Latest news with #nuclearproliferation
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Warning to Australia over fears China's military actions could trigger 'nuclear cascade'
Alarm bells are ringing over the Chinese-led military build up taking place in Australia's region, with fears a "nuclear cascade" could unfold as more nations seek to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Australia's Defence Minister has warned about an Indo-Pacific arms race, but at the same time has signalled Australia preparedness to increase military spending. Australia's Defence Minister Richard Marles has warned of the developing dynamic of China's arms build up and Russia's strategic ties with North Korea, saying the arms control framework previously developed by Western allies to combat nuclear proliferation during the Cold War might not be enough to meet today's challenges. The US called on Australia to increase defence spending as leaders met over the weekend at Asia's top security summit in Singapore. Mr Marles noted that Australia's defence budget will rise to about 2.3 per cent of GDP within the decade, from the two per cent it currently hovers at, saying the planned expansion represented the "single biggest peacetime increase in defence expenditure in Australia's history". "So we are beginning this journey," he said. The former Fox News host and now US Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, has personified the changing nature of the White House after the re-election of Donald Trump, but his message on China has been broadly the same to his predecessor, says Ely Ratner, the former Assistant Secretary of Defence for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs under the Biden administration. But he warned of a growing threat to stability in the region. "I think it is very complicated by the fact that China is undergoing the largest peacetime military build up in history," he told ABC radio on Monday. "They haven't explained why they think they need such a large arsenal of nuclear weapons and they're putting real pressure on other countries both in the region and in the world when it comes to nuclear weapons. It is quite a destabilising military build up we're seeing from China. He said the challenge is not just about how to manage nuclear armed nations like India and Pakistan which have been involved in recent skirmishes, but how to stop more nations feeling like they need to acquire them, leading to "the potential of nuclear cascades". "If China grows its nuclear arsenal to such a size that countries like South Korea … and then potentially others start thinking they might need their own nuclear weapons, then we're in a much more dangerous world," he warned this morning. When asked if allies like Australia could trust the Trump administration is committed to defence in the broader Indo-Pacific region, Mr Ratner said "I think for the time being the broad answer is yes". He added that he didn't believe China was more likely to invade Taiwan due to President Trump being in office, saying the Asian giant was in a "wait and see mode". Speaking at the summit on Saturday Mr Hegseth called on allies in the region to share the burden of deterrence by upgrading their own defences. "There's no reason to sugar coat it," he told the Shangri-La Dialogue. "The threat China poses is real, and it could be imminent", suggesting an invasion could take place within the next two years. Responding to questions from reporters on Sunday, Mr Albanese said Australia's position on Taiwan was "very clear" and included a bipartisan stance to support the status quo. China views Taiwan as its own territory, and slammed the US as the biggest "troublemaker for regional peace and stability". with AAP Do you have a story tip? Email: newsroomau@ You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter and YouTube.
Jordan Times
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Jordan Times
Will we see more nuclear proliferation?
CAMBRIDGE — Eight decades have passed since the energy contained within an atom was used in warfare. Yet rather than suffering nuclear Armageddon, the world has achieved a surprising nuclear stability, so far. Equally remarkable, while nuclear technology has spread to many countries, only a small fraction have chosen to use it to develop weapons. The world has benefited from an effective nonproliferation regime, a set of rules, norms, and institutions that have discouraged, albeit haltingly and imperfectly, nuclear proliferation. But can it survive an era of rapid geopolitical shifts? In the 1960s, US President John F. Kennedy predicted that there would be around 25 countries with nuclear weapons by the 1970s. Yet today, there are only nine, because governments took steps to prevent proliferation. In 1968, they negotiated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which recognized that five states already had nuclear weapons, but secured pledges from others not to develop them. For decades, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has sent inspectors to countries developing nuclear energy to ensure that it is used only for civilian purposes. And in the 1970s, US President Jimmy Carter's administration placed a high priority on slowing proliferation, in part through the newly created Nuclear Suppliers Group, whose member states pledged restraint in the export of sensitive enrichment and reprocessing technology. This non-proliferation regime has become an important part of the world order, but some analysts believe it faces new threats. Even IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi worries about its future. The most visible challenge is Iran's program for enriching uranium above 60 per cent, far beyond what is needed for use in civilian reactors. Grossi estimates that Iran could make a bomb in a matter of months, not years; and if it does develop a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia says it will follow suit and drop out of the NPT. Israel and the United States are threatening to use force to stop Iran, even as the US and Iran engage in new negotiations over limiting Iran's nuclear programme. Beyond this regional challenge in the Middle East lurks a global threat to the nonproliferation regime. After World War II, Germany and Japan limited their own nuclear plans because of their alliance with the US. The credibility of American nuclear deterrence was sufficient to provide them with security, and the same has been true for dozens of other states, both in NATO and in East Asia. But now that the Trump administration is weakening these alliances, it has also weakened America's extended deterrence, prompting others to examine whether they should have their own nuclear weapons. They are well aware that Ukraine gave up the Soviet-era nuclear weapons stationed on its soil, only to be invaded by Russia (which had guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum). Some analysts say we should not worry, because proliferation would have beneficial effects on world politics. Just as nuclear weapons sustained prudence in US-Soviet relations, they contend, so might nuclear weapons stabilise regional power balances today. But this more-is-better attitude would be tenable only if the political