Arms Control and Limitation and Disarmament

Subterms

    Latest story

    163 Shares189 Views

    Putin Will Head to North Korea as Ukraine War Redefines Ties With Kim

    by

    President Vladimir V. Putin’s military needs have prompted the Kremlin to strengthen ties with the authoritarian government of Kim Jong-un, which is well stocked in munitions.President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia will head to North Korea for the first time in 24 years on Tuesday after vowing to bring ties with Pyongyang to new heights and jointly combat what he called the “global neocolonial dictatorship” of the United States.The war against Ukraine has driven Mr. Putin closer to the North’s leader, Kim Jong-un, who has won new status with the Kremlin by opening his vast munitions stores to Moscow.Nine months ago, after Mr. Kim arrived by armored train in the Russian Far East, the two men met at a Russian cosmodrome and toasted their “sacred struggle” against the West. The North Korean leader, in between visiting sensitive Russian rocket and fighter jet facilities, invited Mr. Putin to make a reciprocal visit.Now, the Russian president has taken him up on the offer. And the deepening relationship between the two authoritarian leaders poses a particular challenge for Washington. The United States once relied on Moscow’s cooperation in its attempts to curb North Korea’s nuclear and missile program. Now, it faces a Kremlin intent on playing spoiler to American geopolitical interests around the world.Russian state media released footage showing large Russian flags and portraits of a smiling Mr. Putin lining the streets of Pyongyang as North Korea prepared to welcome the Russian leader.What does Russia want?Ahead of the trip, Mr. Putin issued an order authorizing the conclusion of a new “comprehensive strategic partnership” agreement with North Korea.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Rafael Grossi of the IAEA Acts as the West’s Mediator With Putin and Iran

      by

      Rafael Grossi slipped into Moscow a few weeks ago to meet quietly with the man most Westerners never engage with these days: President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.Mr. Grossi is the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, and his purpose was to warn Mr. Putin about the dangers of moving too fast to restart the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which has been occupied by Russian troops since soon after the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.But as the two men talked, the conversation veered off into Mr. Putin’s declarations that he was open to a negotiated settlement to the war in Ukraine — but only if President Volodymyr Zelensky was prepared to give up nearly 20 percent of his country.A few weeks later, Mr. Grossi, an Argentine with a taste for Italian suits, was in Tehran, this time talking to the country’s foreign minister and the head of its civilian nuclear program. At a moment when senior Iranian officials are hinting that new confrontations with Israel may lead them to build a bomb, the Iranians signaled that they, too, were open to a negotiation — suspecting, just as Mr. Putin did, that Mr. Grossi would soon be reporting details of his conversation to the White House.In an era of new nuclear fears, Mr. Grossi suddenly finds himself at the center of two of the world’s most critical geopolitical standoffs. In Ukraine, one of the six nuclear reactors in the line of fire on the Dnipro River could be hit by artillery and spew radiation. And Iran is on the threshold of becoming a nuclear-armed state.“I am an inspector, not a mediator,” Mr. Grossi said in an interview this week. “But maybe, in some way, I can be useful around the edges.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Seeks to Build World Pressure on Russia Over Space Nuclear Weapon

      by

      An American official said the United States had information undermining Russia’s claim that a device it is developing is for peaceful scientific research.American officials are trying to increase international pressure on Russia not to deploy an antisatellite nuclear weapon in space, and have obtained information that undermines Moscow’s explanation that the device it is developing is for peaceful scientific purposes, a senior State Department official said on Friday.Concern over the Russian development of a new generation of space nuclear weapons has been growing in Washington, especially since Moscow’s veto last month of a U.N. measure aimed at keeping space free of such weapons. Some Republicans believe that the Biden administration is not doing enough to deter Russian work on the device, and others are concerned about China’s apparent decision not to pressure Moscow to stop.On Friday, Mallory Stewart, the assistant secretary of state for arms control, said that while the United States had been aware of Russia’s pursuit of such a device for years, “only recently have we been able to make a more precise assessment of their progress.”Ms. Stewart, speaking at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the orbit the Russian satellite would occupy is in a high-radiation region not used by other satellites, information that undercuts Russia’s defense that it is not developing a weapon.She condemned Russia’s veto of a U.N. Security Council resolution pushed by the United States and Japan aimed at reaffirming the ban against nuclear weapons being deployed in orbit. She argued that every country should be pushing Russia not to deploy a nuclear-armed satellite.“Everything that we’re doing in the diplomatic arena is working to prevent the Russians from going forward with this program,” she said. “The international response should be outrage if this actually does go forward, because it affects everyone, right? Every single country. It’s indiscriminate in its potential effect.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Death of a Treaty Could Be a Lifesaver for Taiwan

