirming that any letter was sent. North Korea has shown no interest in returning to talks since the breakdown of Trump's diplomacy in 2019. It has, instead, significantly expanded its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, and developed close ties with Russia through direct support for Moscow's war in Ukraine, to which Pyongyang has provided both troops and weaponry.
Malay Mail
a day ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
When will the West learn? — Sheila Ramalingam
JUNE 27 — The world once again watched in alarm as the United States launched military strikes against Iran, citing concerns over its nuclear weapons development. The international reaction has been largely cautious, with many nations urging diplomacy over aggression. But for those who remember the early 2000s, this latest development feels eerily familiar. History, it seems, is repeating itself; and the lessons of the past remain unheeded. In 2003, the United States, backed by Britain, Australia, and other allies, invaded Iraq under the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). That assertion was later proven to be false. No WMDs were ever found, and the war, arguably based on a fabricated premise, led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, destabilised an entire region, and fuelled a generation of extremism. Yet, two decades later, not a single senior figure from the United States or Britain faced civil or criminal liability. No tribunal, no sanctions, no legal consequences for initiating what some international law experts have labelled a 'crime of aggression'. The architects of the war continued their careers, published memoirs, gave lectures, and disappeared into quiet obscurity. Justice, for Iraq and for the world, was never served. Now, the same narrative is playing out with Iran. Allegations of nuclear weapons development, despite Iran's repeated insistence that its nuclear program is civilian in nature, are being used to justify military action. Meanwhile, the same countries that invaded Iraq with righteous fury remain silent about North Korea, a nation that has not only developed nuclear weapons but has conducted multiple missile tests aimed at showcasing its long-range strike capabilities. North Korea's Hwasong-14 and -15 missiles, launched in 2017, demonstrated potential range to strike United States territories. As recently as 2024, North Korea conducted mock nuclear warhead launches and fired dozens of short-range ballistic missiles in defiance of US-South Korean military drills. Despite these provocations, the United States has refrained from military strikes. Why the double standard? U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Air Force General Dan Caine, speaks during a press conference on Iran's nuclear sites at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, U.S., June 26, 2025. — Reuters pic The answer may lie in geography, risk, and resources. North Korea, while dangerous, does not sit atop vast oil reserves. It is also bordered by China, a military and nuclear superpower, making any aggressive miscalculation potentially catastrophic. Iran and Iraq, on the other hand, are oil-rich nations located in a region where the United States has long sought influence through both diplomacy and force. Control of oil routes, access to resources, and support for regional allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia have all contributed to the Middle East being a frequent target of Western military interventions. But what is often overlooked in this calculus is the human and cultural cost of these interventions. Iraq is not just a battlefield: it is Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilisation, home to some of the world's earliest writings, laws, and cities. Iran is not merely a 'nuclear threat': it is Persia, a land of poets, scientists, and empires that shaped human history. To reduce these nations to talking points in a geopolitical chess game is to insult their legacy and ignore their potential. If we continue to allow military might to dictate global norms without accountability, we not only erode the principles of international law, we risk destroying civilisations that have enriched humanity for millennia. The world deserves better than a system where power excuses everything and history is rewritten by the victors. The cradle of Mesopotamia, the gardens of Persia, the philosophies, the poetry, the science – these are not threats. They are treasures. And if they are lost, it will not be the fault of tyrants alone, but of those who stood by while empires masked greed as justice. Let us finally hold to account those who manipulate truth to justify violence. If the West is sincere in its pursuit of justice, it must understand that peace is not imposed; it is earned through humility, restraint, and the courage to see others as equals. * Dr Sheila Ramalingam is the Deputy Executive Director of UMLEAD, International Institute of Public Policy and Management (INPUMA), and Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE No nation should dictate who can and cannot have the bomb - Peter Hitchens attacks America's nuclear hypocrisy on new Mail podcast
