DOCSLIB.ORG

USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal #700

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal #700 USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL Maxwell AFB, Alabama Issue No. 700, 03 April 2009 Articles & Other Documents: Russia, U.S. Ready to Cut Nuclear Arsenals Below Russia Urges N.Korea to Show Restraint in Rocket 1,700 Warheads Launch Transcript: Obama, Medvedev Deliver Remarks on N. Korea Ratchets Up Threats as It Readies Missile for Nuclear Weapons Reduction Launch IAEA Chief Welcomes Nuclear Reduction by U.S., N. Korea will Retaliate Against Any Attempt to Russia Intercept Rocket: Military G20 Summit: US and Russia Agree to Cut Their Nuclear North Korea Fuels Rocket Ahead of Launch Arsenals N. Korea Is Said to Be Fueling Rocket Iran, Syria Got Indirect U.S. Nuclear Aid North Korea Continues Rocket Launch Preparations Washington Sees Time as Ally in Disarming Tehran's Nuclear Plan US Issues Alert on Threat General Petraeus Warns Israel May Strike Iran First Taliban Warlord Threatens to Attack Washington Over Nuclear Fears Chinese Nuclear Tests Allegedly Caused 750,000 Oil-Rich Arab State Pushes Nuclear Bid with U.S. Help Deaths North Korea Could Have Nuclear Warheads for Department of Energy Announces Completion of Missiles, Expert Says World's Largest Laser N. Korea Warns of Military Response should Japan Civilian Use? Intercept Its Satellite North Korea 'has Capacity for Nuclear Strike' on Seoul and Tokyo Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal. As part of USAF Counterproliferation Center’s mission to counter weapons of mass destruction through education and research, we’re providing our government and civilian community a source for timely counterproliferation information. This information includes articles, papers and other documents addressing issues pertinent to US military response options for dealing with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats and countermeasures. It’s our hope this information resource will help enhance your counterproliferation issue awareness. Established in 1998, the USAF/CPC provides education and research to present and future leaders of the Air Force, as well as to members of other branches of the armed services and Department of Defense. Our purpose is to help those agencies better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Please feel free to visit our web site at http://cpc.au.af.mil/ for in-depth information and specific points of contact. The following articles, papers or documents do not necessarily reflect official endorsement of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or other US government agencies. Reproduction for private use or commercial gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. All rights are reserved. RIA Novosti 01 April 2009 Russia, U.S. Ready to Cut Nuclear Arsenals Below 1,700 Warheads LONDON (RIA Novosti) - The Russian and U.S. presidents announced on Wednesday that negotiators would immediately start talks on a new strategic arms reduction treaty that could cut existing nuclear arsenals below 1,700 warheads. "We agreed to pursue new and verifiable reductions in our strategic offensive arsenals in a step-by-step process, beginning by replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty [START] with a new, legally binding treaty," Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and U.S. President Barack Obama said in a joint statement after a meeting in London. "We are instructing our negotiators to start talks immediately on this new treaty and to report on results achieved in working out the new agreement by July," the statement said. The START-1 treaty, signed in 1991, obliged Washington and Moscow to cut nuclear warheads to 6,000 and their delivery vehicles to 1,600 by each side. The treaty expires December 5. In 2002, an additional agreement on strategic offensive reductions was concluded in Moscow. The agreement, known as the Moscow Treaty, envisioned cuts to 1,700-2,200 warheads by December 2012. However, that treaty is largely thought to be less effective than the START treaty. The presidents agreed that the new arms reduction treaty should cut the arms to levels lower than those envisioned in the Moscow Treaty. Russia and the United States possess 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. Moscow, which proposed a new arms reduction agreement with Washington in 2005, expects the United States to agree on a deal that would restrict not only the numbers of nuclear warheads but also place limits on all existing kinds of delivery vehicles. Moscow also insists on the effective use of control mechanisms and procedures, "which the previous administration ignored categorically," according to Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. http://en.rian.ru/world/20090401/120863111.html (Return to Articles and Documents List) Washington Post April 1, 2009 Transcript: Obama, Medvedev Deliver Remarks on Nuclear Weapons Reduction CQ Transcripts Wire SPEAKERS: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA RUSSIAN PRESIDENT DMITRY MEDVEDEV [*] PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me just make a brief comment. I am very grateful to President Medvedev for taking the time to visit with me today. I'm particularly gratified because prior to the meeting our respective teams had worked together and had developed a series of approaches to areas of common interest that I think present great promise. As I've said in the past, I think that over the last several years the relationship between our two countries has been allowed to drift. And what I believe we've begun today is a very constructive dialogue that will allow us to work on issues of mutual interest, like the reduction of nuclear weapons and the strengthening of our nonproliferation treaties; our