      by

      Since pulling out of an arms-limitation agreement with Russia in 2019, the U.S. has quickly developed new weapons that could be used to stop a Chinese invasion force.During a military exercise with the Philippines that began last month, the U.S. Army deployed a new type of covert weapon that is designed to be hidden in plain sight.Called Typhon, it consists of a modified 40-foot shipping container that conceals up to four missiles that rotate upward to fire. It can be loaded with weapons including the Tomahawk — a cruise missile that can hit targets on land and ships at sea more than 1,150 miles away.The weapon, and other small mobile launchers like it, would have been illegal just five years ago under the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which prohibited U.S. and Russian forces from having land-based cruise or ballistic missiles with ranges between about 300 miles and 3,400 miles.In 2019, President Donald J. Trump abandoned the treaty, in part because the United States believed Russia had violated the terms of the pact for years. But U.S. officials said that China, with its growing long-range missile arsenal, was also a reason the Trump administration decided to withdraw.The decision freed the Pentagon to build the weapons that are now poised to defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion. It also coincided with a rethinking of modern war by U.S. Marine Corps leaders. They recommended retiring certain heavyweight and cumbersome weapons like 155-millimeter howitzers and tanks — which they thought would be of little use against Chinese forces in the Pacific — and replacing them with lighter and more flexible arms like truck-mounted anti-ship missiles.At the time, the Pentagon had no land-based anti-ship weapons. Other militaries, however, already did. Then in April 2022, Ukrainian ground troops used a similar weapon, Neptune anti-ship cruise missiles launched from trucks, to sink the Russian cruiser Moskva in the Black Sea.A New Pacific Arsenal to Counter ChinaWith missiles, submarines and alliances, the Biden administration has built a presence in the region to rein in Beijing’s expansionist goals.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Oppenheimer’ Is the Origin Story. These Three Movies Reveal Our Nuclear Present.

      by

      The national security writer W. J. Hennigan has spent many years ringing the alarm about the world’s new nuclear era — the subject of At The Brink, a new series from New York Times Opinion — and the crisis on the horizon. For anyone whose interest was piqued by the origin story of nuclear weapons in “Oppenheimer,” Mr. Hennigan, who happens to be a movie buff, recommends three essential films that illuminate our new nuclear era.An edited transcript of the above audio essay by Mr. Hennigan follows:W.J. Hennigan: For many years, people haven’t really spent a lot of time thinking about nuclear weapons, but that’s changed — both because of the war in Ukraine as well as the popularity of the recent Christopher Nolan film “Oppenheimer.”The idea that a biopic about a scientist and nuclear weapons would be so popular, the fact that it’s won so many awards and has sparked such an interest, is really quite surprising.For the past quarter-century, an entire generation has come of age without really having to worry about the bomb. This has not something that’s been front of mind.Nuclear weapons were the predominant national security concern for our country for a half-century, and that was reflected within culture and art. Throughout the Cold War, you could see the topic of nuclear weapons in movies, video games, television shows, cartoons, songs, comic books, board games. There were alcoholic drinks inspired by nuclear weapons.That kind of changed on a dime after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, but even though the concern and awareness over the nuclear peril faded, the danger hasn’t gone away. We’ve entered a new nuclear era, but that’s not being publicly discussed in the way that it has in the past.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Fears Russia Might Put a Nuclear Weapon in Space

      by

      American spy agencies are divided on whether Moscow would go so far, but the concern is urgent enough that Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken has asked China and India to try to talk Russia down.When Russia conducted a series of secret military satellite launches around the time of its invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, American intelligence officials began delving into the mystery of what, exactly, the Russians were doing.Later, spy agencies discovered Russia was working on a new kind of space-based weapon that could threaten the thousands of satellites that keep the world connected.In recent weeks, a new warning has circulated from America’s spy agencies: Another launch may be in the works, and the question is whether Russia plans to use it to put a real nuclear weapon into space — a violation of a half-century-old treaty. The agencies are divided on the likelihood that President Vladimir V. Putin would go so far, but nonetheless the intelligence is an urgent concern to the Biden administration.Even if Russia does place a nuclear weapon in orbit, U.S. officials are in agreement in their assessment that the weapon would not be detonated. Instead, it would lurk as a time bomb in low orbit, a reminder from Mr. Putin that if he was pressed too hard with sanctions, or military opposition to his ambitions in Ukraine or beyond, he could destroy economies without targeting humans on earth.Despite the uncertainties, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken raised the possibility of the Russian nuclear move with his Chinese and Indian counterparts on Friday and Saturday on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference.Mr. Blinken’s message was blunt: Any nuclear detonation in space would take out not only American satellites but also those in Beijing and New Delhi.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Is North Korea Planning a War?