Atomic powers like the US employ a lot of 'bilge' to justify their nuclear arsenals while condemning other nations who seek the same deterrent, Peter Hitchens tells Sarah Vine on the latest episode of the Mail's Alas Vine & Hitchens podcast. The acclaimed broadcaster argued that misinformation about the Manhattan Project and America's initial motivations for pursuing an atomic bomb provides an all-too-convenient explanation for why some nations are allowed nukes and others are not. While not a 'fantasist' who believes global nuclear disarmament is possible, Hitchens said that the disputes over who can possess nuclear weapons raise questions about whether any country should have access to them. Hitchens said: 'It has been very interesting to watch the US try to explain why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons, whereas it should. 'Apparently, no one cares that Israel, Pakistan and North Korea have them. You have to wonder what the logic is behind saying who can and cannot have them, apart from who's already got them, and who's biggest. 'We have an elaborate justification for nuclear weapons in our minds. During the Cold War, I was a fairly strong Nato enthusiast because it seemed logical that it was ridiculous for us to give up ours while allowing the USSR to keep theirs. Peter Hitchens: 'The argument that we dropped the bomb on Japan, and that's why they surrendered - is certainly not true.' Listen here 'But since then, it has been nagging at me – should they exist at all? Should any country be allowed to have them?' Hitchens said much of the justification for nuclear weapons stems from the end of the Second World War – specifically the perceived success of the strikes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which led to Japan's surrender. He explained: 'There is a wonderful museum at Los Alamos in New Mexico, where the bomb was originally developed – it has this tremendous display inside, which made the same argument over and over again. 'The argument is the bomb saved possibly millions of lives in 1945. That we dropped the bomb on Japan, and they surrendered. The trouble is, it's certainly not true. 'It was Stalin's decision to invade Manchuria that forced a surrender. The Japanese were terrified of a Russian revenge for everything they had done to them since 1904. 'The other justification for developing the bomb was that Hitler would get it first – Nazi scientists were nowhere near a nuclear weapon. It's complete fantasy. 'The West has dodged a big moral question with these justifications. In which case, why do we have it at all?' The ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East prove that nuclear weapons don't deter conflict as was once assumed, Hitchens contended. He added that nuclear weapons actually enable lower-level conflicts by creating a framework where conventional wars can rage without escalating to total destruction, leaving thousands dead. 'So-called conventional weapons are now of such horrifying power,' Hitchens began. 'Look at these Bunker Busters – my point being that nuclear weapons, rather than preventing war, have increasingly permitted lower-level conflicts to take place. 'Who would have thought that a war involving the Russian army could take place in Europe after the invention of nuclear weapons? Yet, here we are.' Speaking specifically about Iran, Hitchens reminded listeners that Israel had acted dishonestly with its own nuclear programme in the 1960s. He said: 'The reason we're in this mess in the Middle East is because the Israelis don't trust the Iranians, the Iranians don't trust the Israelis and the Americans certainly don't trust the Iranians. 'But, when the Israelis built their bomb – they weren't very public about it themselves. It only came out because an Israeli official got drunk at a cocktail party and blabbed to an American diplomat.'