mutual interest in dealing with terrorism and extremism that threatens both countries; our mutual interest in economic stability and restoring growth around the world; our mutual interest in promoting peace and stability in areas like the Middle East. So I am very encouraged by the leadership of the President. I'm very grateful that he has taken the time to visit. I am especially excited about the fact that the President extended an invitation for me to visit Moscow to build on some of the areas that we discussed on today. And I have agreed to visit Moscow in July, which we both agreed was a better time than January to visit. And my hope is that given the constructive conversations that we've had today, the joint statements that we will be issuing both on reductions of nuclear arsenals, as well as a range of other areas of interest, that what we're seeing today is the beginning of new progress in the U.S.-Russian relations. And I think that President Medvedev's leadership is -- has been critical in allowing that progress to take place. So thank you very much. PRESIDENT MEDVEDEV: (As translated.) I would like to sincerely thank President Obama for this opportunity to meet him and to meet this time in person. And, indeed, we had an opportunity to compare our views on the current relations and current situation in the world. And we had an opportunity to agree upon certain common values that we need to foster in our relations, and provide for further areas for cooperation in progression of our relations. I can only agree that the relations between our countries have been adrift over the past years. As President Obama has said, they were drifting, and drifting in some wrong directions. They were degrading, to some extent. That is why we believe that since such a situation was not to the benefit of the United States or Russia Federation, to say nothing about the global situation, we believe that the time has come to reset our relations, as it was said, and to open a new page in progression in the development of our common situation. Indeed, it was said that we are prepared to cooperate further in such areas as the nonproliferation of WMDs limitation of strategic weapons, countering terrorism, and improving economic and financial situation and the overall economic situation in the world. It is important to note that there are many points on which we can work. And indeed there are far more points in which we can -- where we can come closer, where we can work, rather than those points on which we have differences. Thus, by bringing our positions closer we can attain significant progress and, much more importantly, further our achievements. I share the view of President Obama who said that our teams have worked really well in preparation of this meeting, and the declarations, the two declarations, which we are adopting are just another proof of that. And those are a declaration on the strategic weapons, and the declaration on the general framework of relations between Russia and the United States, which set good grounds for our further interaction. We will be very glad to host President Obama, to greet him in Moscow in July. Indeed, July is the warmest time in Russia and in Moscow, and I believe that will be exactly the feature of the talks and relations we are going to enjoy during that period in Moscow. And of course we have set out certain objectives and certain goals and tasks we need to work through in order to get better prepared for this meeting. And indeed I am convinced that is a good opportunity for this interaction. Well, indeed, so we are convinced that we'll continue successfully our contacts, in particular today, where we were not only discussing international issues or bilateral items of interaction; we were also discussing education, which probably not everybody -- where we have come to an understanding that we're reading the same textbooks while in these subjects. And this will set us further for interaction. After this meeting, I am far more optimistic about the successful development of our relations, and would like to thank President Obama for this opportunity.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • [Temple ICAS Book Talk] "Ghosts of the Tsunami"
    H-Announce [Temple ICAS Book Talk] "Ghosts of the Tsunami" Announcement published by Robert Dujarric on Tuesday, October 2, 2018 Type: Lecture Date: October 11, 2018 Location: Japan Subject Fields: Humanities, Japanese History / Studies, Religious Studies and Theology, Social History / Studies Date:Thursday, October 11, 2018 Time:7:30 - 9:00 p.m. (doors open at 7:00 p.m.) Venue:Temple University, Japan Campus, Azabu Hall, 1F Parliament (access: http://www.tuj.ac.jp/maps/tokyo.html) Speaker:Richard Lloyd Parry, author and foreign correspondent of The Times Moderator:Kyle Cleveland, Associate Director of ICAS Admission:Free. Open to the public. Language:English Registration:[email protected] * Advance registration is encouraged, but not required. Overview: No one who was alive at the time will forget March 11, 2011, when a massive earthquake sent a 40- metre high tsunami smashing into the coast of north-east Japan. By the time the sea retreated, more than 18,000 people had been crushed, burned to death, or drowned. It was Japan’s greatest single loss of life since the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. It set off a national crisis, and the meltdown of a nuclear power plant. And even after the immediate emergency had abated, the trauma of the disaster continued to express itself in bizarre and mysterious ways. Richard Lloyd Parry, award-winning foreign correspondent of The Times, spent six years reporting from the disaster zone. There he encountered stories of ghosts and hauntings. He met a priest who performed exorcisms on people possessed by the spirits of the dead.
