This is a 14 kiloton explosion by the USA in the Nevada Desert in 1951. It was conducted at the Nuclear Test Range with 'exposed' military personal in attendance. It was called Operation Buster-Jangle (click on).
Jordan can obtain the technology for nuclear energy, but, is still bound by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Cooper seems to have lost his way in reporting news rather than creating propaganda. Good example, excellant as a matter of fact, of how out-of-line this news team is with the facts and professional journalism.
Cooper was signed for another $4 million contract and compared to the National Debt I guess the government, oh sorry CNN, sees it as next to nothing. I agree, it is money for someone whom is mostly next to nothing in practicing excellance in journalism. If all one can do to keep an audience, is practice Bush's Culture of Fear, then it ain't worth watching.
Jordan's king says he seeks "peaceful" nuclear program
Jordan's King Abdullah II has told an Israeli newspaper that his country wants its own nuclear program.
In an interview with the daily Haaretz, King Abdullah said his desert kingdom, which borders Israel and has a peace agreement with it, wanted nuclear power "for peaceful purposes" and was already discussing its plans with western countries.
"The rules governing the nuclear issue have changed in the entire region," the Jordanian leader told Haaretz, noting that Egypt and several Gulf states have declared their desire for a nuclear program. Though Jordan would rather see a nuclear-free Middle East, he said, "every desire we had on this issue has changed".
Miri Eisin, a spokeswoman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, would not comment on the king's remarks published on Friday.
The US State Department indicated that it had no objection to a peaceful Jordanian nuclear program.
Deputy spokesman Tom Casey, without mentioning Jordan by name, said every country that adheres strictly to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty "has the right to develop civilian nuclear power for the benefit of their people".
Shlomo Brom, a researcher at Israel's Institute for National Strategic Studies and former head of strategic planning for the Israeli military, said King Abdullah was probably not serious about developing a nuclear program.
"The Jordanians don't have the resources," he said.
Brom said the Jordanian king was probably trying to make the point that if Iran, which is moving ahead with its nuclear program despite international protests and UN-imposed sanctions, is allowed to become a nuclear power, then a regional nuclear race will be unavoidable.
"Abdullah might be saying that if the Iranians aren't prevented from getting a nuclear program, Jordan and everyone else will want one of their own," Brom said.
Israel fears that Iran's nuclear program, which the Iranian Government says is for civilian purposes, is actually intended to produce nuclear weapons that could be used against Israel. Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, has said Israel should be "wiped off the map".
Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons of its own, but has never officially confirmed that it does.
The fact that Israel is believed to have nuclear weapons is what fuels nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.
Debate on Olmert nuclear 'slip'
The press in the Middle East has had time to reflect on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's apparent acknowledgement on Monday that Israel possesses a nuclear weapons capability.
Some Arab commentators make much of the statement, arguing that Israel is undermining both regional stability and the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Others are not surprised by it.
Although Israeli commentators consider it as confirmation of what has long been known, some suggest the revelation has compromised Mr Olmert's role as prime minister.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6175333.stm
SEE, in my opinion this entire issue really isn't about Iran having nukes or Pakistan already having nukes, it is about the 'reactionary' issue of why nukes at all? In other words, nuclear armament is a big expense for any country outside the five recognized nuclear nations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Why should countries such as Pakistan even embark on nulcear proliferation as they won't be able to afford to maintain their program except at the expense of it's people. Nuclear proliferation in this instance is a human rights issue.
What continues to be amazing to me is the monies poured into a country like Pakistan by the Bush White House to maintain air space to Afghanistan. Those monies only proliferate nuclear arsenals. If any country of Asia can maintain nuclear weapons outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty it is India. With a growing populous and economy there is every indication that it will indeed be able to support a nuclear arsenal without hardship on it's populous. India will need nuclear technology with a large population in order to keep up with energy demands of a burgeoning economy. However, it needs to seek alternative fuels and energy as well.
What is more curious than anything about the USA wanting to increase it's own arsenal is the fact that India is sitting right next to China. Sounds like a rather interesting set of 'checks and balances' of nuclear power not just with China and Russia but also North Korea.
The last time there was any sanity in the Middle East was during the Clinton White House. As a matter of fact, Hillary Clinton played a very big role in recognizing Pakistan and advocating it's acceptance at high diplomatic levels. Hillary and Chelsea spent time in Pakistan before the coupe nation it is now.A Clinton and a Bhutto Share a Joke in Pakistan
By TODD S. PURDUM
Hillary Rodham Clinton, admired and attacked as a strong woman in her own country, came to Pakistan today to admire and consult with another one: Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who greeted the First Lady at a luncheon for prominent women with a sisterly joke on the perils of power.
"The First Lady does not know it, but according to newspapers in Pakistan, Mr. Asif Zardari is de facto prime minister of the country," Ms. Bhutto said, referring to her husband, who is often painted as a sinister threat behind the throne and who had met Mrs. Clinton's plane on her arrival in a driving rain 12 hours earlier. "He says, 'Only the First Lady can appreciate it's not true.' "
In fact, Mrs. Clinton's first stop on her 12-day, five-nation official visit to South Asia was a study in the subtle role of spouse without portfolio. In her biggest solo venture since the collapse of her health care plan last year, she is re-introducing herself as a First Lady not only of the land but also of the world, wading into a region thick with the geopolitical goo of nuclear proliferation, financial aid and human rights abuses.
