I previously noted a July 9 OPCW decision which gave Syria 90 days to take a number of steps concerning the government’s chemical weapons program. This September 24 OPCW DG report states that “As at the date of this report, the Secretariat has not received a reply from the Syrian Arab Republic.” Given that the July decision requires the DG to report “within 100 days” regarding Syrian compliance, one imagines that we’ll hear more soon.
The NYRB published a review essay this past August about John Bolton’s most recent book. Without getting into its substance, I have to quote passages that make me question my writing ability:
Hedging against the remote possibility that some readers are smart enough to decipher spuriousness…
and
Even more trying are his sour, stilted witticisms, some of which he feels compelled to point out are supposed to be funny—in case any bleeding-heart types are too dumb to realize it.
The Review published a similar piece back in 2008 (sub,. req.) about Bolton’s first book. Readers can make what they will of this sentence:
Whether a consistent and comprehensive foreign policy, no longer intoxicated by ideological or neo-imperial fantasy, will emerge from this change of attitude is far from clear.
The next Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction is scheduled for this coming November. The first one took place last year. Here’s the most relevant part of the report:
At its 5th and 6th meetings, on 20 November, the Conference held a thematic debate. Representatives of participating States exchanged views on a range of related issues, including principles and objectives, general obligations regarding nuclear weapons, general obligations regarding other weapons of mass destruction, peaceful uses and international cooperation, institutional arrangements and other aspects. The Conference agreed that representatives of existing nuclear-weapon-free zones organizations should be invited to share good practices and lessons learned with respect to the implementation of treaties establishing such zones prior to the second session of the Conference.
There’s also a political declaration:
We, the representatives of participating States at the first session of the Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction, having met at Headquarters from 18 to 22 November 2019, pursuant to General Assembly decision 73/546:
(a) Welcome all initiatives, resolutions, decisions and recommendations on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction;
(b) Believe that the establishment of a verifiable Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction would greatly enhance regional and international peace and security;
(c) Declare our intent and solemn commitment to pursue, in accordance with relevant international resolutions, and in an open and inclusive manner with all invited States, the elaboration of a legally binding treaty to establish a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at by consensus by the States of the region;
(d) Call upon all States of the Middle East and all other States to refrain from taking any measures that preclude the achievement of the objectives of the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction;
(e) Convinced that the realization of this long-standing goal would be facilitated by the participation of all States of the Middle East, extend an open-ended invitation to all States of the region to lend their support to the present declaration and to join the process;
(f) In that spirit, believe that the Conference, through the elaboration of a legally binding treaty establishing a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, could contribute to building regional and international confidence therein;
(g) Commit to undertaking efforts to follow up on the declaration and on the outcomes of the Conference and to engaging in preparations for the second session of the Conference, commend the efforts of the Secretary-General in convening the first session of the Conference, and request his continued efforts and those of relevant international organizations and the strong support of the international community towards the success of the Conference in establishing a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
According to this report, the “Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters began a two-year programme of work” this past January. Here’s a good summary:
In its capacity as the Board of Trustees of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, the Board engaged in substantive discussions on two of the Institute’s workstreams: weapons and ammunition management, and autonomous weapons and human control. The Board also reviewed current programmes, activities and finances of the Institute, including ongoing efforts to strengthen its policy impact, achieve financial sustainability and further expand its global engagement. The Board approved the report of the Director on the activities of the Institute for the period from January 2019 to December 2019 and the proposed programme of work and financial plan for 2020 and 2021. Lastly, the Board endorsed a proposal by the Institute to commemorate its fortieth anniversary in 2020, in the context of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations and with an emphasis on engaging women and youth on disarmament matters.
Some well-known names in the report, along with this observation regarding current events:
Members also noted that the pandemic had underscored the direct and indirect costs of biosecurity and biosafety breaches and underlined the critical importance of revitalizing the work of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction.
From 2002 interview with Philip Morrison:
There was a spill from the P9, the code word for heavy water, on the floor, so of course they rushed out with nice clean rags to try to sop it up. It was worth a dollar a gram or something. And they squeezed it onto a bucket, whereupon Zen sits down on a chair, takes off his shoes and dabbles his feet in the heavy water saying, “I believe I’m the first person in the world to wash my feet in heavy water,” carefully dried it out, put the towels into the bucket, and went away.
DRDO published a report last February titled Ignition System for Solid Rocket Motors. I’m not qualified to assess its accuracy, but it’s still worth a read.
ISPR has a video gane.
Game has highly realistic terrain and weaponry. Fight the terrorists as a Cobra Pilot and SSG Commando in a series of missions in major battles of Anti Terrorist Operations undertaken by Pakistan Armed Forces and Law Enforcement Agencies like Operation Peochar 2009. More missions to come.
Until recently, I hadn’t noticed this NYRB piece by Jessica Matthews titled “The New Nuclear Threat.” She cites books by a few people you’d recognize:
Subscription is required. Here’s the first paragraph:
Seventy-five years ago, at 8:16 on the clear morning of August 6, the world changed forever. A blast equivalent to more than 12,000 tons of TNT, unimaginably larger than that of any previous weapon, blew apart the Japanese city of Hiroshima, igniting a massive firestorm. Within minutes, between 70,000 and 80,000 died and as many were injured. Hospitals were destroyed or badly damaged, and more than 90 percent of the city’s doctors and nurses were killed or wounded. By the end of the year, thousands more had died from burns and radiation poisoning—a total of 40 percent of the city’s population.
I will once more mention the final document of the First Special Session of the General Assembly devoted to Disarmament (1978).The report devotes more space to conventional weapons than I would’ve expected. Take, for example, paragraphs 22-24:
Together with negotiations on nuclear disar- mament measures, negotiations should be carried out on the balanced reduction of armed forces and of conventional armaments, based on the principle of undiminished security of the parties with a view to promoting or enhancing stability at a lower military level, taking into account the need of all States to pro- tect their security. These negotiations should be con-ducted with particular emphasis on armed forces and conventional weapons of nuclear-weapon States and other militarily significant countries. There should also be negotiations on the limitation of international transfer of conventional weapons, based in particular on the same principle, and taking into account the in- alienable right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial or foreign domination and the obligations of States to respect that right, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, as well as the need of recipient States to protect their security.
Further international action should be taken to prohibit or restrict for humanitarian reasons the use of specific conventional weapons, including those which may be excessively injurious, cause unnecessary suffering or have indiscriminate effects.
Collateral measures in both the nuclear and conventional fields, together with other measures specifically designed to build confidence, should be undertaken in order to contribute to the creation of favourable conditions for the adoption of additional disarmament measures and to further the relaxation of international tension.