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Britain will need America's permission to carry out tactical nuclear strikes with new fighter jets
Britain will not be able to deploy its new air-launched nuclear weapons without the United States' say-so. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer confirmed this week that the UK is set to buy 12 F-35A fighter jets from the US as world leaders flocked to The Hague for a two-day NATO summit. The £80million jets, a variant of the F-35Bs the UK already uses, can carry conventional weapons but can also be equipped with nuclear weapons - specifically the US B61-12 gravity bomb. When the UK receives its jets and the bombs at the end of the decade, it will be the first time that Britain has boasted an air-launched tactical nuclear weapon since 1998, when Tony Blair 's Labour government shuttered the WE177 programme. But while the Royal Air Force will own the jets and be able to operate them freely, nuclear non-proliferation controls dictate that the US will retain ownership of the nuclear weapons they come with. That means that the UK cannot deliver a nuclear strike with a B61 bomb without explicit approval from Washington, raising concerns over Britain's operational autonomy. For a B61 to be deployed, the strike would require sign-off from NATO's Nuclear Planning Group, the British Prime Minister, and the US President - a complex process that could limit response times in the event of a crisis. Britain's existing nuclear deterrent rests entirely on the Trident system, in which a submarine carrying dozens of strategic nuclear missiles is always at sea, ready to fire at a moment's notice. But last year, Trident misfired during a test - the second successive failure after a missile veered off course in 2016. The B61 bomb differs from the Trident system in that it is a tactical nuclear weapon designed to be delivered on a battlefield, rather than fired vast distances to strike at a target thousands of miles away. The weapons come in varying degrees of destructive power, from small nuclear blasts measuring 0.5 kilotons to 50 kilotons - more than three times the power of the Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, but considerably less than the 80-100 kilotons yielded by the Trident missiles. GPS, laser guidance systems and steerable tail fins allow the B61 to lock on to its target and glide in with lethal precision. Britain's purchase of the nuclear-capable F-35A jets and associated equipment - the cost of which is said to amount to more than £1 billion - aligns Downing Street more closely with NATO allies France and the US, which maintain land, sea, and air-based nuclear capabilities. The Government called it 'the biggest strengthening of the UK's nuclear posture in a generation', while NATO boss Mark Rutte declared it 'yet another robust British contribution to NATO'. Britain plans to procure as many as 138 F-35s in the coming years - a move that Westminster says will support 20,000 jobs, with British military firms BAE Systems, Cobham and Rolls-Royce playing a role in their construction. The jets will continue to be manufactured by Lockheed Martin in the US, but 15 per cent of the parts which go into them will be made in Britain. At the NATO summit this week, Prime Minister Starmer vowed to increase Britain's defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035 in line with a new bloc-wide target. The total includes 3.5% on defence and another 1.5% on broader security and resilience efforts. Britain currently spends 2.3% of national income on defence, and says that will rise to 2.6% by 2027. The purchase of F-35A jets follows a recent announcement that the UK will build up to 12 new nuclear-powered and conventionally armed attack submarines to replace the Royal Navy's seven-strong fleet of Astute-class subs from the late 2030s onwards. Both announcements come as part of an effort to bolster Britain's military capabilities across the board as a chilling new report outlined the growing threats faced by the UK. The National Security Strategy, published yesterday, warned that Britain must prepare for the prospect of a direct attack as the world enters a new age of warfare. 'For the first time in many years, we have to actively prepare for the possibility of the UK homeland coming under direct threat, potentially in a wartime scenario,' it said. In a foreword to the document, Sir Keir wrote: 'Russian aggression menaces our continent. 'Strategic competition is intensifying. Extremist ideologies are on the rise. 'Technology is transforming the nature of both war and domestic security. Hostile state activity takes place on British soil. 'It is an era of radical uncertainty and we must navigate it with agility, speed and a clear-eyed sense of the national interest. 'That is what keeping the British people safe demands. In a statement to the House of Commons, Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden said the strategy would aim to deliver 'three crucial things'. The first of these is to 'protect security at home', by bolstering the borders and making the UK 'more resilient to future threats'. Ministers are stepping up calls for the whole of society to become more resilient and plan to carry out a cross-government exercise on how to deal with crises, such as a future pandemic, later this year. The UK must also work to 'promote strength abroad' with allies in order to defend their 'collective security', Mr McFadden said. The third step Mr McFadden set out was for the UK to increase its 'sovereign and asymmetric capabilities', including by rebuilding its defence industries and building 'advantages in new frontier technologies' like AI.
