Nearly 700 scientists and engineers, including 21 Nobel laureates, asked President Joe Biden on Thursday to use his forthcoming declaration of a new national strategy for managing nuclear weapons as a chance to cut the US arsenal by a third and to declare, for the first time, that the United States would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

The letter to Biden also urged him to change, for the first time since President Harry S. Truman ordered the dropping of the atomic bomb over Hiroshima, the American practice that gives the commander in chief sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons. The issue gained prominence during the Trump administration, and the authors of the letter urged Biden to make the change as “an important safeguard against a possible future president who is unstable or who orders a reckless attack.”

But although Biden has often declared that he will be guided by scientific advice alone when it comes to managing the COVID-19 pandemic, he has made no such pledge in the nuclear arena, where strategists, allies protected by the American nuclear umbrella and members of Congress all have views — many of them diametrically opposed to the ones described by scientists.

Among the authors of the letter are numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences and the Union of Concerned Scientists. They include Barry Barish of the University of California, Riverside, Jerome Friedman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, John Mather of the University of Maryland and Sheldon Glashow of Harvard, all of whom have been awarded the Nobel Prize in physics; and Richard Garwin, a nuclear expert and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom who has advised a series of presidents.

They were motivated by the coming publication of the Nuclear Posture Review, a document each new president usually issues in the first year or two of his term. Biden’s is expected early next year, although the internal debate over its contents has been very closely held.

The letter noted Biden’s own words in 2017, as he was considering his run for president when he said that “it’s hard to envision a plausible scenario in which the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States would be necessary or make sense.” During the campaign, he said the “sole purpose” of the American arsenal “should be deterring — and if necessary, retaliating against — a nuclear attack.”

The letter argued that “by making clear that the United States will never start a nuclear war, it reduces the likelihood that a conflict or crisis will escalate to nuclear war.” And it would demonstrate, they argued, that the United States was committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which obliges the nuclear-armed states to move toward reducing their arsenals.

President Barack Obama baulked at making the commitment, even while he declared that nuclear weapons would no longer be at the centre of American defence policy. And in recent months, American allies — including Japan, the target of that first attack — have argued quietly against a “no first use” declaration, saying that it would make them more vulnerable to a crippling, non-nuclear attack, including a cyberattack or conventional attack that could take out their electrical grids and their water and fuel lines.

Although the administration has not said how the new nuclear weapons strategy will be different from that of former President Donald Trump, some language echoing Biden’s carefully chosen term about the “sole purpose” of nuclear weapons seems likely. But that stops short of committing never to use a weapon first.

“The review will take account of the current security environment and will assess US strategy, posture and policy,” the White House’s National Security Council said in a statement. “The US will continue to maintain a safe, secure and effective strategic deterrent while ensuring our extended deterrence commitments to allies and partners remains strong and credible.”

A number of members of the House and Senate serving on national-security related committees have worried that at a time when China is expanding its arsenal and Russia is threatening former Soviet states that have joined NATO, a no-first-use pledge might give the appearance of weakness.

“No-first-use is feel-good foreign policy,’’ Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Thursday. “Our enemies wouldn’t take the commitment seriously. And it would undermine the confidence of our friends.”

The scientists and engineers argued for a commitment by Biden to reduce the arsenal to “fewer than 1,000 deployed missile warheads and bombers,” although they did not say by when. “These reductions will increase US national security,’’ they argued because it “will slow the spiralling nuclear arms race with Russia and China,” and help fulfil America’s treaty obligation “to take steps toward disarmament.”

But as a political matter, it is almost unimaginable that Biden would reduce the arsenal to that level without an agreement by Russia to do the same. When he came to office, Biden renewed, for five years, the New START treaty, which limits the arsenal to 1,550 long-range strategic weapons; currently, the US arsenal appears to be below that limit.

But in recent months, the revelation that China is building what appear to be new missile silos and testing potential delivery vehicles for hypersonic weapons that avoid traditional missile defences has led some Pentagon officials to call for new money for advanced weapons, and new classes of weapons that can deliver nuclear warheads — including hypersonic vehicles.

China has repeatedly said in recent months that it has no intention of entering arms control talks with the United States, noting that its arsenal is five times smaller than Washington’s.

