nuclear

Friday August 30, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday August 30, 2019

Trump floated the idea of using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes headed for US

President Donald Trump has floated multiple times the idea of thwarting hurricanes headed for the US by bombing them, including by dropping nuclear bombs on hurricanes to disrupt their course, Axios reported Sunday, citing conversations with sources who heard Trump’s comments and were briefed on a National Security Council memo that recorded the comments.

September 23, 2005

In an early Monday tweet, Trump denied the Axios’ report, claiming that he “never said” what was in it. CNN has not been able to independently verify the report.

According to Axios, the President has suggested the idea several times to senior Homeland Security and national security officials that they look into the idea of using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from hitting the US. A source who was at a hurricane briefing at the White House told the outlet that the President once said of hurricanes, “I got it. I got it. Why don’t we nuke them?”

The source, who paraphrased Trump’s remarks to Axios, said that the President said, “They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they’re moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can’t we do that?” Asked by Axios how the briefer responded to the President’s suggestion, the source said he “said something to the effect of, ‘Sir, we’ll look into that.’”

April 6, 2017

The President then asked how many hurricanes the US may be able to stop and reiterated his suggestions, according to the source, which caused the briefer to be “knocked back on his heels.”

“You could hear a gnat fart in that meeting. People were astonished. After the meeting ended, we thought, ‘What the f—? What do we do with this?'” the source told Axios.

According to the outlet, Trump also raised the idea of using bombs to stop hurricanes during a 2017 conversation with a senior administration official. A source briefed on a NSC memo describing that conversation told Axios that the document does not contain the word “nuclear.” According to sources the outlet spoke to about that conversation, despite Trump’s interest in the idea, it “went nowhere and never entered a formal policy process.”

April 11, 2017

The idea of using nuclear bombs “to counteract convection currents” was floated during the Eisenhower administration, Axios reported, and has continued to resurface even though government scientists have said it will not work.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in an online fact sheet titled “Tropical Cyclone Myths Page, detonating a nuclear weapon over a hurricane “might not even alter the storm,” and the idea “neglects the problem that the released radioactive fallout would fairly quickly move with the tradewinds to affect land areas and cause devastating environmental problems.” (CNN)  

 

Friday December 1, 2017

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday December 1, 2017

Trump’s behavior raises questions of competency

Donald Trump potentially has millions of lives in his hands as the threat of a devastating war with North Korea swiftly escalates.

January 20, 2017

Yet the President of the United States is raising new questions about his temperament, his judgment and his understanding of the resonance of his global voice and the gravity of his role with a wild sequence of insults, inflammatory tweets and bizarre comments.

On Wednesday Trump caused outrage and sparked fears of violent reprisals against Americans and US interests overseas by retweeting graphic anti-Muslim videos by an extreme far right British hate group. Earlier this week he used a racial slur in front of Native American war heroes. He’s attacked global press freedom, after cozying up to autocrats on his recent Asia tour.

August 18 2017

And now there are reports that the President has revived conspiracy theories about former President Barack Obama’s birthplace and is suggesting an “Access Hollywood” video on which he was heard boasting sexually assaulting women, and for which he apologized last year, had been doctored.

In normal times, it would be a concern that the President is conducting himself in a manner so at odds with the decorum and propriety associated for over two centuries with the office he holds.

September 20, 2017

But the sudden escalation of the North Korean crisis, following the Stalinist state’s launch of its most potent ever missile on Tuesday, takes the world across a dangerous threshold.

If diplomacy is unable to defuse the North Korea crisis, or slow its march to the moment when Kim Jong Un can credibly claim to be able to target all of the United States with a nuclear payload, Trump will face one of the most intricate dilemmas of any modern President. Will he live with the threat posed by a mercurial, wildly unpredictable adversary? Or, will he launch what could turn out to be a hugely bloody and destructive war to remove Kim’s nuclear threat?

November 3, 2017

There will be a premium on Trump’s judgment, his capacity to absorb the most serious detail and to make choices that could put many, many lives at risk, and draw the United States into escalating situations in Northeast Asia. Trump would be required to switch from the swaggering, untethered political persona he has been reluctant to drop as President into the role of sober statesman, unifying the nation and US allies — a switch he has rarely achieved so far in his 10 months in power.