      by

      An intensification of nuclear threats from North Korea while the world is preoccupied with other wars has ignited an urgent debate over Mr. Kim’s motives.North Korea fired hundreds of artillery shells in waters near South Korean border islands on Jan. 5. Last week, it said it no longer regarded the South as inhabited by “fellow countrymen” but as a “hostile state” it would subjugate through a nuclear war. On Friday, it said it had tested an underwater nuclear drone to help repel U.S. Navy fleets.That new drumbeat of threats, while the United States and its allies have been preoccupied with the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, has set foreign officials and analysts wondering whether the North’s leader, Kim Jong-un, has moved beyond posturing and is planning to assert more military force.For decades, a central part of the North Korean playbook has been to stage carefully measured and timed military provocations — some aimed at tightening internal discipline, others at demanding attention from its neighbors and the United States, or all of that at once.But to several close watchers of North Korea, the latest round of signals from Mr. Kim feels different. Some are taking it as a clue that the North has become disillusioned with seeking diplomatic engagement with the West, and a few are raising the possibility that the country could be planning a sudden assault on South Korea.A New Year’s celebration in Pyongyang, North Korea’s capital, on Dec. 31, 2023.Kim Won Jin/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTwo veteran analysts of North Korea — the former State Department official Robert L. Carlin and the nuclear scientist Siegfried S. Hecker — sounded an alarm this past week in an article for the U.S.-based website 38 North, asserting that Mr. Kim was done with mere threats. “Kim Jong-un has made a strategic decision to go to war,” they wrote.Analysts broadly agree that North Korea has been shifting its posture in recent years, compelled by an accumulation of both internal problems, including a moribund economy and food and oil shortages, and frustrations in its external diplomacy, like Mr. Kim’s failure to win an end to international sanctions through direct diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump. And most agree that the North’s recent closeness with Russia, including supplying artillery shells and missiles for use in Russia’s war in Ukraine, will be a game-changer in some way.But there is still stark disagreement over where Mr. Kim’s new tack might be leading.Many say that Mr. Kim’s ultimate goal remains not a war with South Korea, a treaty ally of the United States, but Washington’s acceptance of his country as a nuclear power by prompting arms-reduction talks.“The North Koreans won’t start a war unless they decide to become suicidal; they know too well that they cannot win the war,” said Park Won-gon, a North Korea expert at Ewha Womans University in Seoul. “But they would love their enemies to believe that they could, because that could lead to engagement and possible concessions, like the easing of sanctions.”Posters in Pyongyang remind citizens of North Korea’s need to remain on a war footing.Cha Song Ho/Associated PressAnalysts in China, North Korea’s most vital ally, were also deeply skeptical that Mr. Kim would go to war unless the North were attacked. Prof. Shi Yinhong, at Renmin University in Beijing, asserted that the North’s leadership, not being irrational, ultimately acted out of self-preservation — and that starting a war would work against that goal.Others noted that the North could assert itself militarily, including through smaller conventional strikes and bolder weapons testing, without necessarily triggering a deadly response.“There are many rungs of the escalation ladder that North Korea can climb short of all-out war,” said Victor Cha, a Korea expert at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Kim is not that confident in his capabilities to deter U.S. reaction if he were to do something rash.”If Mr. Kim wants to climb that ladder, recent history suggests that this might be the time.North Korea has liked to unsettle its enemies at their most sensitive political moments, and both the United States and South Korea are holding elections this year. The North launched a long-range rocket in late 2012, between the United States and South Korean presidential elections. It conducted a nuclear test shortly before the inauguration of a South Korean leader in 2013. In 2016, it conducted another nuclear test two months before the