US wary of nuclear blast to stop Gulf oil leak

June 3 (Reuters) – The official in charge of managing the U.S. response to the oil leak disaster in the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday downplayed the possibility of using a nuclear or other explosive device to try to seal off the well.

“I think that’s really on the peripheral of things we ought to be talking about right now,” Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen said when asked about suggestions that a nuclear explosion be used to seal off the leak.

“It hasn’t been seriously briefed to me,” Allen told ABC’s “Good Morning America” program. “I think you’d have to run out of a lot of things before you’d consider something like that.”

Asked about the possibility of using other explosive devices to try to seal the well, Allen said a blast could make things even worse by exposing oil-bearing rock formations directly to the sea bed.

“We don’t know the condition of the well bore, what happened before and after the explosion,” he said.

He told ABC the failure of the top kill procedure to seal the well by pumping mud into the well bore indicated “there actually could be something wrong with the well casing and there could be open communication in the strata or the rock formations below the sea floor.”

“I don’t think we want to take a chance of somehow disturbing that where the oil would have direct access to the sea floor. To my mind that would be a pretty serious risk,” Allen said.

His comments came after The New York Times reported on Thursday that the U.S. government was not considering using a nuclear device despite reports that some experts and armchair engineers were suggesting it.

The Soviet Union reportedly used nuclear devices several decades ago to successfully seal off runaway gas wells, the Times said.

But it quoted a U.S. Energy Department spokeswoman as saying neither Energy Secretary Steven Chu nor anyone else was contemplating a nuclear blast to try to halt the leak spewing hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil into the gulf.

“It’s crazy,” the Times quoted one senior official as saying of the nuclear idea. (Writing by David Alexander; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

Israeli PM rejects “flawed” U.N. nuclear declaration

(Reuters) – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected a U.N. declaration that urged his country to put its nuclear facilities under U.N. safeguards, saying it singled out Israel while letting Iran off the hook.

World

In an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation broadcast on Sunday night, Netanyahu said he did not think Israel would participate the U.N. resolution’s implementation.

The declaration adopted on Friday by all 189 parties to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the United States, called for a conference in 2012 to discuss banning weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

The creation of such a zone could ultimately force Israel to sign the NPT and abandon any atomic weapons it has.

The document urged Israel to sign the NPT and open its nuclear facilities to U.N. inspection.

“I thought that was a particularly distorted and flawed resolution because it singled out Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East and the only country anywhere on Earth threatened with annihilation,” Netanyahu told CBC.

“It failed to mention Iran, which brazenly violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty, is racing to arm itself with atomic weapons and openly expresses its wish to see Israel wiped off the face of the Earth,” Netanyahu said.

Israel is presumed to have a sizable nuclear arsenal but neither confirms nor denies it. It is the only Middle East state that has not signed the NPT and, like India and Pakistan, which have exploded nuclear devices, did not participate in a month-long U.N. meeting in New York to review the NPT.

The declaration contained plans for further disarmament, strengthening global non-proliferation efforts and ensuring access to technology for peaceful uses. It called on North Korea to return to the NPT, which it left in 2003.

The Obama administration opposed efforts to single out Israel and said it would not put the Jewish state under any pressure to do anything that would undermine its security. The White House deplored the document’s failure to mention Iran.

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful generation of electric power. The United States and other Western countries suspect it is aimed at producing nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu said the U.N. should be focusing on Iran.

“The greatest threat to mankind today … is if a radical Islamic regime meets up with nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons meet up with a radical Islamic regime,” he told CBC,

“The first is called Iran and the second is called the Taliban takeover of Pakistan. These developments could … change the world,” Netanyahu said.

(Reporting by Anthony Boadle, editing by David Stamp)

Conference on Mideast WMD ban gets go ahead

Signatories of a global anti-nuclear arms treaty — nearly all of the world’s nations — called on Friday for a conference in 2012 to discuss banning weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

The creation of such a zone could ultimately force Israel to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and abandon any atomic weapons it has.

But U.S. officials, disappointed at efforts to single out the Jewish state, made clear the proposal might go nowhere, saying the Middle East could not be declared WMD-free until there was broad Arab-Israeli peace and Iran curbed its nuclear program.

The call came in a declaration adopted by consensus by all 189 parties to the treaty, including the United States, after a month-long meeting in New York to review the NPT that at times had seemed on the brink of failure.

The 28-page document said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and key states would arrange a conference that would include all nations in the region, by implication including bitter foes Israel and Iran.

At the same time, the declaration urged Israel to sign the NPT and put its nuclear facilities under U.N. safeguards, and also called on India and Pakistan, which have exploded nuclear devices, to join the pact.

