Recently in World Events Category

From Gerard Henderson's column in today's SMH ...

If Howard was undiplomatic in commenting on US domestic policies then the same can be said for Obama's response. Obama told reporters in Iowa that if Howard's comments were anything other than "empty rhetoric" he would commit 20,000 additional troops to the war. This is rhetoric in itself.

Australia has about 1500 men and women in Iraq. On a comparative population basis, an Australian force of 21,500 in Iraq would equate to some 320,000 Americans - almost double the US deployment.

In itself, this is true. But it also shows to have the same level of commitment as the US, Australia would need to deploy over 10,000 troops.

Sometimes it's better to concentrate just on the rhetoric, Gerry.

Media reports are starting to echo thoughts I had when first learning of the tiny size of the North Korean atomic test.

"It was explosion-like … That's all we are saying," said an Australian Government source, who asked not to be named. "It could have been a small nuclear explosion, it could have been a chemical explosion." The blast was simply "too small to classify what caused it. Whether it was nuclear or not, we don't know."

Seismic waves recorded at several nuclear-test monitoring stations in Australia suggested the blast was probably equal to somewhere between 300 and 500 tonnes of TNT.

Small is not the word. Tiny is more like it. The bombs dropped on Japan during WW2 were rated around 20,000 tons of TNT, and are considered small by modern standards, where atomic weapons are measured in the millions of tons of TNT.

The North Korean blast was a mere fire cracker by comparison.

Whether it was a hoax or a failure is yet to be determined. American authorities are ...

... discounting some reports that North Korea had staged a hoax, trying to disguise a large conventional explosion as a nuclear blast ...

but

The Pentagon said it had dispatched planes carrying sensitive atmospheric sensors into international airspace along the North Korean coast, in hope of picking up a whiff of radiation vented from the test site. But so far, they said, none has been detected.

Until more analysis is done, the world media should temper its histerical reaction to the news of the North Korean 'atomic test.' It is playing into the hands of the North Korean regime as they revel in the exposure.

THE world's newest nuclear power, now brandishing a missile threat, wants to sit "face to face at the negotiation table with the United States".

A North Korean official in Beijing told South Korea's Yonhap news agency: "We want this situation to be concluded before the unhappy situation arises in which we fire nuclear missiles, and this depends on how the United States acts."

We should be wary of the warnings of Western governments who have a vested interest in keeping their populations feeling insecure, and the rantings of a small, impoverished, despotic nation that has not proven they have any real nuclear capability.

North Korea obtaining nuclear weapons is a serious development. However, given that the blast was likely a failure or even a hoax, and that there's a large technological leap between exploding a bomb and actually putting a working warhead on a missile, it's safe to take the view the threat is not as dire as that being depicted.

I've been perplexed by the hysterical reaction to the recent North Korean nuclear test. Sure, another nation possessing the bomb is not ideal, but the risk that the regime would ever use the weapons is slight. The means of controlling North Korea's nuclear arsenal is the same that has effectively worked in preventing nuclear war for 60 years.

North Korea knows that using nuclear weapons is paramount to signing the regime's death warrant. Any deployment use of a nuclear weapon would provoke a response in kind many times worse. Paranoid they may be, but not insane.

The challenge for the West is to contain the country. Hopefully, an international effort will be enacted to monitor movements in and out of the country to prevent the export of its nuclear and missile technology.

The events in North Korea are disturbing, but controllable. Tight containment is the way to mitigate the risk it poses to its neighbours.

What was Steve Irwin doing to get his chest so close to the barbs on a stingray's tail? We'll have to wait for the inevitable enquiry and subsequent examination of the film to find out, but it's likely he was doing what he did best. Getting close and personal with dangerous creatures.

Whatever the circumstances of this tragic incident, Australia has lost an overseas icon and a tireless advocate for environmental issues.

It would surprise many of Irwin's overseas fans that he was a household name in the US long before he was generally noticed here. I first heard of Irwin on a radio program when it was explained how he was a runaway success on US TV.

Steve who?

Those same fans would also be surprised to find that a section of the Australian community has always been uncomfortable with his 'over the top' Australian-ness, ie, his 'ockerism.' Irwin himself acknowledged this.

When I see what's happened all over the world, they're looking at me at as this very popular wildlife warrior Australian bloke and yet back here in my own country, some people find me a little bit embarrassing. You know there's this ... they kind of whoah! cringe, you know, because I'm coming out with "crikey!" and "have a look at this little beauty!"

You know is it a cultural cringe? Is it, you know, they actually see a little bit of themselves when they see me and that they find that a little embarrassing?

Although I've heard his on and off screen persona's were similar, I suspect the local media did not initially take to him because of it. It was only when his overseas fame became so large it couldn't be ignored, that the local Australian media started to give him exposure.

I have to admit I'm one of those who found his boyish ocker enthusiasm a little disconcerting. It worries me that the ocker images of Irwin and others, like Paul Hogan, are ones so associated by many foreigners to be quintessentially Australian. Let me assure any foreign readers who stumble over this corner of the net that Australians are a lot more complex than portrayed by our more famous media exports.

That been said, nothing should be taken away from Irwin's genuine enthusiasm for the environment, conservation and promoting Australia.

He was a great Australian; one who died far too young, at a time when the environment needs all the advocates it can muster.

Usually, I avoid writing on hostilities involving Israel. The issues are complex, and I prefer to leave it to others better qualified to comment.