American presidential election.North Korea could also attempt provocations in the coming weeks to try to help liberals who favor inter-Korean negotiations win parliamentary elections in South Korea in April, said the analyst Ko Jae-hong at the Seoul-based Institute for National Security Strategy. Through provocations, North Korea hopes to spread fears among South Korean voters that increasing pressure on the North, as the current administration of President Yoon Suk Yeol has tried to do, might “lead to a nuclear war,” he said.South Korean military exercises this month near the border with North Korea.Ahn Young-Joon/Associated PressNorth Korea “will continue to increase tensions until after the U.S. elections,” said Thomas Schäfer, a former German diplomat who served twice as ambassador to North Korea. But “at the height of tensions, it will finally be willing to re-engage with a Republican administration in the hope to get sanctions relief, some sort of acceptance of their nuclear program, and — as main objective — a reduction or even complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula,” Mr. Schäfer said in a rebuttal to Mr. Carlin’s and Mr. Hecker’s analysis.Since Mr. Kim came to power in 2011, he has committed to building North Korea’s nuclear capability, using it both as a deterrent and as a negotiating tool to try to win concessions from Washington, like the removal of U.N. sanctions, to achieve economic growth.He tried it when he met Mr. Trump in 2018 and again in 2019. It failed spectacularly, and Mr. Kim returned home empty-handed and in humiliation.President Donald J. Trump and Kim Jung-un in 2019 in the Demilitarized Zone. In talks that year, the two failed to reach a deal on North Korea abandoning its nuclear ambitions in return for concessionsErin Schaff/The New York TimesHe then vowed to find a “new way” for his country.Since then, the North has rejected repeated calls from Washington for talks. It has also rejected South Korea as a dialogue partner, indicating from 2022 that it would use nuclear weapons against South Korea in a war and abandoning its long-held insistence that the weapons would keep the Korean Peninsula peaceful as a deterrent. It has tested more diverse, and harder-to-intercept, means of delivering its nuclear warheads.There is doubt that the North has yet built a reliable intercontinental ballistic missile that could target the United States. But two of the North’s main enemies, South Korea and Japan, are much closer.On the diplomatic front, Mr. Kim has taken pains to signal that he no longer views the United States as a critical negotiating partner, instead envisioning a “neo-Cold War” in which the United States is in retreat globally. He has aggressively improved military ties with Russia, and in return has most likely secured Russian promises of food aid and technological help for his weapons programs, officials say.South Korean troops patrol the entrance to a beach on an island near the sea boundary with North Korea.Jung Yeon-Je/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“I worry that his confidence might lead him to misjudge with a small act, regardless of his intention, escalating to war amid a tense ‘power-for-power’ confrontation with the United States and its allies,” said Koh Yu-hwan, a former head of the Korea Institute for National Unification in Seoul.Despite its own increasingly aggressive military posture in recent years, China may prove to be a damper on any North Korean military adventurism.China and North Korea are bound by a treaty signed in 1961 that requires each country to provide military assistance if the other is attacked. But China has little incentive to be drawn into a war in Korea right now.“A war on the Korean Peninsula would be disastrous for Beijing. An entire half-century of peace in East Asia, a period of unprecedented growth for the P.R.C., would come to a crashing halt,” said John Delury, a professor of Chinese studies at Yonsei University in Seoul, referring to the People’s Republic of China.The United States has long leaned on Beijing to rein in North Korea. By drawing close to Moscow, Mr. Kim has been putting his own pressure on China’s leader, Xi Jinping.“It is notable that Kim made his first post-pandemic trip to the Russian Far East, skipping China, and he just sent his foreign minister to Moscow, not Beijing,” Mr. Delury said. By raising tensions, Mr. Kim “can see what Xi is willing to do to placate him,” he added.David Pierson More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Biden vs. Putin Over the War in Ukraine