CNN
2 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
Why Trump's strikes on Iran will leave North Korea more determined than ever to keep its nukes
As American B-2 bombers streaked over Iran, targeting facilities tied to Tehran's nuclear ambitions, policymakers and analysts in East Asia were already grappling with a critical question: What signal does this send to North Korea, a country whose nuclear arsenal is far more advanced than Iran's? Experts warn Washington's military actions may harden Pyongyang's resolve to accelerate its weapons program and deepen cooperation with Russia, as well as reinforcing its leader Kim Jong Un's belief that nuclear arms are the ultimate deterrent against US-enforced regime change. Despite yearslong efforts to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program, the Kim regime is thought to possess multiple nuclear weapons, as well as missiles that can potentially reach the United States – meaning any potential military strike on the Korean Peninsula would carry vastly higher risks. 'President Trump's strike on Iran's nuclear facilities will undoubtedly further reinforce the legitimacy of North Korea's longstanding policy of regime survival and nuclear weapons development,' said Lim Eul-chul, a professor of North Korean studies at South Korea's Kyungnam University. 'North Korea perceives the recent US airstrike as a preemptive military threat and will likely accelerate efforts to enhance its own capability for preemptive nuclear missile attacks,' said Lim. That acceleration, analysts caution, could come through Russian assistance, thanks to a blossoming military relationship the two neighbors have struck up in the wake of Moscow's invasion of Ukraine. Since its formal establishment in 2024, North Korea's strategic partnership with Russia has become a vital economic and military lifeline for Pyongyang amid ongoing Western sanctions. 'Based on the strategic alliance between North Korea and Russia, Pyongyang is likely to move toward joint weapons development, combined military exercises, technology transfers, and greater mutual dependence in both economic and military terms,' Lim said. North Korea has sent more than 14,000 soldiers and millions of munitions, including missiles and rockets, to aid in Russia's invasion, according to a report by the Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team (MSMT), an initiative made up of 11 United Nations members. In return, Russia has provided North Korea with various valuable pieces of weaponry and technology, including air defense equipment, anti-aircraft missiles, electronic warfare systems and refined oil. These actions 'allow North Korea to fund its military programs and further develop its ballistic missiles programs, which are themselves prohibited under multiple (UN Security Council resolutions), and gain first-hand experience in modern warfare,' the report found. In Kim's eyes, recent US military actions in Iran follow a troubling logic: countries without nuclear weapons, from Iraq and Libya to Iran, are vulnerable to US-led intervention, said Victor Cha, Korea chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. North Korea, having already tested six nuclear devices and developed long-range missiles, sees its arsenal as non-negotiable. According to Cha, Washington's airstrikes against Tehran's nuclear assets will likely leave a lasting impression on the Kim regime. 'The strikes on Iran will only reaffirm two things for North Korea, neither of which play well for US policy,' he said. 'One: the US does not have a use-of-force option for North Korea's nuclear program like they had in Israel for Iran. Two: the strike only reaffirms in Kim Jong Un's mind his conviction to pursue and maintain a nuclear arsenal.' And the contrast between Iran and North Korea is stark, particularly in terms of nuclear capabilities. 'Pyongyang's nuclear program is much more advanced, with weapons possibly ready to launch on multiple delivery systems, including ICBMs,' said Leif-Eric Easley, an international security professor at Ewha Womans University in Seoul, referencing intercontinental ballistic missiles which can travel around the globe, far further than any missiles Iran possesses. 'The Kim regime can threaten the US homeland, and Seoul is within range of many North Korean weapons of various types,' he added. Iran, by contrast, has not yet developed a deliverable nuclear weapon and its uranium enrichment had remained short of the threshold for weaponization, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency's latest assessment. It had also pursued years of diplomacy with the US and Western powers over its nuclear program, diplomacy that was supposedly still in play when Trump ordered B-2 stealth aircraft to drop 'bunker busting' bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. North Korea is believed to possess between 40 and 50 warheads, along with the means to deliver them across the region and potentially to the US mainland. 'An attack on North Korea could provoke the risk of full-scale nuclear war,' Lim of Kyungnam University warned. He added that under the US-South Korea alliance treaty, US military action against North Korea would also require prior consultation with the South Korean government, a step that carries political and legal implications. There are also external powers to consider. Unlike Iran, North Korea has a formal mutual defense treaty with Russia, 'which allows Russia to automatically intervene in the event of an attack,' Lim underscored. This matrix of deterrents – nuclear capability, US regional alliances, and Russian backing – likely insulates Pyongyang from the kind of unilateral military action Washington exercised in Iran. In the end, said Lim, the strike on Iran might not serve as a deterrent to proliferation but as a justification. 'This attack will deepen North Korea's distrust of the US,' he said, 'and is expected to act as a catalyst for a shift in North Korea's foreign policy, particularly by strengthening and deepening military cooperation with Russia.'