I visited the region as a back-packer during the early 80s. At the time, the Sinai peninsula was being handed back to Egypt as a result of the peace treaty with that country. The place was relaxed by today's standards. The markets in Jerusalem were packed with tourists, and it was easy to travel round the country. I spent several weeks there before crossing the newly opened boarder on route to Cairo.

Things have certainly gone backwards since then. I'm told that few tourists go there anymore. I can only imagine what it would be like living under the constant threat of suicide bombers.

I'm not going to go into the rights and wrongs of what is happening there at the moment, apart from acknowledging that Israel was provoked. I'll just make the following observation.

Since first becoming aware of the Middle East conflict through news reports of the 1967 war, I've observed Israel's policy of serious retribution in response to aggression. When attacked, they hit back with far greater ferocity. It's a constant theme of the conflict, and it's done Israel absolutely no good whatsoever. It's a public relations disaster; it's caused the other side to take more desperate measures to retaliate, and be susceptible to the influence of extremists.

The Israelis have not learnt anything from history. They can bomb the West Bank and Lebanon into oblivion but it won't have the desired effect. The only certainty this action will have is to create even more angry people who'll perform even more outrageous acts against them (and perhaps us) in the years to come.

Looking at the events after Cyclone Katrina, and the way the government looks to the US for ideological inspiration, it's a fair question.

The way the US has responded to the disaster has drawn attention to the type of society that the US has become. It begs the question whether we are headed down the same path.

Will the enactment of US style labour laws, and the cuts in welfare that are sure to follow, create the large social underclass so evident in New Orleans?

Will the cost of the government's obsession to participate in US foreign adventures, while cutting other government expenditure to allow the provision of tax cuts, cause a lack of planning against the inevitable, and stymie our response when the inevitable happens?

Will our government become so bankrupt that it will "never, ever ask for a shared sacrifice?"

And lastly, will this event will be a wake up call for the conservative forces who think our social, political and economic structures should uncritically emulate the US?

To the last question ... I'd like to think so, but I'm not holding my breath.

A quick Google dredged up these three articles regarding Hurricanes and Global Warming ...

The dramatic increase in tropical storms during the past decade has sparked a widening debate among meteorologists about whether global warming is playing a role in hurricane formation and intensity.

Some researchers say global warming is causing more active hurricane seasons. Others say global warming is not causing more storms to form, but is causing them to become more powerful.

and

Hurricanes have grown significantly more powerful and destructive over the last three decades due in part to global warming, says an MIT professor who warns that this trend could continue.

"My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in [hurricanes'] destructive potential, and--taking into account an increasing coastal population--a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the 21st century," reports Kerry Emanuel in a paper appearing in the July 31 online edition of the journal Nature.

and

Is global warming making hurricanes more ferocious? New research suggests the answer is yes.

Scientists call the findings both surprising and 'alarming' because they suggest global warming is influencing storms now — rather than in the distant future.

It's ironic that the country that contributes most to global climate change, and one that constantly refuses to do anything about it, is suffering the effects in the form of hurricanes of increased intensity.

Hundreds of lives lost and billions of dollars damage is the cost of ignoring the effects of releasing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Insurance premiums will rise globally to cover the damage payout and increased risk. Living in Australia will not insulate us from these increases.

It's time for the nay sayers to acknowledge that climate change is happening and it's caused by human activity. Time to start taking measures to limit emissions of green house gasses. Time to acknowledge the potential terrible effects of global climate change. Time to do something about it while the process is still able to be controlled.

It's been another hectic week with no time for the blog. Have been rearranging the IT at home, installing a new, faster Linux box for me, and upgrades for the server, the kids and SWMBO. Lots of software reinstalls accompanied by a few problems, now ironed out. Fingers crossed.

The shocking events in London have been dominating my reading this week. It's all the more poignant as I lived in the city for three years during the late seventies and early eighties. Since then I've been back several times for business and pleasure. Must have ridden the Underground hundreds of times. The thought of a large explosion in those narrow, deep tunnels fills me with horror.

It's predictable that after an event like this there are calls for ever more draconian measures to keep the fanatics in check, countered by a less noisy crowd warning of the dangers of impacted personal freedoms from those measures. It's the usual conservative vs liberal thing ... the conservatives feel that the correct response is to show no weakness, that person privacy and freedoms should not hinder the authorities in policing terrorism, and brook no thought that terrorist actions in London or elsewhere have anything to do with international events.

Back from a camping trip - heard the London news, had to throw in my two cents. Tony said the attacks were 'a nasty reminder of the risks of holding international events on home soil' and while that may be the case, I think that more poignant is that it highlights the risks of holding international events - such as invasions, liberations, or whatever you want to call them - on foreign soil. Perhaps also we should remember Afghanistan in our list of possible sources of outrage, though Iraq and the G8 are poignant enough.

I add my sty cry of sympathy and hope as i wait to hear from all the friends I made in London over the three years I was there that all will be well. I also become nostalgic for the days when the kings of opposing armies would challenge each other to a duel in order to resolve conflict, avoiding senseless slaughter. Or did that just happen in the books I read as a child.

A set of terrorist bombings on public transport in London is a nasty reminder of the risks of holding international events on home soil, and is particularly poignant the day after city was awarded the right to stage the 2012 Olympics.

It's likely the outrage was aimed at the G8 meeting in Scotland and the UK's continued involvement in Iraq.

We at the Pigs are shocked by this event, are thinking of the victims and sincerely hope the casualty numbers are small.