conditions were similar. It presupposes stable command-and-control systems; an absence of serious civil wars or destabilising motivations (such as irredentist passions); and discipline over the temptation to launch preemptive strikes during the early stages of a conflict, when new nuclear weapons capabilities are soft and vulnerable. Such assumptions are unrealistic in many parts of the world. Far from enhancing security, the first effects of acquiring a nuclear capability in many circumstances may be to increase one's vulnerability and insecurity. Moreover, even a local, 'tactical' nuclear strike would be a serious breach of an 80-year global taboo. One also must consider the destabilizing roles that nonstate actors could play. Even if the risk of a terrorist group acquiring a nuclear device is low, the mere possibility creates severe challenges. The fact that weapons-usable materials can be stolen or sold to rogue states on the black market means that the threat posed by nonstate groups does not depend solely on their technological capabilities. Nor would today's superpowers necessarily be immune from the effects. The wide or rapid spread of nuclear capabilities could affect the global strategic balance and the prospects of a peaceful and just world order in the future. Obviously, political and technical trends will continue to change. But the key question concerns the future of US alliances and extended deterrence. Given that proliferation could be destabilizing, that nuclear weapons do not always enhance the acquiring state's geopolitical position, and that superpowers cannot fully escape the effects, there should be a strong global interest in maintaining the nonproliferation regime. Under the current circumstances, some inequality in weaponry is acceptable to most states because the alternative, anarchic equality, is more dangerous. As long as countries can be made better off without a bomb than with one, a policy of slowing the spread of nuclear-weapons technology will rest on a strong foundation. Realistically, an international regime does not need perfect adherence to have a significant constraining effect. But once erosion of the norms and institutions begins, it may be hard to stop. Joseph S. Nye, Jr., one of America's great scholar/statesmen, has died at age 88. A former US assistant secretary of defense and chair of the National Intelligence Council, Nye, a long-time dean of Harvard Kennedy School, famously coined the term "soft power" to denote the influence that countries can assert through their culture and economies. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2025.
Fox News
08-05-2025
- Business
- Fox News
Trump targets Iranian oil with sanctions, increasing pressure on Islamic Republic to make deal on nukes
The Trump administration on Thursday targeted Iranian oil with a new slate of sanctions – a move that increases pressure on the Islamic Republic amid talks between U.S. and Iranian officials to make a deal to prevent nuclear proliferation, Fox News Digital has learned. The Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control increased pressure on Iran's export of oil Thursday, designating the "teapot" refinery Hebei Xinhai Chemical Group Co., Ltd., and three port terminal operators in Shandong province, China, for their role in purchasing or facilitating the delivery of hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of Iranian oil. The "teapot" refineries purchase the majority of Iranian crude oil exports, according to the Treasury Department. The Treasury Department on Thursday is also imposing sanctions on several companies, vessels and captains they say are responsible for facilitating Iranian oil shipments as part of Iran's so-called "shadow fleet." The companies and vessels are all China-based. "As part of President Trump's broad and aggressive maximum pressure campaign, Treasury today is targeting another teapot refinery that imported Iranian oil," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said. "The United States remains resolved to intensify pressure on all elements of Iran's oil supply chain to prevent the regime from generating revenue to further its destabilizing agenda." The sanctions come following President Donald Trump's executive order, which targets Iran's petroleum and petrochemical sectors – as well as another executive order targeting those that provide support to the National Iranian Oil Company. Thursday's sanctions are the latest round targeting Iranian oil sales since the president, in early February, issued a national security memorandum that instituted a campaign of "maximum economic pressure on Iran." As for Iran's "shadow fleet," Tehran relies on obscure ship management companies to manage its fleet of tankers that "mask" Iran's petroleum shipments to China using ship-to-ship transfers with sanctioned vessels. The Treasury Department on Thursday took action to increase pressure on that "shadow fleet" of actors by designating ships as "blocked property." Any violation of U.S. sanctions may result in the imposition of civil or criminal penalties on U.S. or foreign persons, the Treasury Department said. The imposition of sanctions comes as the United States and Iran prepare for a fourth round of nuclear talks. U.S. and Iranian officials are set for the next round of talks to take place in Oman in the coming days. Trump is scheduled to travel to the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Vice President JD Vance recently previewed the next round of talks, saying Wednesday the U.S. was negotiating toward a "complete cessation" of Tehran's nuclear program. The Trump administration has said the flawed 2015 Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear feal, did not prevent Iran from building an atomic bomb, with Vance adding that the agreement had "incredibly weak" enforcement regarding inspections. Vance said he didn't believe it "actually served the function of preventing the Iranians from getting on the pathway to nuclear weapons." Vance also said the Trump administration believes that there were some elements of the Iranian nuclear program that were actually "preserved" under the JCPOA. "Yes, there weren't nuclear weapons. Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon," Vance said, arguing the deal "allowed Iran to sort of stay on this glide path toward a nuclear weapon if they flip the switch and press go." "We think that there is a deal here that would reintegrate Iran into the global economy," Vance said ahead of the talks. "That would be really good for the Iranian people, but would result in the complete cessation of any chance that they can get a nuclear weapon. And that's what we're negotiating toward. And as the president has said, that's Option A." If Option A is "very good for the Iranian people," Vance said, then Option B "is very bad." "It's very bad for everybody," Vance said. "And it's not what we want, but it's better than Option C, which is Iran getting a nuclear weapon. That is what is completely off the table for the American administration. No ifs, ands or buts." As for Trump, he said during a recent interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he would only accept "total dismantlement" of Iran's nuclear program.
