JULIAN ASSANGE REAPPEARS

Over the past few days, Mr Julian Assange has oozed his way back into the headlines, managing to find a small patch of unoccupied media space, not too blood stained, in which to tell the now largely uninterested world of his struggles for justice (or more correctly how to avoid it).

 

What has triggered his reappearance? Was it his excitement at Lady Gaga, that icon of liberty and free speech, popping in for tea? Perhaps he thinks the NSA whistle-blower, Edward Snowden might soon be joining him? Or perhaps it was his excitement at words of support from no lesser figure than John Pilger, that man of letters, beacon of moderation and giant of intellectual prowess, who has accused President Obama of “being at war with truth-tellers and the world”.  At war with the world?! I must have blinked and missed that. Perhaps the mighty Mr Pilger could tempt timid Barack into doing something about Syria in that case…..

But back to Julian Assange.  Between numbing reports of horrific slaughter in Syria that rank almost beyond comprehension and other tales of mass demonstrations and brutal police repression in Turkey and so on, a rather sallow, greasy looking Assange emerged from his figurative bolt hole from justice, also known as the London Ecuadorian Embassy. He declared he would stay where he was for a further 5 years if need be and refuse to face accusation of allegedly sexually assaulting two women (or in his rather fevered imagination, threats of extradition to the USA to face charges of leaking its secrets). But why now – has the bulb in his sun tan lamp blown, or perhaps his hosts are getting tired of his presence?

Ecuador, who have given asylum to Assange in a strange fit of preoccupation with the right to free speech (as long as it’s not exercised in Ecuador), declared, with rather cheerful desperation, that the noxious Assange might even stay so long in their embassy that he could die there.  They also asked if poor Julian might  be allowed outside into the sunshine for a bit without being arrested. Are they worried about his vitamin D depletion?  Anyway, since the sun has not been seen in London since about 2010 this seemed a rather optimistic request to say the least.

When one thinks of the scale of suffering in places like the aforementioned Syria, to have to listen to Mr Assange bleating on about his (self-imposed) living conditions in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, it's enough to make you feel like agreeing to his request. Let him go, put him on a plane and send him to Damascus.  

SCIENTOLOGY - IT MIGHT SEEM STRANGE BY TODAY'S STANDARDS, BUT......

Why is it called Scientology? Presumably it means the science of science, but it’s not scientific in any commonly understood sense. In that way it's not so different to any other religion, but in other ways, it is very different.

For starters it's very new, which makes it interesting. We can look back over only 6 decades at the evolution from scratch of a brand new form of belief, one that unlike others, appears not to have a specific named deity at its core.

A very brief, lay summary of Scientology’s evolution goes something like this (I think). Scientology started off as a form of psychotherapy known as Dianetics in the 1950s, developed by a writer of science fiction called L Ron Hubbard. Very simply, Dianetics was a psychoanalytical process by which individuals were able to "audit" themselves to identify past traumas. Although widely derided by the medical mainstream as quackery, it was purely secular at this stage.

It's morphing from “psychology” into a belief-system was triggered (at least in part) by people, when going through the auditing process, claiming that some of the traumatic events they believed they had identified were from past lives. This is similar to what some people believe when under hypnosis and which is often used as evidence for reincarnation.  In the early 1950s L Ron (not to be confused with the elf out of Lord of the Rings) appears to have started adapting Dianetics by incorporating into it the element of reincarnation and past lives, some claim to take advantage of the tax concessions applicable to recognised religions.

A cosmological narrative?

A tale of truly mind-boggling sci-fi like proportions was then developed to explain its origins. Until it was leaked (evidently by an angry ex-member), this was supposed to have been top secret. Scientology claims that our past lives reach back for millions of years and that...(wait for it)….billions of our descendants were brought to earth 75 million years ago in spaceships resembling DC-8s from distant planets where there was an overpopulation problem. This was done by a figure called Xenu, a tyrannical ruler of a galactic confederacy who was aided by psychiatrists (I wasn’t expecting that twist either) who tricked the over-populated with some rues about their taxation. But, on to more serious matters. Xenu killed all these billions of people by first freezing and paralysing them before the space journey and then, once earth was reached, apparently stacking them around volcanoes and detonating hydrogen bombs inside the volcanos.

This genocide then released their thetans (souls in scientology speak), which were then all “captured” somehow, sent to places resembling vast cinemas and forced to watch a sort of 3D film for 36 days and “implanted with misleading data”.

Still with me? 

And so it goes on. Hubbard’s religion parallels the development of a sci-fi novel and events contemporaneous with the times of the 1950s: Cold wars, nuclear shadows, taxation and McDonnell Douglas aircraft.

Ok, very interesting, but what it the point of all this?

The evolution of a new religion

The actual finer details of Scientology are complex and hard to follow. It's also very different to the narratives of established religions. However that is because we are witnessing, in real time, the evolution of a religion from its first uncertain steps through to it rapidly developing a philosophy over the course of a few decades.