The chief U.S. delegate at the meeting, Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher, had opposed naming Israel in the declaration, saying it undermined the idea of the 2012 conference.

But Washington ultimately acquiesced on that point.

FOCUS ON ISRAEL

Afterwards, Washington — named as one of the co-sponsors of the proposed conference — quickly cast doubt on its chances of ever taking place.

While welcoming agreements on a range of non-proliferation issues at the U.N. meeting, U.S. President Barack Obama said: “We strongly oppose efforts to single out Israel, and will oppose actions that jeopardize Israel’s national security.”

U.S. national security adviser Jim Jones criticized the “gratuitous” attention paid to Israel and said it was deplorable that the resolution failed to mention Iran as the “greatest threat of nuclear proliferation” in the region.

Israel is presumed to have a sizable nuclear arsenal but neither confirms nor denies it. It is the only Middle East state that has not signed the NPT and, like India and Pakistan, did not participate in the review conference.

Tauscher said Washington would work with countries in the region to organize a successful conference in 2012.

But she added that the U.S. ability to do that “has been seriously jeopardized because the final document singles out Israel in the Middle East section, a fact that the United States deeply regrets.”

Gary Samore, who oversees policy on weapons of mass destruction at the White House, said U.S. Vice President Joe Biden had warned Arab ambassadors in Washington this week that naming Israel in the final document would be a bad idea.

“The political symbolism of mentioning Israel in this way is very destructive,” he told reporters on a conference call.

“I don’t know whether this conference will even happen,” Samore said. “We’re not going to convene a meeting unless we believe the conditions are right for having that meeting.”

There was no immediate reaction from Israel.

‘DIFFICULT COMPROMISE’

The White House insisted it would not put the Jewish state under any pressure nor encourage it to do anything that would undermine its national security. It also denied entering into a deal with Egypt and other Arab states on the WMD-free zone.

“There is no deal between the U.S. and Egypt or any countries with regard to that particular issue,” Jones told Reuters in Washington.

Diplomats familiar with the talks, however, told Reuters the United States had agreed with the Arabs not to block consensus on the declaration while making clear it would condemn the naming of Israel.

British delegate John Duncan told the meeting the text on the Middle East had involved “difficult compromise for all parties involved.”

U.N. diplomats have said that one of the reasons Washington agreed to negotiate with the Arabs on the WMD-free zone was to secure their support for new U.N. sanctions against Iran.

Tauscher said that “Iran is the only country in this hall that has been found … to be currently in non-compliance with its (NPT) nuclear safeguards obligations.”

The declaration also contained plans for further disarmament, strengthening global non-proliferation efforts and ensuring access to technology for peaceful uses.

The 1970 NPT is intended to stop the spread of atomic weapons, though it allowed the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia to keep their arsenals while calling on them to negotiate on disarmament.

The conference called on North Korea to give up nuclear weapons and return to the NPT, which it left in 2003.

(Additional reporting by Matt Spetalnick in Washington; editing by Eric Beech and Mohammad Zargham)

Q+A – How serious is the crisis on the Korean peninsula?

North Korea said on Friday the peninsula was heading towards war after Seoul accused the reclusive state of torpedoing a navy ship near their disputed border, driving tensions to their highest levels in years.

Following are some questions about how serious the crisis is and what may be behind North Korean leader Kim Jong-il’s provocative moves.

WILL THERE BE WAR?

Most analysts believe there will not be war on the peninsula as long as South Korea holds its fire.

North Korea’s obsolete conventional armed forces and military equipment mean quick and near certain defeat if it wages full-scale war, and Pyongyang is well aware of its limits.

Even though it has exploded nuclear devices, North Korea has not shown it has a working nuclear bomb. Experts say they do not believe the North has the ability to miniaturise an atomic weapon to place on a missile, but the secretive state has been trying to develop such a warhead.

North Korea’s ageing fleet of Soviet-era bombers would also have difficulty evading the technologically advanced air forces of regional powers the United States, South Korea and Japan to deliver a nuclear bomb outside the country.

Moreover, South Korea has made clear it will not retaliate after findings showed it was a torpedo fired by a North Korean submarine that sunk the Cheonan corvette, killing 46 sailors.

The greatest risk that could fuel armed confrontation lies in small-scale skirmishes that might develop into larger conflict.

Another risk could be the buildup of U.S. military forces on the peninsula that will be seen by the North as a sign of imminent invasion, something that leaders in Pyongyang are said to be genuinely frightened of.

WHAT IS KIM JONG-IL TRYING TO DO?

The torpedo attack was almost certainly ordered directly by Kim Jong-il. The most likely explanation for the attack is that it was in retaliation for a naval skirmish last November that severely damaged a North Korean vessel. That ship had intruded into the South’s waters and was pounded with thousands of rounds of gunfire.

