Cuba Crisis relived - but without Cuba??

As this article reports Russia is threatening the West with deployment of Russian Bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons to Cuba.

Despite the fact that this could be just mere rhetoric by the Russians as suggested in any of these articles, the world is no longer 1962. Again, power dynamics make their play into the way we discuss this issue. And it seems as if Russia vs. the West is all up again, but how much are comments like this worth?

I suppose the Kreml's comments can be seen as hot air for a number of reasons. First Russia's interior rhetorical dynamics. Some thoughts to this have been made at the Duck and here. Second? I doubt the strategic advantage of bombers?? They are only faster deployed, but also faster shot down.

Thirdly and most importantly is the country that should be the staging and deployment point for those bombers. CUBA?? Somebody ever heard the name of this country? YES in 1962 it was the country where the missiles were supposed to be deployed.

Cuba was reluctantly lulled into the scheme in 1962 by the Soviets, by arguing for the weapons as a security guarantee against U.S. invasion. Cuba was at the down end of the discussions and found its own concerns sadly disappointed and not even heard in the discussions on withdrawal of the weapons. Metaphorically Fidel was "the Mouse" bleeping unheard from his little island, while the superpowers discussed their differences. I doubt his brother Raoul has any interest in following his brothers footsteps. Especially now that Cuba finally recovers from the damage done by the recession that began when the Soviets left Cuba in the 90's. The Cuban's won't be buying in on this scheme again, despite their problematic (to say the least) situation with the U.S..

For Cuba normalization ismore like the path to go than trying to play with the superpowers. Tourism (mainly with Canada and Germany) seems like the 'strategic' partnership that Cuba is seeking, not nuclear deterrence.


The question is why is nobody asking if Cuba is interested in a second October crisis (as the Cubans call it)?

Power dynamics?? Yeah I guess, as shown above. But maybe the reason that U.S. Americans have no clue about Cuba and tend to forget that the country moved past 1962 can also be found in the mere fact that the U.S. government upholds the embargo, keeping anybody with a U.S. passport from traveling those 90miles south of Florida and seeing the country with their own eyes.

Indo- U.S. nuclear deal halted

As Reuters reports the Indo- U.S. nuclear deal will not be ratified by Congress as planned before January.

The U.S. Congress will not have time to approve a landmark civilian nuclear agreement with India at the center of a bitter Indian political row, a key U.S. lawmaker on South Asian affairs said on Tuesday.

The deal was meant to bring India and the U.S. closer together in its nuclear power and would have had serious implications for South Asia and the World.


The Indo-U.S. nuclear deal has more facets: On the one hand it gives India the chance to use U.S. nuclear fuel, it basically formally acknowledges India as a nuclear weapons states without having signed the NPT and gives the U.S. in return a little more leverage over India's nuclear program, by putting civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. This certainly is a positive effect, since it would make India a safer ground fro nuclear technology, helping to achieve at least a minimum level of safety and security.

But it also gives India the chance to end its heavy reliance on their own uranium sources, which could be used to produce weapons grade uranium and plutonium in military and strategic reactors that won't be under safeguards.

An Indian official announced after the U.S.-India deal in 2005: “The truth is we were desperate. We have nuclear fuel to last only till the end of 2006. If this agreement had not come through we might have as well closed down our nuclear reactors and by extension our nuclear program. 10 India ran out of uranium and putting nuclear reactors under safeguards opens India to the international nuclear fuel cycle thus providing it access to uranium. But most of the reactors are not going to be under safeguards until 2010 or 2014, from the spend fuel those civilian facilities produce, India could produce from 2007 about 4274 kg reactor grade plutonium. “Meanwhile the military reactors could keep producing 1250 kg of plutonium a year. (paragraph copied from own paper)

Especially the later point of gaining the ability to produce weapons grade plutonium from spend fuel, will give India a critical advantage over its adversary Pakistan, which already struggles to follow up in this neighbour nuclear arms race.

Stephen Cohen (Brookings) and Lisa Curtis (Heritage Foundation) said a setback to the nuclear deal would not derail bilateral ties. But in addition to the time needed for a transition to a new U.S. administration, Bush's successor might pause before going to bat for India again.

In fact the Indo- U.S. nuclear deal might pause not only until spring next year, but maybe even until Bush's predecessor got accustomed to dealing with South Asia and having understood the importance of this issue. More urgent policy decisions (Iraq, taxes, health care) will most likely postpone decisions on South Asia for a while.

This does not necessarily have to be negative for South Asia. Despite the risks of nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities being unsafe and not secured enough, in terms of Confidence Building Measures with Pakistan, a delay of tis deal could make time for a deal being hammered out with Pakistan, bringing all three parties on a table to halt the increasing speed of the South Asian nuclear arms race.

WOW - Big brother going overboard with parents in the UK!

According to this telegraph article British parents are prohibited from attending their kids school plays, parties or other activities if they are not vetted by the Criminal Records Bureau (CBR)

The system of vetting adults who work with children was introduced in 2002 in the aftermath of the horrific abduction and murder of two schoolgirls in Soham. But most parents still don't realise that it has since expanded arbitrarily and can encompass virtually any adult who wishes to come in to contact with children.

So if you are not licensed by the CRB, don't be surprised if you are discouraged from attending your child's activities. What astonished Alka was that so many parents have come to accept such intrusive vetting as a fact of life.
advertisement

She says that many parents agreed that the vetting of parents at a school disco was unnecessary, while some described it as "just one of those daft excessive things" - yet they were prepared to tolerate it. One nursery worker informed me that she is quitting her chosen vocation because "I cannot be myself in this job".

"I no longer feel comfortable about acting on my gut feelings and cuddling and reassuring a distressed infant," she says. As far as she was concerned, if she could no longer cuddle the children in her charge and was forced to minimise physical contact with them, then her job had become "weird".

So, now parents - the primary guardian of their kids - are notbasically not trusted anymore to take care or guard their kids. Of course this bill has some good sides, trying to keep kids from being kidnapped and worse, but... are kids really in danger at school activities (while parents attend?) In my logic, a kid whose parents are not vetted and are therefore prohibited from those activities runs higher risks to being obducted (b/c at all this chaos at class activities the teacher can't look after all of the kids running and bustling around)

A couple of years I worked voluntarily in a nursing home in Germany and experienced a new bill being introduced in Germany making caring and nursing in nursing homes much more restricted. The same side effects came up... While trying to make a good job and taking good care of old people, nurses had to cross boundaries which if they would come out would get them sentenced.

Is this institutionalization of such jobs and its grasp into private realms really necessary to protect?? Or are there other ways?? Teachers, nurses or kindergarten teacher are already the number one social group being affected by burn out syndrom - if now they permanently have to worry about prosecution, will they keep coming to work?