The letter also urges Biden to cancel the program to replace the silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles that dot the American West. Under current plans, the United States will replace those ageing missiles starting in 2029, at a cost of at least $100 billion; the letter calls for Biden to simply extend the lifetime of the current arsenal, and ultimately “consider eliminating silo-based” missiles. Advocates of that position argue they are the most vulnerable to attack and are the weapons that are most likely to be launched first — perhaps in response to a false alarm.

&nbsp;

Nearly 700 scientists and engineers, including 21 Nobel laureates, asked President Joe Biden on Thursday to use his forthcoming declaration of a new national strategy for managing nuclear weapons as a chance to cut the US arsenal by a third and to declare, for the first time, that the United States would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

Nearly 700 scientists and engineers, including 21 Nobel laureates, asked President Joe Biden on Thursday to use his forthcoming declaration of a new national strategy for managing nuclear weapons as a chance to cut the US arsenal by a third and to declare, for the first time, that the United States would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. The letter to Biden also urged him to change, for the first time since President Harry S. Truman ordered the dropping of the atomic bomb over Hiroshima, the American practice that gives the commander in chief sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons. The issue gained prominence during the Trump administration, and the authors of the letter urged Biden to make the change as “an important safeguard against a possible future president who is unstable or who orders a reckless attack.” But although Biden has often declared that he will be guided by scientific advice alone when it comes to managing the COVID-19 pandemic, he has made no such pledge in the nuclear arena, where strategists, allies protected by the American nuclear umbrella and members of Congress all have views — many of them diametrically opposed to the ones described by scientists. Among the authors of the letter are numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences and the Union of Concerned Scientists. They include Barry Barish of the University of California, Riverside, Jerome Friedman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, John Mather of the University of Maryland and Sheldon Glashow of Harvard, all of whom have been awarded the Nobel Prize in physics; and Richard Garwin, a nuclear expert and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom who has advised a series of presidents. They were motivated by the coming publication of the Nuclear Posture Review, a document each new president usually issues in the first year or two of his term. Biden’s is expected early next year, although the internal debate over its contents has been very closely held. The letter noted Biden’s own words in 2017, as he was considering his run for president when he said that “it’s hard to envision a plausible scenario in which the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States would be necessary or make sense.” During the campaign, he said the “sole purpose” of the American arsenal “should be deterring — and if necessary, retaliating against — a nuclear attack.” The letter argued that “by making clear that the United States will never start a nuclear war, it reduces the likelihood that a conflict or crisis will escalate to nuclear war.” And it would demonstrate, they argued, that the United States was committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which obliges the nuclear-armed states to move toward reducing their arsenals. President Barack Obama baulked at making the commitment, even while he declared that nuclear weapons would no longer be at the centre of American defence policy. And in recent months, American allies — including Japan, the target of that first attack — have argued quietly against a “no first use” declaration, saying that it would make them more vulnerable to a crippling, non-nuclear attack, including a cyberattack or conventional attack that could take out their electrical grids and their water and fuel lines. Although the administration has not said how the new nuclear weapons strategy will be different from that of former President Donald Trump, some language echoing Biden’s carefully chosen term about the “sole purpose” of nuclear weapons seems likely. But that stops short of committing never to use a weapon first. “The review will take account of the current security environment and will assess US strategy, posture and policy,” the White House’s National Security Council said in a statement. “The US will continue to maintain a safe, secure and effective strategic deterrent while ensuring our extended deterrence commitments to allies and partners remains strong and credible.” A number of members of the House and Senate serving on national-security related committees have worried that at a time when China is expanding its arsenal and Russia is threatening former Soviet states that have joined NATO, a no-first-use pledge might give the appearance of weakness. “No-first-use is feel-good foreign policy,’’ Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Thursday. “Our enemies wouldn’t take the commitment seriously. And it would undermine the confidence of our friends.” The scientists and engineers argued for a commitment by Biden to reduce the arsenal to “fewer than 1,000 deployed missile warheads and bombers,” although they did not say by when. “These reductions will increase US national security,’’ they argued because it “will slow the spiralling nuclear arms race with Russia and China,” and help fulfil America’s treaty obligation “to take steps toward disarmament.” But as a political matter, it is almost unimaginable that Biden would reduce the arsenal to that level without an agreement by Russia to do the same. When he came to office, Biden renewed, for five years, the New START treaty, which limits the arsenal to 1,550 long-range strategic weapons; currently, the US arsenal appears to be below that limit. But in recent months, the revelation that China is building what appear to be new missile silos and testing potential delivery vehicles for hypersonic weapons that avoid traditional missile defences has led some Pentagon officials to call for new money for advanced weapons, and new classes of weapons that can deliver nuclear warheads — including hypersonic vehicles. China has repeatedly said in recent months that it has no intention of entering arms control talks with the United States, noting that its arsenal is five times smaller than Washington’s. The letter also urges Biden to cancel the program to replace the silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles that dot the American West. Under current plans, the United States will replace those ageing missiles starting in 2029, at a cost of at least $100 billion; the letter calls for Biden to simply extend the lifetime of the current arsenal, and ultimately “consider eliminating silo-based” missiles. Advocates of that position argue they are the most vulnerable to attack and are the weapons that are most likely to be launched first — perhaps in response to a false alarm.