      by

      More from our inbox:Promoting Known Lies at Fox NewsDon Lemon’s Comment About WomenMake Election Day a HolidayA Gap in U.S.-Philippine History Daniel Berehulak/The New York TimesDmitry Astakhov/Sputnik, via ReutersTo the Editor:Re “Putin Pulls Back From Nuclear Arms Treaty, Signaling Sharper Break With West” (nytimes.com, Feb. 21):In a major speech to the Russian people on Tuesday, Vladimir Putin said Russia was suspending its participation in the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty. Under this key treaty, both the U.S. and Russia are permitted to conduct inspections of each other’s weapons sites.Mr. Putin’s threat is an apparent attempt to scare the U.S. into reducing or suspending our arms and monetary support to Ukraine. He knows that his huge nuclear arsenal cannot be unleashed without provoking a potential nuclear Armageddon that could ultimately destroy Russia and end his regime.Nevertheless, he has long tried to use his nuclear cache as a “sword of Damocles,” to dissuade the U.S. from providing Ukraine with arms that could be used to inflict damage directly upon the Russian homeland.Mr. Putin’s bombast will not deter President Biden. As the president’s dramatic visit to Kyiv on Monday demonstrated so vividly and so powerfully, he stands unequivocally with Ukraine, and his personal support and commitment to Ukraine remain undiminished. The American people’s commitment to the Ukrainian cause may not be quite as robust, and that is why the president’s visit is so symbolically important to help boost our national resolve to stay the course.Ken DerowSwarthmore, Pa.To the Editor:Re “Long, Risky Night for Biden on Way to a Besieged Kyiv” (front page, Feb. 21):The best form of leadership is that of leading by example. President Biden’s visit to Kyiv was both an act of courage and an action that spoke more loudly and eloquently than any speech could have about the United States’ support for Ukraine.Charles R. Cronin Jr.Hempstead, N.Y.To the Editor:Re “The U.S. Can’t Go ‘Wobbly’ on Ukraine,” by David French (column, Feb. 20):I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. French’s statement: “On the war’s anniversary it’s time for a concerted effort to persuade Americans of a single idea: We should support Ukraine as much as it takes, as long as it takes, until the Russian military suffers a decisive, unmistakable defeat.”Mr. French lays out all the arguments for staying the course. The similarities between this conflict and the beginning of World War II are too obvious to ignore.The megalomaniac Vladimir Putin must not be allowed to wreak the havoc that his blood brother Hitler unleashed. To withdraw support now would be an incredible mistake that would lead to even more bloodshed. Remember Neville Chamberlain.Bill GottdenkerMountainside, N.J.To the Editor:David French and the rest of us need to stare one fact in the face: As long as Russia has nuclear weapons available for use (even starting small), we cannot “win” the war in Ukraine. We used them; why do we think that the Kremlin would not?Mr. French believes that it is an empty threat: Nuclear powers “rattle the nuclear saber to deter an effective response.”How myopic can we be, especially when pushing the line that Vladimir Putin is a madman? If we can’t think straight, why do we think Mr. Putin can?Tom RoeperAmherst, Mass.Promoting Known Lies at Fox NewsTo the Editor:Re “Fox Stars Voiced Voter Fraud Doubts” (Business, Feb. 17):Internal Fox News text messages showing that Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, urged on by Fox management, continued to promote known lies about the election in order to compete with Newsmax and protect profits shows these individuals and their network for what they are. A greedy and despicable operation that is willing to lie to its gullible audience to make money, knowing full well that the lies were fanning the flames of insurrection, violence and distrust of American democracy.The advertisers who continue to support them are not worthy of our business.David S. ElkindGreenwich, Conn.Don Lemon’s Comment About Women Mike Coppola/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “CNN Anchor Is Rebuked for Remarks on Women” (Business, Feb. 18):Don Lemon, CNN’s morning-show anchor, has been widely criticized for his assertion that Nikki Haley, the 51-year-old Republican presidential candidate, “isn’t in her prime.”When challenged by his female co-anchors, he replied: “I’m just saying what the facts are. Google it.”So I did. The first hit says “in your prime” is an idiom that means “in the best, most successful, most productive stage,” so clearly Nikki Haley is in fact in her prime.There continues to be rampant discrimination against women in the workplace not only with respect to compensation, but also with respect to appearance.“Lookism” — the importance of appearing youthful — hurts women far more than men. In an AARP poll, nearly two-thirds of women age 50 and older report age discrimination.Mr. Lemon’s comments underscore the need for continued workplace training on implicit bias, with the goal of promoting a culture of meritocracy. Effective leadership comes from people of all ages, all genders and all races.Kathleen McCartneyNorthampton, Mass.The writer is the president of Smith College.Make Election Day a Holiday David Zalubowski/Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Washington Would Hate Presidents’ Day,” by Alexis Coe (Opinion guest essay, Feb. 20):Ms. Coe’s persuasive criticism of Presidents’ Day provides an additional argument for a vital reform. Subtract Presidents’ Day from the list of federal holidays and add Election Day — perhaps restyled as Democracy Day.Many other countries make national elections a holiday from work obligations, thus significantly expanding citizen participation in voting. Let’s do the same here.Now placed close to Election Day, Veterans Day could be moved to February to balance the calendar, preserving a good reason for a holiday break in February, while giving citizens a federal holiday to vote in November without adding yet another holiday to the calendar.George Washington would likely smile from Mount Rushmore at the change. After all, he was a veteran too!Eric W. OrtsPhiladelphiaThe writer is a professor of legal studies and business ethics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.A Gap in U.S.-Philippine HistoryFerdinand Marcos Sr. and President Richard Nixon in 1969 in Manila.Bettmann/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “The Curse of the Philippines’ Geography,” by Gina Apostol (Opinion guest essay, Feb. 8), responding to the news that the U.S. military would expand its presence in that country:I totally understand where Ms. Apostol’s opinion piece comes from. I remember how the U.S. (particularly under Richard Nixon) looked the other way regarding Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s authoritarian rule. But she does not readily acknowledge the other side of the coin regarding U.S. behavior toward the Philippines.During World War II, many U.S. servicemen lost their lives trying to remove the occupation of the Japanese military from their islands.I believe that U.S. foreign policy under President Biden is correct and necessary in trying to push aside China’s influence in Asia. And his interest in doing so can hardly be called an occupation. It is called mutual self-interest.Paula TwillingEvanston, Ill. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Iran Atomic Agency Says It Thwarted Attack on a Facility

