The only thing worse than a U.S. attack on Iran would be an Israeli one.

When Madmen Have Bombs...

Obama Narrows the Range of Possible Targets in New National Nuclear-Weapons Policy

President Obama, Robert Gates not always eye-to-eye on new nukes

This is not surprising, especially since Gates was a big proponent of SDI during the Reagan administration, which, in my mind, is one of his, albeit few, faults.

Too bad they both don't have mustaches. Then they could do battle like this:

Bombs Away: The real reason why Russia and China aren’t interested in stopping Iran’s nuclear program.

How serious is the president about nuclear disarmament?

Call me crazy, but I don't think the president is really considering getting rid of all of our nuclear weapons. Anyhow, here is an excerpt from the article:

Most troubling is Obama's failure to take up this challenge from his top generals: He's sending a message that he's not serious on the issue, that he can be rolled. If Obama wants to demonstrate his commitment to Zero, he should call Gen. Chilton into the White House and make sure they are on the same page when it comes to what our launch status is. And what he wants it to be. And if he thinks it's—in effect—on hair-trigger, he should promptly take it off.

Meanwhile, there are further indications that the nuclear-industrial complex is dragging its feet on implementing the new commander in chief's nuclear policies. There is the matter of the Nuclear Posture Review, which is due in December 2009. The NPR is a periodic review that got under way before Obama became president, and the big question is how seriously it will take Obama's dream of Zero.

From Pyongyang to Tehran, with nukes

They already both share a stunna shade designer... could they share nuclear expertise with each other next?

This is an interesting take on North Korea. I think the article makes valid points, but what worries me the most, as stated by many other much more learned academics and practicioners than I, is how North Korea is unpredictable due to the psychoses of its "Dear Leader." Kim Jong Il is not mentally stable, whereas the leaders of the Soviet Union and United States during the Cold War were (I guess you can argue clutzy Ford might not have been due to the frequent concussions he gave himself or Reagan wasn't mentally stable towards the end of his second term, but both were still more stable and predictable than Kim). Meanwhile, Iran, while still a little unpredictable, isn't as bad as North Korea and is basically predictable. The Iranians talk a mean game, but we know and they know they, the Persians, are not well liked by the Arabs... I think part of the reason they always talk tough to Israel is just to gain favor with the world majority Sunni Arabs and Sunni Palestinians and maintain peace with the Arab world.

Anyhow, this article talks about the scary possibility of an Iranian-North Korean nuclear development deal. Here is an excerpt:

But it is what North Korea did not threaten that should give us greatest concern: expanded nuclear and missile cooperation with Iran. The two countries' abilities and needs are highly complementary, and past collaboration tells us that the diplomatic channels may be as well...

Of course, there is a terrifying way that North Korea could overcome its limitation while simultaneously helping another nuclear aspirant: It could work with Iran. Pyongyang lacks uranium centrifuge materials, technology, and know-how; Tehran has mastered them. Pyongyang has practical uranium metallurgy capabilities; Tehran has little. Pyongyang has its own nuclear test data; Tehran does not. Pyongyang knows all facets of plutonium technology; Tehran has little more than a plutonium-producing reactor under construction. Pyongyang helped Tehran establish a missile capability; now, Tehran's crash missile-test program and Pyongyang's long-range rocket tests could prove mutually beneficial.

Preventing escalation of nuclear and missile cooperation is critical to avoid destabilizing Northeast Asia and the Middle East. The urgency of this threat is underscored by North Korea's recent covert construction of a nuclear reactor in Syria and its extensive ongoing cooperation in missile technology with Iran. At least in its nuclear reach, Pyongyang isn't quite as isolated as it seems.

Pakistan Is Rapidly Adding Nuclear Arms, U.S. Says

One more example of how Pakistan views its border with Afghanistan as less of a problem than its border with India.

But the billions in new proposed American aid, officials acknowledge, could free other money for Pakistan’s nuclear infrastructure, at a time when Pakistani officials have expressed concern that their nuclear program is facing a budget crunch for the first time, worsened by the global economic downturn. The program employs tens of thousands of Pakistanis, including about 2,000 believed to possess “critical knowledge” about how to produce a weapon.

New Chinese Submarines

Conflicting reports are coming out of China today regarding photos of the new class of Chinese submarines. Taiwan and Japan said that this is an actual photo of one of the new submarines, taken with an advanced digital camera by a Japanese tourist in Qingdao: Meanwhile, BBC is comparing the U.S. Navy to the Chinese Navy and destroying American national security by illustrating the great "frigate gap" to the world:
BBC is also reporting that this is an actual photo of the new fleet:

No Nukes

The nuclear arms debate always reminds me of the 2nd Amendment debate... except for the fact that on the nuclear arms issue the gun rights advocates would probably argue in favor of only the U.S., you know the global hegemon with world police authority, having access to nuclear arms. Shouldn't they be arguing that everyone and every country should have a nuke? Perhaps a concealed nuclear weapon carry permit? Then atrocities like Columbine would never happen... if only everyone had a nuke. Here is an excerpt from the piece above:

The Obama Administration, in its early foreign-policy decisions, has sought to prioritize the most difficult problems in its in-box, and, in doing so, to define the hard facts and choices. This approach certainly describes Obama’s foreign-policy review on Afghanistan and Pakistan, which was issued late last month. The review process bore down on the discouraging details of the revitalizing Taliban insurgency in a way that Bush and his perennially divided advisers never were able to do.

On April 5th, also as a result of a decision by the Obama Administration, television cameras recorded the arrival at Dover Air Force Base of a casket containing the remains of Staff Sergeant Phillip Myers, of Hopewell, Virginia, who was killed in Afghanistan. For the past eighteen years, the military has banned the media from witnessing the arrival home of a soldier killed overseas, even if the soldier’s family wished otherwise. No more. These caskets, too, are Obama’s inheritance. Gradually, the President is fashioning a turn in national-security policy—by insisting, first of all, on an end to denial.