Hundreds of scientists ask Biden to cut the US nuclear arsenal

The United States plans to allow Russian, Chinese and European companies to continue&nbsp;work&nbsp;at&nbsp;Iranian nuclear facilities to make it harder for&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;to develop a nuclear weapon, two&nbsp;sources&nbsp;familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.

The Trump administration, which last year pulled out of the 2015&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;nuclear deal and re-imposed <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-iran-tensions-ratchet-up-further-despite-un-efforts-252293">sanctions on&nbsp;Iran</a>, will let the&nbsp;work&nbsp;go forward by issuing&nbsp;waivers&nbsp;to sanctions that bar&nbsp;non-US&nbsp;firms from dealing with the Atomic Energy Organization of&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;(AEOI), said the&nbsp;sources&nbsp;on condition of anonymity.

While the&nbsp;waivers'&nbsp;renewal would allow&nbsp;non-proliferation&nbsp;work&nbsp;to continue at the Arak heavy water research reactor and the Fordow fuel enrichment plant, which AEOI oversees, it may also signal that Washington is leaving the door open to diplomacy.

Under the 2015 deal between&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;and six world powers - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States - Tehran agreed to limit its nuclear program in return for the lifting of economic sanctions that had crippled its economy.

When&nbsp;US&nbsp;President Donald Trump unilaterally abandoned the deal in May 2018, he <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-says-new-us-sanctions-target-iranians-access-to-food-medicine-250961">re-imposed&nbsp;US&nbsp;sanctions</a> in a "maximum pressure" campaign designed to force&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;to return to the negotiating table.

Trump wants a broader deal that would also limit&nbsp;Iran's missile program as well as its regional activities;&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;has demanded the United States first resume complying with the 2015 deal called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

France, in particular, has sought to bring the two into a wider dialogue but has so far failed, suggesting neither is yet willing to abandon core elements of policy: the&nbsp;US&nbsp;belief that pressure will bring&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;to its knees, and&nbsp;Iran's refusal to capitulate to&nbsp;US&nbsp;duress.

Under the 2015 deal, the Arak reactor was to be redesigned to render it unable to make bomb-grade plutonium under normal operation, while the Fordow plant was to stop enriching uranium and be converted into a nuclear, physics and technology center.

Chinese state-owned China National Nuclear Corp has done&nbsp;non-proliferation&nbsp;work&nbsp;at Arak, and Russia's Rosatom has done it at Fordow. Rosatom has also provided uranium fuel for&nbsp;Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant.

The&nbsp;US&nbsp;State Department had no immediate comment. Rosatom did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A China National Nuclear Corp spokesman told Reuters on Thursday by email that it was "starting to cooperate with the&nbsp;Iranian side under guidance from Beijing on seeking a positive solution to the&nbsp;Iran&nbsp;nuclear problem". It did not provide further details.

The United States plans to allow Russian, Chinese and European companies to continue work at Iranian nuclear facilities to make it harder for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, two sources familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.