      by

      The attack was said to have been carried out by a small drone against a manufacturing center used in the production of centrifuges.Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency said on Wednesday that an attack on one of its facilities early in the morning had been foiled, with no casualties or structural damage to the site.The agency’s statement did not reveal the name of the site, but the targeted building was one of Iran’s main manufacturing centers for the production of the centrifuges used at the country’s two nuclear facilities, Fordow and Natanz, according to an Iranian familiar with the attack and to a senior intelligence official.The attack on the facility near the city of Karaj, on the outskirts of Tehran, was carried out by a small quadcopter drone, according to Iranian media and the Iranian familiar with the attack. While no one claimed responsibility for the attack, the centrifuge factory, known as the Iran Centrifuge Technology Company, or TESA, was on a list of targets that Israel presented to the Trump administration early last year. The Israeli government did not comment on the attack on Wednesday.The drone appeared to have taken off from inside Iran, from a location not far from the site, and hit the structure, the person familiar with the attack said. The person did not know what, if any, damage had resulted.If the attack was thwarted, it would be a welcome victory for Iran’s embattled intelligence and security agencies, which have been blamed for failing to stop a series of attacks over the past year, including two acts of sabotage on the Natanz nuclear facility and the assassination of the top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.The centrifuge production facility was on a list that Israel presented in early 2020 to President Donald J. Trump and senior administration officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel, director of the C.I.A., as possible targets for attack, part of Israel’s wide-ranging campaign against Iran’s nuclear program, according to the senior intelligence official.Among the targets presented at the time, according to the senior intelligence official, were attacks on the uranium enrichment site at Natanz and the assassination of Mr. Fakhrizadeh. Israel assassinated Mr. Fakhrizadeh that November, and struck the Natanz plant the following April, damaging a large number of centrifuges.According to the intelligence official, the campaign against Iran’s nuclear program was carried out with the knowledge and blessing of the Trump administration. While it is still too early to determine if any damage was inflicted on the centrifuge manufacturing plant on Wednesday, it is easy to assess why it would be a top target for anyone seeking to harm the Iranian nuclear program.Hundreds and possibly even more centrifuges were taken out of action in the April attack on Natanz, and the factory targeted on Wednesday had been tasked with replacing those that were destroyed.In addition, the factory also produces Iran’s more advanced and modern centrifuges, which can enrich more uranium in a shorter time. And Iran’s ability to develop, manufacture, assemble and operate such centrifuges, which significantly shorten the time needed to enrich a sufficient quantity for a bomb, is one of the central negotiating points in talks in Vienna about the future of the 2015 nuclear deal.Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency said the details of Wednesday’s attack were under investigation.“Given the precautions taken to protect sites belonging to the atomic nuclear agency, this morning’s attack was foiled before it could damage the building,” the statement said. The agency praised security and intelligence forces for their prevention of threats “aimed at attacking Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities.”Iran’s aviation agency announced a new law on Wednesday requiring all civilian drones, regardless of size and purpose, to be registered on a government website within six months. The registered drones would be issued licenses.The drone attack on Wednesday has similarities to one carried out against a Hezbollah facility in Beirut in August 2019, which destroyed what Israeli officials described as machinery vital to Hezbollah’s precision-missile production efforts.In that attack, tiny armed drones took off from the coastal area of Beirut, and crashed into the facility. The operatives behind the attack, who Hezbollah officials identified as Israelis, withdrew to a submarine that came to pick them up.Israel and Iran have been fighting a shadow war, with clandestine attacks across the region occurring on land, in the air and at sea. More