Mrs. Clinton's aides said most of those issues had come up, at least elliptically, in a 25-minute private talk with Ms. Bhutto, but Mrs. Clinton did not raise them. And the First Lady's staff made it clear that such an agenda is the stuff of Ms. Bhutto's scheduled meeting with Mr. Clinton in Washington next month. The Prime Minister is likely to try once again to assure Washington that her country is not trying to develop nuclear weapons, the possibility of which has been the main irritant in American-Pakistani relations and has led to a Congressional ban on any new aid since 1990.
On this trip to Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, Mrs. Clinton is determined to emphasize what she calls "the human issues" of health, education and social progress, especially for women and children in a place of dreadful poverty. Those causes are no less complex if slightly less controversial than some others she has taken on, and consistent with her interests over the last 25 years.
After praising the uphill efforts of Ms. Bhutto (Radcliffe, '73) to improve the lot of women and encourage family planning in a country where the average woman bears six children and is restricted to the role of wife and mother, Mrs. Clinton (Wellesley, '69) added "a particular word of thanks for your emphasis on children."
"It is an emphasis that is the most important in my personal opinion, because by investing in the education and health of children, we are saying that the future is worthwhile, that every child will be given the opportunity to live up to his or her God-given potential," Mrs. Clinton told the group of about 60 women in the Prime Minister's official residence in the shadow of the Margalla Hills above the city.
Minutes later, as if to make that point, Mrs. Clinton strolled the grounds with her daughter, Chelsea, Ms. Bhutto and two of her children. Then the Clintons paid their respects to Islam by visiting the cavernous Faisal Mosque, financed by the Saudi royal family beginning in the 1970's, where Secret Service agents in stocking feet kept a respectful distance and Chelsea, who is on spring vacation from school where she has been studying Islam in 10th grade history class, asked well-informed questions.
For her part, Ms. Bhutto said: "I and the rest of the people of Pakistan have been utterly fascinated by the First Lady's heroic efforts to substantively restructure the responsibilities of the office of First Lady, and to provide caring and sensitive leadership on the key social issues of the modern era. Women who take on tough issues and stake out new territory are often on the receiving end of ignorance."
Not to say Pakistan didn't have a nuclear program either. It existed at least in theory since 1975 or so. It was conducted clandestinely by A. Q. Khan. However, in nations that are preceived as mostly powerless in the world such as Pakistan and Iran the 'idea' of that nation having the 'ultimate' energy and a few steps away from nuclear weapons serves as a political wedge. A. Q. Khan was a popular figure and a national hero whether or not the nation of Pakistan should have obtained the technology for that purpose outside the treaty. The very same can be said about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his popularity that lead to his presidency. It has been an obvious plus for this Iranian president to tout himself as a strong leader undaunted by outside criticism of his nuclear ambitions.
But, to return to the issue at hand and why 'scandalizing' nuclear capacity for ratings is grossly in poor judgement as a journalist, is that it creates a social buzz that can be detrimental in the long run. In other words, in countries such as Iran where a political leader is valued for their commitment to nuclear energy and possibly taking the step to nuclear weapons, promotion of such technology is a very dangerous and irresponsible act.
In this case Jordan has no intention of seeking anything besides nuclear energy. So, for Cooper to 'go off' on a tangent stating:
The reason became even clearer today: nuclear weapons in the Middle East. The race to get them appears to be escalating. While Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, a program they claim is peaceful, another Muslim country has announced they want to go nuclear, Jordan.
Will it lead to a nuclear arms race in this explosive part of the world?
Is a grossly immoral discussion. Rather than 'nuclear weapons' the world should be engaged in backing the IAEA in their inspections to secure safe facilities in countries that should questionably have them in the face of the cost of development vs. the actual benefit to their people. The 'fear' of nuclear weapons are almost mute when considering the issue of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
SOVIET SAYS IT SEEKS MORE ATOMIC POWER; Ambitious Plan Behind Schedule Huge Reactor-Making Factory Likely to Speed Progress Reactor Manufacture to Double Transmission to East Europe Soviet Less Fearful of Mishap
An ambitious Soviet program for the expansion of nuclear energy fell short of its goals in 1979. According to progress reports in the Soviet press, only two of five intended reactors produced electricity.
http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F10E17FA3E5C12728DDDAD0994D9405B8084F1D3
Ah, yes, there was a day when a Russian nation was seeking greater capacity to nuclear competency as well. But, no different than the issues of Three Mile Island and other maintainence dangers in dealing with the two Texas reactors recently with cracks at the base of their reaction chambers, Russia also realized that this technology while beneficial is tenuously a good idea.
The point to this entry is to point to the irresponsibility in the media that has allowed bozos like Cooper to actually hold discussions on 'non-existant' dangers. The reason Iran is in the 'hot seat' is to PREVENT Bush from invading the country without cause and not because it actually has capacity. Iran is completely reactionary to the Neocon President of the USA.