    [Show full text]
  • PIA 2363: International History Spring 2021 Thursdays, 12:10-3:05Pm, Zoom
    PIA 2363: International History Spring 2021 Thursdays, 12:10-3:05pm, Zoom Professor: Ryan Grauer Office: 3932 Posvar Hall, but Zoom in reality Office Hours: Wednesdays and Thursdays, 3-5pm Email: [email protected] Phone: 412-624-7396 Course Description: Policymakers, scholars, analysts, journalists, average citizens, and others frequently talk about the “lessons of history” and what they mean for understanding, interpreting, and reacting to contemporary events in the international arena. For instance, when opening a newspaper (or a web- browser, or the Twitter app) on any given day, you are likely to be inundated with op-eds and think- pieces about how it is the 100th anniversary of X and the 50th anniversary of Y, and both events have profound implications for how we think about the world today. Sometimes, the authors of such pieces do have important insights to share. Other times, they confuse and muddle matters rather than clarify them. The variable utility of these bite-sized historical vignettes as aids for thinking about contemporary issues is not unique. Longer pieces of journalism, academic research, popular history books, and, most crucially, policymakers and those who work for them all frequently struggle to discern and apply whatever the appropriate lessons of history might be. This difficulty stems from the fact that learning the correct lessons is complicated. Nominally, history is the record of people and events preceding the current moment. Nominally, history is politically and ideologically neutral. In practice, however, history is neither of these things. In practice, history is the synthesized, and often stylized, reporting of certain people and certain events that some investigators have deemed worthy of study.
    [Show full text]
  • Just War Theory and Operation Enduring Freedom
    FAR FROM INFINITE JUSTICE: JUST WAR THEORY AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM Stephen R. Shalom* I. INTRODUCTION On October 7, 2001, the United States and its British ally initiated Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and attacked Taliban and al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan.1 U.S. policymakers originally called their response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) “Operation Infinite Justice,” but changed the name to “Enduring Freedom” to avoid offending Muslim sensibilities.2 The war had the backing of most just war theorists3—those who believe that wars must meet certain criteria before they can be deemed just.4 When one looks carefully at these criteria, however, and compares them with what is publicly known about OEF, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that just war theorists have not been true to their own principles. There are three principles of just war theory that are particularly relevant in assessing the U.S. military strike on Afghanistan: last resort, right (or legitimate) authority, and proportionality.5 It will be argued here that OEF failed on all three counts. In Part II, last resort is examined and it is shown that the United States rejected options and opportunities that might have achieved just ends without the resort to war. Part III takes up right authority, examining compliance with both domestic and international law. It is argued that the domestic authorizing legislation was questionable, in terms of its legality and its * Professor, Department of Political Science, William Paterson University of New Jersey. The author thanks Joanne Landy for helpful comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Strange Victory: a Critical Appraisal of Operation Enduring Freedom and the Afghanistan War
    Strange Victory: A critical appraisal of Operation Enduring Freedom and the Afghanistan war Carl Conetta Project on Defense Alternatives Research Monograph 6 30 January 2002 Project on Defense Alternatives Commonwealth Institute 186 Hampshire Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 Telephone: 617-547-4474 E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.comw.org/pda © Commonwealth Foundation ISBN: 1-881677-10-9 Citation: Carl Conetta, "Strange Victory: A critical appraisal of Operation Enduring Freedom and the Afghanistan war", Cambridge, MA: Commonwealth Institute Project on Defense Alternatives Research Monograph #6, 30 January 2002. URL: http://www.comw.org/pda/0201strangevic.pdf Contents Introduction 3 1. What has Operation Enduring Freedom accomplished? 