North Korea had a particularly rough start to the year in terms of economic difficulties after pledging on New Year’s Day to make it a top priority to improve the lives of the people. A botched currency reform in November nearly crippled what little market functions there were, reportedly inciting public unrest in some parts of the country and prompting authorities to ease restrictions on free market activities.

The suspension of aid from the South under President Lee Myung-bak since 2008 has deepened its economic woes. U.N. sanctions imposed after last year’s nuclear test have also cut into the North’s key source of hard cash — the trade in arms.

Analysts say the North’s leaders often resort to raising regional tensions to divert attention from troubles at home.

Kim, whose own health is in question, is trying to promote his youngest son as heir.

There is concern in the South that Kim may be inclined to more lethal provocations because the routine sabre-rattling of recent years no longer seems to work to force concessions out of the South and regional powers.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS TO INVESTORS?

President Lee’s government has hinted at taking the issue to the international community, mostly likely the U.N. Security Council, rather than taking the law into its own hands.

Market players do not expect the issue to escalate into armed conflict because they believe Seoul will not risk the damage to its own economy and the region as a whole, which accounts for about a sixth of the world’s economic output.

Last year’s nuclear test barely impacted financial markets which have become largely inured to the North’s behaviour.

But South Korean stocks took a dip and the won posted its biggest daily fall in more than 10 months on Thursday following the South’s formal announcement of blame for the ship sinking. Hawkish comments from both sides weighed on investor sentiment, already fragile after lingering concerns over euro zone debt problems.

Financial markets were closed for a holiday in South Korea on Friday but further comments from Lee next week on how Seoul would respond could weigh on sentiment, reflecting the highest levels of tensions in recent years.

On Thursday, five-year South Korean CDS was 10 bps wider at 130/135, the highest since September 2009. [EMRG/DBT] Three-year treasury June contracts ended up 7 ticks at 111.14.

(Editing by Jonathan Thatcher and Jeremy Laurence)

N Korea readying for 3rd nuclear test: reports

There are reports North Korea is preparing for another nuclear test.

The secretive state has already detonated two nuclear devices.

The South Korean broadcaster YTN is reporting that Pyongyang began making preparations for a third nuclear test last month.

Quoting an unnamed diplomatic source, it says the detonation could come as early as next month.

Experts say another test would improve North Korea’s ability to make nuclear weapons but would diminish its supply of fissile material.

The closed state’s first two nuclear tests were considered only partial successes at best.

Manmohan Singh backs success of Pokhran II tests

Barmer (Rajasthan), Aug.29 (ANI): The Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, on Saturday said that a needless controversy had been created over the Pokhran II nuclear tests that took place in May 1998.

Talking to reporters on the sidelines of a function to inaugurate a terminal for the supply of crude oil at Cairn India’s Mangala oilfield in Barmer, Dr. Singh said: “Kalam (former scientific adviser to the Defence Minister Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam) has already clarified that the tests were successful. A needless controversy has been created over the Pokhran tests.”

The Prime Minister’s comment came after former DRDO scientist Dr. K. Santhanam had controversially revealed that the Pokhran II tests were not entirely successful.

Santhanam said: “The Science and Technology Community as a whole wanted to have some more tests,…but conducting a nuclear test is a highly political decision, and no matter the wish of scientific community may be, the political leadership of the country will have its say.”

Santhanam also clarified that he had at no stage said the tests were a complete failure.

“I didn””””””””t say it was a failure but partially successful,” Santhanam added.

He also said that in the reports given to the government, the scientists had mentioned the outcome of their experiments.

“The scientific community placed its reports about the out come of the tests. They are highly classified and the political leadership of the country is aware about that,” he said.

Maintaining his stand to go for more tests before signing CTBT or NPT Santhanam said, “Many people in the administration knew that India is in need of another test.”

“The energy released after the blast were measured and the energy release was much lower than what was expected by the designers. It was not a surprise to me,” Santhanam recalled.

India tested five nuclear devices including two-sub kilo category of thermo nuclear devices code named “Operation Shakti,” on May 11 and 13, 1998 at Pokhran in Rajasthan.

Countering Santhanam””””””””s views, former National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra said: “When they (scientists) said about the success of the tests in 1998, May 11 and 13, we asked whether they want to go for another test, but they (scientists) said No, and were satisfied by the tests.”

“It was very clear that based on their report only, we have announced it to the world. We have not lied to any one,” Mishra said adding it was only then that plans developed to discuss civil nuclear co-operation with the United States.