The United States plans to allow Russian, Chinese and European companies to continue work at Iranian nuclear facilities to make it harder for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, two sources familiar with the matter said on Wednesday. The Trump administration, which last year pulled out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and re-imposed sanctions on Iran, will let the work go forward by issuing waivers to sanctions that bar non-US firms from dealing with the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), said the sources on condition of anonymity. While the waivers' renewal would allow non-proliferation work to continue at the Arak heavy water research reactor and the Fordow fuel enrichment plant, which AEOI oversees, it may also signal that Washington is leaving the door open to diplomacy. Under the 2015 deal between Iran and six world powers - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States - Tehran agreed to limit its nuclear program in return for the lifting of economic sanctions that had crippled its economy. When US President Donald Trump unilaterally abandoned the deal in May 2018, he re-imposed US sanctions in a "maximum pressure" campaign designed to force Iran to return to the negotiating table. Trump wants a broader deal that would also limit Iran's missile program as well as its regional activities; Iran has demanded the United States first resume complying with the 2015 deal called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. France, in particular, has sought to bring the two into a wider dialogue but has so far failed, suggesting neither is yet willing to abandon core elements of policy: the US belief that pressure will bring Iran to its knees, and Iran's refusal to capitulate to US duress. Under the 2015 deal, the Arak reactor was to be redesigned to render it unable to make bomb-grade plutonium under normal operation, while the Fordow plant was to stop enriching uranium and be converted into a nuclear, physics and technology center. Chinese state-owned China National Nuclear Corp has done non-proliferation work at Arak, and Russia's Rosatom has done it at Fordow. Rosatom has also provided uranium fuel for Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant. The US State Department had no immediate comment. Rosatom did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A China National Nuclear Corp spokesman told Reuters on Thursday by email that it was "starting to cooperate with the Iranian side under guidance from Beijing on seeking a positive solution to the Iran nuclear problem". It did not provide further details.

US to renew waivers allowing non-proliferation work with Iran: Report

Defending China&#39;s move to oppose India&#39;s bid to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), their media have said that Beijing is not being &#39;disrespectful&#39; to New Delhi.This statement comes when relations between New Delhi and Beijing have been under strain following China&#39;s refusal in June to back India&#39;s bid for membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). 
 
&quot;The China-India bilateral relationship now is on a sound track, with a by and large tranquil border and steadily booming trade. The two in general are able to maintain neutrality with regard to international affairs that are related to the other side. But problems emerge when it comes to issues that the two are at odds,&quot; an editorial in the Global Times stated. 
 
&quot;By opposing India&#39;s NSG membership, China is not being disrespectful to India because it obeys the rule that all NSG members are required to be signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),&quot; it added. 
 
The NSG will meet yet again this year to discuss the process of inclusion of countries like India, who have not signed the NPT. 
 
A special plenary session of the NSG can be called by the year end. According to sources, there is possibility of India&#39;s inclusion in the NSG, while New Delhi will continue to discuss the issue with China. The NSG in June failed to reach a consensus on New Delhi&#39;s membership application after several members of the 48-member group insisted on adhering to NPT conditions for admission.&nbsp; 
 
(ANI)

'The China-India bilateral relationship now is on a sound track, with a large tranquil border and steadily booming trade,' Global Times said

Defending China's move to oppose India's bid to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), their media have said that Beijing is not being 'disrespectful' to New Delhi.This statement comes when relations between New Delhi and Beijing have been under strain following China's refusal in June to back India's bid for membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). "The China-India bilateral relationship now is on a sound track, with a by and large tranquil border and steadily booming trade. The two in general are able to maintain neutrality with regard to international affairs that are related to the other side. But problems emerge when it comes to issues that the two are at odds," an editorial in the Global Times stated. "By opposing India's NSG membership, China is not being disrespectful to India because it obeys the rule that all NSG members are required to be signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," it added. The NSG will meet yet again this year to discuss the process of inclusion of countries like India, who have not signed the NPT. A special plenary session of the NSG can be called by the year end. According to sources, there is possibility of India's inclusion in the NSG, while New Delhi will continue to discuss the issue with China. The NSG in June failed to reach a consensus on New Delhi's membership application after several members of the 48-member group insisted on adhering to NPT conditions for admission. (ANI)

Not being 'disrespectful' by opposing India's NSG bid: China