Iran's president spurns critics, UN on nuclear work
By Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press January 19, 2007
TEHRAN -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lashed back over the US military buildup in the Gulf, saying yesterday that Iran is ready for any possibility in the standoff over its nuclear program.
The president made clear he was not backing down in his tough rhetoric toward the United States, despite criticism at home. Conservatives and reformists alike have openly challenged Ahmadinejad's nuclear diplomacy tactics, many saying his fiery anti-Western remarks are doing more harm than good.
Ahmadinejad said their calls for compromise echo "the words of the enemy."
The Iranian President is doing the only thing he can do as his nation's leader while realizing the brevity of being a Shi'ite nation, he is 'faking' it in the face of escalating war mongering by Bush with a 'surge' which is a non-existant strategy. Currently in Iraq, Mr. Bush is losing the war in a very big way. In order to maintain any kind of presence due to the attrition of the Iraq war, he is consolidating already severely damaged military units in order to come up with enough people to command into battle.
IAEA says Congress report on Iran's nuclear capacity is erroneous and misleading
Claims about programme are 'unsubstantiated'
Leak shows watchdog detected five major errors
The UN's nuclear watchdog has attacked the US Congress for what it termed an "erroneous, misleading and unsubstantiated" report on Iran's nuclear programme.
In a letter to the Republican chairman of the House of Representatives' intelligence committee, a senior director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the report was "incorrect" in its assessment that Iran had made weapons-grade uranium at a site inspected by the agency. Instead, the letter said, the facility had produced only small amounts of uranium, which were below the level necessary for weapons.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1873114,00.html
The true reality for Iran is to realize Maliki is actually sitting in the cat bird seat. He is watching an American president struggle with his war losses while struggling with his political domestic losses. Mr. Maliki should realize his clout OVER a USA Republican consitutency that is harassing him in a way that will increase the civil war he is trying to deescalate. Bush ain't all that and neither is Iran. But, due to the high stakes for Iran and the Shia and far smaller stakes for Bush the war mongering continues while Russia is coming to the aid of Iranian fears to damper the extremism and possible danger of 'falling off' the rhetoric wagon for Iran into perilous war that would destroy it's infrastructure. Russia is also concerned of Bush being as stupid as he is all over again and actually invading Iran on rhetoric alone.
This news hour is adding to those tensions and contributing to a run away train in the Middle East. The USA, if it is to ever be viewed as a serious partner in international stability needs to return to serious leadership and one that is competent to lead not just the USA forward but the global community in dire need of leadership with cool heads and vision.
I doubt if the rest of the program will be this needy of CORRECTION, but, I'll take a look.
This is a propaganda statement to de-escalate the reality of the current attacks on Shia elements within the Iraq society by the Maliki government. This is intended to cool the heels of those surrounding the victimized Cleric al Sadr to prevent them from hiding him.
COOPER: Well, a potentially major development today in Iraq: U.S. and Iraqi forces detaining a top lieutenant to radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.A statement from American forces did not mention the aide by name, saying, merely, that Iraqi forces detained him based on credible intelligence that he's the leader of an illegal arm -- illegally armed group involved in the organized kidnapping, torture and murder of Iraqi civilians.
How real of an arrest this is, though, we simply don't know.
The strategy to kill Cleric al Sadr goes like this, since Bush can't assassinate him openly. Take down a large constituency of that militia, 400 so far, limiting the ability of the militia to protect him so that the USA military can, supposedly 'against' the wishes of Maliki, then arrest the top aid so that interrogators can come out and say there is strong evidence that the Cleric has been promoting 'death squads' and therefore needs to stand trial and then executed by hanging as was Saddam. It is all being done according to Bush for the best outcome of the Shia.
This is problematic because, in my opinion, it is actually designed to cause reaction with Iran, including the apprehension of Iranian diplomats in Kurdistan.
Additionally, the Mehdi Army has been protecting the Grand Ayatollah al Sistani, a Shi'ite Holy Man. They have also been protecting the Shi'ites from attacks by the Sunnis.
So, if the USA is going to 'raid' the Shi'ites of their protections without providing equally proficient protection in that capacity then it is 'Open Season' on Shi'ites.
Does Bush care?
No.
Because it adds to the reason why Iran would come over it's borders to war with Bush while the Democratic House and Senate are seeking ways to end this war.
See, even as Commander and Chief, Bush is not authorized to invade Iran or Syria or any other nation. If by chance the Iranians become involved in the obvious slaughter of the Shi'ites in Iraq then Bush will be allowed to escalate the war with Iran. I don't know how he would sustain it as his military is grossly diminished in it's capacity to 'make war' so much as simply defend their own positions. But, it wouldn't stop him, at all. Bush is an idiot lead now by Baker who simply sees nation building at any cost including the deaths of Shia as the goal to saving face for Republicans.
The remainder of the program is simply poking at the Democratic Peace Machine in the USA where diplomacy and policy PRE-EMPT war !
enough 
