Possible Chemical Weapon Use in Syria

The United Nations has agreed to investigate accusations about chemical weapon use in Damascus and the Aleppo province in northern Syria. The United States viewed these allegations with skepticism, but the different claims between the Syrian government and opposition forces have called for verification from United Nations officials. The central government claims that it lacks chemical weaponry and that it would not use chemical power against civilians; opposition forces insist that they also do not have such weapons and do not have the ability to make them.

However, many military analysts believe that Syria possesses one of the largest supplies of chemical weapons in the world. These stockpiles may include nerve agents such as sarin and VX gases as well as mustard gas, which is prohibited under international law.

Why would countries even use chemical weapons if they could possibly detriment their own people? Compare chemical weapons to nuclear power. Chemical weapons are relatively much less expensive and they are easier to stockpile. They can be used more frequently than the costly, few atomic bombs that countries create. In general, they can be easier for armed troops to handle and use at will. Especially in Middle Eastern countries, armed forces also view chemical power as a possible method of combating or at least deterring the nuclear weapons that Israel possesses.

Last August, President Obama stated that the Syrian government would be held accountable for use of chemical weapons within the country; use of or transport of chemical weapons would draw "a red line for us." If Syria truly is home to such deadly chemical weapons, will the United States finally become more involved in the Syrian conflict?

Rat and Nuclear Panic in Fukushima

During March 20, a power cut occurred in the tsunami-hit Fukushima nuclear power plant which caused city’s power outage. The suspect: a rat.

It is no surprise that the tsunami-devastated Fukushima is still in recovery.  Tepco, the company that owns the nuclear power plants in Fukushima, is currently struggling to stabilize the cooling systems, which shutdown during the incident, causing instability in the reactors.

Luckily, the cooling to reactors themselves was not affected. However the system’s cooling water was infected with radioactivity as the nuclear rods failed to operate, which took engineer 30 hours to repair.

With further investigation, Tepco discovered the short circuit originated in a makeshift switchboard. Next to it, there lays a dead rodent covered in burn marks.

          Afterward, Tepco quickly concluded that the poor rat is the prime suspect of the city’s power outage, and also indicated that this incident reflects the fragility of the power plant after the meltdown 2 years ago. 

Finally, the company announced that the system has been restored, and the reactors are no longer giving off radiation. Nevertheless, the city of Fukushima has gone into a nuclear panic, all caused by this one rodent chewing an electrical wire. 

*Tepco has already released the picture of the scene which I find it unpleasant and decided to replace it with another "more digestible" picture.

Fighting the Future via the Past. Pt 4

Third Generation

      France and Great Britain's declarations of war against Nazi Germany seemed to be a repeat of the First World War. German discipline would come face to face with French determination and British heroism in a mighty clash that would ultimately result in Germany dashing its forces to pieces against the mighty Maginot Line, a line of fortresses bristling with cannons and machine guns. After all, the lessons of the previous war had taught elan was worthless in the face of the modern arsenal.
      One month and twelve days later, France had fallen, and the British had fled from the continent.

      First seen in the closing months of the First World War, third generation warfare is the opposite idea to second generation warfare. Instead of trying to force order onto a battlefield, commanders seek to create it. Junior officers are encouraged to take the initiative and act on their instincts rather than wait for their distant generals. Tactics now emphasize speed and mobility over firepower.
      Rather than destroying the enemy in pitched battle, third generation tactics aim to break through enemy lines and collapse his position by causing confusion in his rear and among his supply lines. The idea behind this method of fighting is to use clever strategies to overcome a material disadvantage, such as that faced by Germany during both world wars.
      Third generation warfare also differs from second generation warfare in the matter of home involvement. Previous wars had left populations largely intact, but third generation warfare makes a target of civilian populations. This should not be confused with the genocides perpetrated by the axis forces during the Second World War. A more accurate example would be the American and British bombing campaigns, which targeted industrial regions in German and Japan to try and destroy their production capacity.
      Rather than inflicting more casualties than the enemy can afford to replace, third generation strategy (not to be confused with tactics, which refer to plans on the battlefield) tries to destroy the enemy's ability to replace any casualties at all. Population is only targeted for its ability to produce, not for the value of causing more death.
      This manner of thinking will be reversed as we continue on to the fourth and current generation of warfare.

Risk

     In 2011, when the world watched in horror the tragedy of the tsunami and earthquake in Japan and the nuclear meltdown that ensued, I thought, "this may be the death of nuclear power as we know it." I knew that the world's opinion of using atomic energy to generate electricity would suddenly become more negative because the inherent risks of nuclear power would be brought to people's immediate attention. But, at the time, it did not have a significant impact on me. I did think that it was a shame that such an efficient method of  creating electricity would be abandoned, but I can't say that I was saddened by the inevitable decrease in popularity of atomic energy. "The risks of a meltdown or other malfunction outweigh the benefits" is what I thought.
     The last few weeks in my international relations class have been centered on an oil unit, where we learn about petroleum's effects on the world's conflicts, economy, diplomatic environment, and physical environment. It was in the first few days of this unit that I realized that all major methods of harvesting energy have risks. The oil trade stirs conflict between nations. It also significantly contributes to global warming, which experts have claimed will cause the death of hundreds of millions, if not billions, over the next few centuries. Making power by burning coal is inexpensive, but it also perpetuates the greenhouse effect at an exponential rate. The risks that come with nuclear power are different than those of carbon-based sources of energy, but they are ultimately equal to those of oil and coal over a long period of time.

Editor's note: I do not mean to marginalize the tragedy of what happened in Japan in 2011. 

Iran's Inevitable Nuclear Power Status

In light of recent events concerning Iran and it's nuclear weapons program, I have decided to dedicate a post to the convoluted question of Iran's quest to join the ranks of the nuclear superpowers.

There is implicit evidence in Iran's actions that proves that is developing a nuclear weapon. For one, Iran has (numerous times, in fact) concealed the fact that it had created facilities for nuclear enrichment. If Iran was constructing these facilities for the "peaceful purposes" for which it claimed, why would it need to conceal them? There is no doubt in my mind that these facilities were meant for the creation of nuclear weaponry. In addition, Iran has been adamant in continuing its nuclear program despite numerous sanctions being imposed, and threats of military action. If Iran had innocent intentions, it would have stopped its program then and there, and subject itself to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

In my humble opinion, the question is not whether Iran will create nuclear weapons, it is when it will create them. Even though the sanctions are cutting into Iran's economy and wounding the oil industry, Iran shows no plans of backing down. This has multiple factors: Iranian pride, which would be shattered if the government bowed its head to the West and shut down its nuclear program ; the mammoth loss of rare resources, time, and equipment that it had already invested; the lack of any leverage that the general populace has on the continuation of the nuclear program due to the theocratic, nondemocratic government; and the idea that Iran had already known that it was going to receive these sanctions, and was ready to make sacrifices in order to reach its goal.

Both America and Iran both have done horrible things to each other. Neither can claim the higher moral ground, and say that they are right and the other is wrong. I believe the first step in creating a brighter tomorrow is for the two countries to formally apologize for past events, and most importantly create better communication between the two. The lack of understanding and trust between Iran and America will only lead to clashes in the future; in the globalized world of today, we can only hope that they can make up before it is too late.