” In the entire scientific history, no country has gained 100 percent success in its first test of thermo nuclear device…if we get a chance, India should go for another test, especially of a thermonuclear device.” Santhanam said.

He, however, cautioned the country””””””””s political leadership against signing either Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) or Non – Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The NPT is a highly discriminative treaty and divides the whole world into a nuclear haves and have nots, “Santhanam claimed.

Santhanam said the new Indo- US nuclear deal does not come in the way of going for more tests.

“There is one clause in the Indo- US nuclear deal that if the security scenario around the country changes, then we can go for a test, and the country””””””””s leadership should take a decision to go for a test taking confidence of all the factors involved,” Santhanam said.

Former President Dr. Kalam had also rejected senior Santhanam’s claims that the Pokhran II nuclear tests held in the month of May 1998 were partially successful.

Dr. Kalam said the tests were successful and that a thorough review of these tests had been taken with Dr. K. Santhanam present. (ANI)

Scientific community wanted more tests, says Santhanam

New Delhi, Aug 27 (ANI): Top defence scientist Dr.K. Santhanam said on Thursday that the scientific community in India had felt after the May 1998 nuclear tests that there should be another test to complete the research.

Speaking to ANI after controversially revealing that Pokhran II tests were not entirely successful Santhanam said: “The Science and Technology Community as a whole wanted to have some more tests.”

“…but conducting a nuclear test is a highly political decision, and no matter the wish of scientific community may be, the political leadership of the country will have its say,” he added.

Santhanam also clarified that he had at no stage said the tests were a complete failure.

“I didn’t say it was a failure but partially successful,” Santhanam added.

He also said that in the reports given to the government, the scientists had mentioned the outcome of their experiments.

“The scientific community placed its reports about the out come of the tests. They are highly classified and the political leadership of the country is aware about that,” he said.

Maintaining his stand to go for more tests before signing CTBT or NPT Santhanam said, “Many people in the administration knew that India is in need of another test.”

“The energy released after the blast were measured and the energy release was much lower than what was expected by the designers. It was not a surprise to me,” Santhanam recalled.

India tested five nuclear devices including two-sub kilo category of thermo nuclear devices code named “Operation Shakti,” on May 11 and 13, 1998 at Pokhran in Rajasthan.

Countering Santhanam’s views, former National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra said: “When they (scientists) said about the success of the tests in 1998, May 11 and 13, we asked whether they want to go for another test, but they (scientists) said No, and were satisfied by the tests.”

“It was very clear that based on their report only, we have announced it to the world. We have not lied to any one,” Mishra said adding it was only then that plans developed to discuss civil nuclear co-operation with the United States.

” In the entire scientific history, no country has gained 100 percent success in its first test of thermo nuclear device…if we get a chance, India should go for another test, especially of a thermonuclear device.” Santhanam said.

He, however, cautioned the country’s political leadership against signing either Comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT) or Non – proliferation treaty (NPT).

The NPT is a highly discriminative treaty and divides the whole world into a nuclear haves and have nots, “Santhanam claimed.

Santhanam said the new Indo- US nuclear deal does not come in the way of going for more tests.

“There is one clause in the Indo- US nuclear deal that if the security scenario around the country changes, then we can go for a test, and the country’s leadership should take a decision to go for a test taking confidence of all the factors involved,” Santhanam said. By Shreeraj Gudi(ANI)

US has no plans to stop N. Korea ICBM test: Gates

Washington, Mar.30 (ANI): The United States has no plans to militarily pre-empt the launching of a long-range missile by North Korea, but has added that it would act only if the missile or its parts appeared to be headed toward American territory.

US Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Sunday said that Washington could give a calibrated military response with cooperation from Japan and South Korea, but reminded one and all that diplomatic action would be pursued first.

North Korea has already announced that it plans to test fire a Taepodong-2 intercontinental ballistic missile.

North Korean officials have said the launching is designed solely to push a satellite into orbit. Although the peaceful, commercial and scientific use of space is protected under international law, a United Nations Security Council resolution specifically bars North Korea from testing missiles and nuclear devices.

Gates said on “Fox News Sunday,” “I don’t know anyone at a senior level in the American government who does not believe this technology is intended as a mask for the development of an intercontinental ballistic missile.”

“If we had an aberrant missile, one that was headed for Hawaii, that looked like it was headed for Hawaii or something like that, we might consider it,” Gates said.

Japan, has authorized its military to shoot down any debris from the rocket that might fall toward its territory, and has joined the United States and South Korea in saying the launching is a cover for testing technology for a long-range missile that could carry a nuclear warhead.

All three countries have demanded that North Korea cancel the launching but have conceded there is little they can do to force acceptable behavior on the isolated government in Pyongyang, beyond threatening even more sanctions. (ANI)