4 1.1 The fruits of victory 4 1.1.1 Secondary goals 5 1.2 The costs of the war 6 1.2.1 The humanitarian cost of the war 7 1.2.2 Stability costs 7 2. Avoidable costs: the road not taken 9 3. War in search of a strategy 10 3.1 The Taliban become the target 10 3.2 Initial war strategy: split the Taliban 12 3.2.1 Romancing the Taliban 13 3.2.2 Pakistan: between the devil and the red, white, and blue 14 3.3 The first phase of the air campaign: a lever without a fulcrum 15 3.3.1 Strategic bombardment: alienating hearts and minds 15 3.4 A shift in strategy -- unleashing the dogs of war 17 4. A theater redefined 18 4.1 Reshuffling Afghanistan 19 4.2 Regional winners and losers 20 4.3 The structure of post-war Afghan instability 21 4.3.1 The Bonn agreement: nation-building or “cut and paste”? 22 4.3.2 Peacekeepers for Afghanistan: too little, too late 24 4.4 A new game: US and Afghan interests diverge 25 4.4.1 A failure to adjust 26 5.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Generation Draws the Line
    A New Generation Draws the Line ftnitoMNr -wwmmmamm Kosovo, East Timor and the Standards of the West Noam Chomsky Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 http://www.archive.org/details/newgenerationdraOOnoam mmmRSSKraao m nHHWfifffli '•,-. '.:. ^^S&RS: ^ ; ^•'^'•;y& £^ #^y ; * **&» HOT • •-."• :.'.' n§wHH~_ hbhBnvSoHB B^ a^SSm : Vy, . Mtf*1 SI? : m ; 1 10sin *©.jS% Si A NEW GENERATION DRAWS THE LINE A NEW GENERATION DRAWS THE LINE KOSOVO, EAST TIMOR AND THE STANDARDS OF THE WEST NOAM CHOMSKY VERSO London • New York First published by Verso 2000 © Noam Chomsky 2000 All rights reserved The moral rights of the author have been asserted Verso UK: 6 Meard Street, London W1V 3HR USA: 180 Varick Street, New York, NY 10014-4606 Verso is the imprint of New Left Books ISBN 1-85984-789-7 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress Typeset by M Rules Printed by R. R. Donnelley and Sons Co. CONTENTS 1 INTENTIONAL IGNORANCE AND ITS USES 1 2 "GREEN LIGHT" FOR WAR CRIMES 48 3 KOSOVO IN RETROSPECT 94 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 148 INDEX 149 1 INTENTIONAL IGNORANCE AND ITS USES The twentieth century ended with terrible crimes, and reac- tions by the great powers that were widely heralded as opening a remarkable "new era" in human affairs, marked by dedication to human rights and high principle with no historical prece- dent. The torrent of self-adulation, which may well have been unprecedented in scale and quality, was not merely a display of millenarian rhetorical flourishes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Laws of War in the War on Terror1
    Color profile: Disabled Composite Default screen VIII The Laws of War in the War on Terror1 Adam Roberts2 Introduction he laws of war—the parts of international law explicitly applicable in armed conflict—have a major bearing on the “war on terror” pro- claimed and initiated by the United States following the attacks of 11 Septem- ber 2001. They address a range of critical issues that perennially arise in campaigns against terrorist movements, including discrimination in targeting, protection of civilians, and status and treatment of prisoners. However, the ap- plication of the laws of war in counter-terrorist operations has always been par- ticularly problematical. Because of the character of such operations, different in 1. Copyright © Adam Roberts, 2002, 2003. This is a revised version of Counter-terrorism, Armed Force and the Laws of War,44SURVIVAL 1 (Spring 2002), 7–32. It incorporates information available up to 15 December 2002. I am grateful for help received from a large number of people who read drafts, including particularly Dr. Dana Allin, Dr. Kenneth Anderson, Dr. Mary-Jane Fox, Colonel Charles Garraway, Richard Guelff, Commander Steven Haines, and Professor Mike Schmitt; participants at the Carr Centre conference on “Humanitarian Issues in Military Targeting,” Washington DC, 7–8 March 2002; and participants at the US Naval War College conference on “International Law & the War on Terrorism,” Newport, RI, 26–28 June 2002. Versions of this paper have also appeared on the website of the Social Science Research Council, New York, at http://www.ssrc.org. 2. Sir Adam Roberts is Montague Burton Professor of International Relations at Oxford University and Fellow of Balliol College.