On Wednesday, in St. Charles, Missouri, Trump stuck to his preferred name calling, again blasting Kim as “Little Rocket Man” and branding him a “sick puppy” after his White House earlier promised severe new sanctions against Pyongyang. But he didn’t elaborate on his vows to “handle” the situation. (Continued: CNN) 

 

SaveSave

SaveSave

Wednesday July 15, 2015

Editorial cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator - Wednesday July 15, 2015 Iran after a nuclear deal: Where will Canada stand? Iran and the P5+1 Ð China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, or the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany Ð finally reached a deal on Tuesday resolving the long-standing dispute over IranÕs nuclear ambitions. This raises questions for Canada, which has displayed a particularly aggressive stance toward Iran in recent years. The Harper governmentÕs hostility toward Tehran has been based on the premise, frequently expressed by the Prime Minister and senior ministers, that Iran poses the greatest threat to international peace and security. The government has nuanced this assessment recently, labelling Iran a ÒsignificantÓ threat to international security, presumably reflecting growing concern about the Islamic State and Russia. Nevertheless, it remains that Canada has differentiated itself from its allies under the Conservatives, adopting a harder line against Iran. Concretely, this has meant that to protest against IranÕs nuclear program, human rights record, and confrontational regional policies, Canada has implemented all UN sanctions against Iran and has vocally adopted additional unilateral measures. In multilateral settings, Canadian diplomats repeatedly and assertively lambaste Iran. Ottawa also severed diplomatic relations in 2012. As nuclear talks progressed over the past two years, Canada remained deeply skeptical of Iranian intentions and insisted that only tangible actions would prove IranÕs commitment to restraining its nuclear program. Canada also systematically emphasized that human rights had not improved under President Hassan Rouhani and that IranÕs support for terrorism across the Middle East continues unabated. This aggressive policy towards Iran has been based on a flawed premise, has had a marginal impact, and has resulted in few measurable benefits. (Contin

Editorial cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday July 15, 2015

Iran after a nuclear deal: Where will Canada stand?

Iran and the P5+1 – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, or the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany – finally reached a deal on Tuesday resolving the long-standing dispute over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This raises questions for Canada, which has displayed a particularly aggressive stance toward Iran in recent years.

The Harper government’s hostility toward Tehran has been based on the premise, frequently expressed by the Prime Minister and senior ministers, that Iran poses the greatest threat to international peace and security. The government has nuanced this assessment recently, labelling Iran a “significant” threat to international security, presumably reflecting growing concern about the Islamic State and Russia. Nevertheless, it remains that Canada has differentiated itself from its allies under the Conservatives, adopting a harder line against Iran.

Concretely, this has meant that to protest against Iran’s nuclear program, human rights record, and confrontational regional policies, Canada has implemented all UN sanctions against Iran and has vocally adopted additional unilateral measures. In multilateral settings, Canadian diplomats repeatedly and assertively lambaste Iran. Ottawa also severed diplomatic relations in 2012.

As nuclear talks progressed over the past two years, Canada remained deeply skeptical of Iranian intentions and insisted that only tangible actions would prove Iran’s commitment to restraining its nuclear program. Canada also systematically emphasized that human rights had not improved under President Hassan Rouhani and that Iran’s support for terrorism across the Middle East continues unabated.

This aggressive policy towards Iran has been based on a flawed premise, has had a marginal impact, and has resulted in few measurable benefits. (Continued: Globe & Mail)

 

Thursday September 20, 2012

By Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator, Thursday September 20, 2012

Nuclear family is no longer the norm in Canada

The mom-pop-and-three-kids-under-one-roof model that typified Canadian households of 50 years ago has morphed into a complex and diverse web of family ties involving living alone, re-marriage, stepchildren, empty-nesters and multiple generations sharing a home.

Statistics Canada has released the third tranche of new data from its 2011 census, this time portraying the changes in Canadian families and living arrangements over five decades.

Married couples are in a long-term decline, single parenting has risen persistently, and families have gradually shrunk. The average family was 3.9 people in 1961, when the baby boom was in full swing. Now, it’s 2.9.

“We do see more complexity and definitely more diversity in families,” said Statistics Canada demographer Anne Milan.

For the first time, Statistics Canada says there are more people living alone in Canada than there are couples with children. One-person households now make up 27.6 per cent of all homes, a three-fold increase since 1961 that is especially notable in Quebec.

Meanwhile, couples with children have continued their decline, down to 26.5 per cent of all households, from 28.5 per cent in 2006.

Just 10 years ago, couples with children under 24 years old made up 43.6 per cent of all families (not including one-person households) — by far the most typical kind of family. (Source: Toronto Star)