    [Show full text]
  • Far from Infinite Justice: Just War Theory and Operation Enduring Freedom [Article]
    Far from Infinite Justice: Just War Theory and Operation Enduring Freedom [Article] Item Type Article; text Authors Shalom, Stephen R. Citation 26 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 623 (2009) Publisher The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law (Tucson, AZ) Journal Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law Rights Copyright © The Author(s) Download date 10/10/2021 16:37:36 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Version Final published version Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/659012 FAR FROM INFINITE JUSTICE: JUST WAR THEORY AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM Stephen R. Shalom* I. INTRODUCTION On October 7, 2001, the United States and its British ally initiated Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and attacked Taliban and al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan.1 U.S. policymakers originally called their response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11) "Operation Infinite Justice," but changed the name to "Enduring Freedom" to avoid offending Muslim sensibilities.' The war had the backing of most just war theorists 3-those who believe that wars must meet certain criteria before they can be deemed just.4 When one looks carefully at these criteria, however, and compares them with what is publicly known about OEF, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that just war theorists have not been true to their own principles. There are three principles of just war theory that are particularly relevant in assessing the U.S. military strike on Afghanistan: last resort, right (or legitimate) authority, and proportionality.5 It will be argued here that OEF failed on all three counts.
    [Show full text]
  • Announcing: the Rathbones Folio Prize 2018 Shortlist
    MEDIA RELEASE | STRICTLY EMBARGOED UNTIL 7.45PM GMT, TUESDAY 27 MARCH 2018 2018 SHORTLIST SHOWS INTERNATIONAL BREADTH – AND CONFIRMS THE QUALITY OF BRITISH WRITING Five novels and three works of non-fiction from the UK, Ireland, Pakistan, China and North America are in contention for the £20,000 Rathbones Folio Prize, which rewards the best work of literature of the year, regardless of form. Three of today’s finest novelists, 2017 Costa Novel award winner Jon McGregor, Mohsin Hamid and Hari Kunzru, were found to be writing at the top of their game by the jury, which is drawn exclusively from the 2018 Shortlist Folio Academy of writers. Anything is Possible by Elizabeth Strout (Viking) Conversations with Friends by Sally Rooney (Faber) They are joined by Sally Rooney, Exit West by Mohsin Hamid (Hamish Hamilton) one of the most exciting new voices Ghosts of the Tsunami by Richard Lloyd Parry (Jonathan Cape) to emerge last year, who has risen Once Upon A Time In The East by Xiaolu Guo (Chatto & Windus) Reservoir 13 by Jon McGregor (4th Estate) meteorically since winning the 2017 The Day That Went Missing by Richard Beard (Harvill Secker) Sunday Times/PFD Young Writer of White Tears by Hari Kunzru (Hamish Hamilton) the Year Award, and the celebrated American novelist Elizabeth Strout. Richard Lloyd Parry’s definitive book on the 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami, Richard Beard’s memoir of exceptional power about loss, carrying on, and recovering a brother’s life, and Xiaolu Guo’s acutely observed account of growing up in China, each, in very different ways, triumphantly affirm the unique role creative non-fiction plays in making sense of our complex world.
    [Show full text]
  • Trouble at the Top Trouble at The
    SEPTEMBER 2004 ¥500 Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan TROUBLE AT THE TOP The Media and IHA PROBING “PRIVACY” Wither Freedom of the Press? Japan Sherpa Neighboring Yokohama CONTENTS LEFT: Yokohama Bay Bridge spans 860m across the mouth of Yokohama Harbor. Built in 1989, this suspension bridge consists of 176 cables, and carries a six-lane expressway and pedestrian road. COVER: Are journalists in Japan doing their job when it comes to reporting the Imperial Family, or are they still pulling their punches? The recent flap over Princess Masako’s health shows the Imperial Family is an institution out of touch with the rest of Japan. VOLUME 36 ISSUE 9 SEPTEMBER 2004 RFTC Departments Features Front TROUBLE AT THE TOP 8 President’s Column 5 When Japan’s Crown Prince held his Editor’s Note 6 press conference in May, just before a trip to Europe, most thought it would What’s Ahead 6 be a routine affair. But the Crown Late Breaking News 7 Prince’s criticism of the Imperial Household Agency for their treatment Back of his wife, Crown Princess Masako, Japan Sherpa 14 has ignited a debate over the future of Osaka Diary 15 Japan’s Imperial Family that continues to smolder. David McNeill reports. Technically Speaking 17 Write Up Your Alley 19 PROBING “PRIVACY” 12 Around the Club 19 Any reporter in Japan knows that the Library 20 English-Japanese word “privacy” is Club Events 21 one of the media’s most used and abused words. Justin McCurry expands New Members 22 the focus of the FCCJ seminar held last Gallery Notes 23 spring on the concept of privacy and Reminders & Remembrances 24 the media issue.
    [Show full text]
  • 22 Perceptions of Afghan Refugees
    22 Perceptions of Afghan refugees Joanne van Selm The European Union’s Council of Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs met on 20 September 2001, as part of its initial institutional reaction to 9/11 and its potential aftermath, including American intervention. The Council requested the European Commission to ‘examine the scope for provisional application of the Council Directive on temporary protection in case special protection arrange- ments are required within the European Union.’1 The Temporary Protection directive was then the only Commission proposal on asylum policy that had been accepted by the Council since the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty. Temporary Protection, as a means of dealing with the status and reception condi- tions for refugees fleeing a conflict or unrest, would be triggered if there were a significant influx into the EU. However, there was little chance of an influx, unless huge numbers of people found the ways and means to employ smugglers and leave the camps of Pakistan and Iran. While it was feared that 7 million Afghans risked starvation, the 13 million people still in the country stood little chance of leaving it, however afraid they were. As such, the statement that the EU was ready to receive Afghans was a symbolic foreign policy statement that, due to realities on the ground, could not clash with the internal policies of generally rejecting Afghan claims, or with domestic security fears attached to the arrival of new Afghan refugees who might include people who could be excluded from refugee protection on the grounds of involvement with terrorist organizations.2 Part of the reason why the EU leaders could safely make statements about receiving Afghanistan’s refugees without actually contemplating the reality (as had been the case for Kosovo’s refugees in 1999) was that the public imagination had not been fired to think about these refugees as people in need of more than tents, blankets and food parcels.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIDIR RESOURCES About the Author Dr Nick Ritchie Is a Lecturer in International Security at the University of York
    Reducing the Role of Nuclear Weapons in North East Asia Nick Ritchie UNIDIR RESOURCES About the author Dr Nick Ritchie is a Lecturer in International Security at the University of York. His focus is on nuclear disarmament, proliferation and arms control and United States and United Kingdom national security. He completed his PhD thesis at the University of Bradford in 2007. Ritchie taught at Bradford’s Department of Peace Studies before joining York in 2011. He previously worked for five years at the Oxford Research Group, an independent non-governmental organization working with policy-makers and independent experts on the challenges of global security and nuclear disarmament. Acknowledgements Support from UNIDIR’s core funders provides the foundation for all of the Institute’s activities. In addition, UNIDIR is grateful to the Prefecture of Hiroshima, Japan, for its support in funding this publication. About UNIDIR The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research—an autonomous institute within the United Nations—conducts research on disarmament and security. UNIDIR is based in Geneva, Switzerland, the centre for bilateral and multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation negotiations, and home of the Conference on Disarmament. The Institute explores current issues pertaining to the variety of existing and future armaments, as well as global diplomacy and local tensions and conflicts. Working with researchers, diplomats, government officials, NGOs and other institutions since 1980, UNIDIR acts as a bridge between the research community and governments. UNIDIR’s activities are funded by contributions from governments and foundations. Note The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan
    A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States’ Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan: A Comprehensive Accounting "What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,767 [thru December 6, 2001] civilian deaths in eight and a half weeks -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan." Professor Marc W. Herold Ph.D., M.B.A., B.Sc. December 2001 Departments of Economics and Women’s Studies McConnell Hall Whittemore School of Business & Economics University of New Hampshire Durham, N.H. 03824, U.S.A. FAX: 603 862-3383 Abstract Conclusion Appendex 1: The U.S. bombing through the words of Afghan refugees Appendex 2: Analysis of Discrepancies and Lying in Mainstream Corporate Media Appendex 3: The Aerojet/Honeywell CBU-87 Cluster Bomb Appendex 4: Daily Casualty Count of Afghan Civilians Killed in U.S. Bombing Attacks Appendex 5: Spatial Distribution of Afghan Civilian Casualties Caused by the U.S. Air War, Oct.7-Dec.6 When U.S. warplanes strafed [with AC-130 gunships] the farming village of Chowkar-Karez, 25 miles north of Kandahar on October 22-23rd,killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official said, "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead." The reason? They sympathized with the Taliban[1] . When asked about the Chowkar incident, Rumsfeld replied, "I cannot deal with that particular village."[2] A U.S. officer aboard the US aircraft carrier, Carl Vinson, described the use of 2,000 lb cluster bombs dropped by B-52 bombers: "A 2,000 lb.
    [Show full text]