Scientology appears to have approximately 50 000 followers. In overall terms, this is miniscule and may not constitute a critical mass to sustain it in the long term or even the decades ahead. It has been required to aggressively defend its position and to fight to sustain its tax privileges. As a new and radically different system of beliefs it is of course challenging the orthodoxy. Unsurprisingly established religions strongly reject its deeply implausible ideas. Of course, they strongly reject each other’s ideas and beliefs too.

This may be similar to what has happened previously when new religions tried to take hold. When “modern” Christianity was taking its first steps around 2500 millennia ago, it was challenging the dominant and established religions of the ancient classical world, from Greece to Rome to Egypt. In the case of the latter, this was a belief system that had existed and evolved over a period of 3 millennia. Christianity was a monotheist religion, challenging the prevailing orthodoxies that subscribed to polytheism, each normally embracing a sufficient number of gods to populate a small town. It’s easy to imagine the audacity of those early Christians suggesting, “No, you’re wrong, there aren’t 50 gods, there is only 1”. It can’t have gone down to well.

What is so interesting though is how Scientology has adopted the props of the 20th century around which to build its narrative. With space travel, nuclear annihilation, overpopulation, taxation and psychotherapy all playing a role, what we are seeing is a religion (or cult) being developed to reflect the modern world, and a cold war one at that, yet still relying upon an inevitable great cataclysm event in its foundation story. In this case, the great flood myth so common to ancient religions updated to be an ancient nuclear war.

Yet no religion can escape being a product of its time, thus its narrative cannot exceed the contemporaneous state of the world’s assumed “knowledge”. It cannot be what it does not know. Current dominant religions were developed when it was believed the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around it and that gods had magical powers over nature and the hevans. So people could come back from the dead, virgins gave birth, magic wands parted oceans and God’s servants only carried swords because, of course, guns hadn’t been invented.

Scientology 3000 AD

Suspend your disbelief (just for a second or two), imagine its 3000 AD and Scientology has grown from its current tiny following into a mainstream faith. After its first century, in which it has settled its narrative, it has endured without substantial further amendment, save only to respond to unavoidable new challenges, as  do the other long standing religions of today. It would have moved from "wild new cult" to established orthodoxy. Assuming all this, then we may find that Scientology's core beliefs will for so long have been ingrained into the mainstream that it might seem as plausible in 3000 AD as any of our current beliefs do in 2013.

Perhaps there is nothing that unusual about the trajectory of scientology's evolving story and development as a religion. It may only be following a similar course to countless religions developed before it over many millennia. The historically well documented persecution of the early Christian faith shows how hostile a reception no doubt awaited the relatively defenceless followers of all new religions and gods.  This intolerance of not just new, but sometimes only slightly differing beliefs, reaches its apogee in the bloodletting in the Middle East where competing religious ideologies settle their differing interpretations with bombs and blood (the irony of this is that they all espouse tolerance and a love of peace).

So, who is right?

Just because it’s one of the latest beliefs (at the moment), does that mean it is any less likely to be the “truth”, for every new religion or belief system must find itself in this sort of positionat the same stage in its journey.

What would the ancient Romans have thought of Christianity if they could have looked 2000 years ahead? If you were an ancient Egyptian alive today, might you wonder how for 3000 years, your countrymen believed something which by any modern standard, is such obvious, palpable nonsense.

Likewise, if you could look back 1000 years from now, what would the prevailing view be of today’s “ancient” beliefs?

Makes you think doesn’t it….

POPE EXORCISES A DEMON AND CASTS OUT COMMON SENSE

When first hearing about this, I thought he had expelled poor Silvio from Italy. But no, it was a real demon, apparently. I didn't know they still went in for that sort of thing anymore – hadn’t it been quietly phased out along with witch-burning and blood sucking leeches. But apparently not, for yesterday Pope Francis was seen to place his bare hands on the head of a disabled and troubled man in a wheelchair and perform what looked suspiciously like some kind of exorcism ritual. And it was in Saint Peter's Square too, which I thought was a bit of a cheek. Imagine that, some devil or demon daring to go into the Pontiffs front garden, so to speak, and inhabit a worshiper. Whatever next, are we safe nowhere?

 

Well, when it saw all the press reports, the Vatican clumsily sought to deny it was an exorcism and claimed the Pope had only intended to pray for the troubled man. Perhaps he had, perhaps he hadn't, who knows. Far more likely than demon possesion though is some kind of mental affliction for which prayer, exorcism and other assorted forms of medieval quackery are no substitute for proper medical attention. More troubling though is that in this day and age belief in demons still exists alongside neuroscience and nanotechnology.

 

On another point, quite bizarrely every Catholic diocese is supposed to possess (whoops... no pun intended) at least one exorcism expert. Strange then that these supposed experts at identifying the manifestations of the devil have been so singularly and spectacularly unsuccessful at rooting out those evil, child molesting colleagues in their midst, many of whom have it transpires been concealed by the Church itself......

Also see "Vatican Vacancy and "The Long Shadow Of The Dark Ages"

ITS EUROVISION 2013… run, run, run….

Ok, time for something light-hearted. It’s Eurovision - a blogger's dream come true. Not to be taken too seriously at all, Eurovision is a light-hearted parody of art, a tounge in cheeck (well, for some) celebration of wafer thin music, of computer generated soulless Euro pop so lightweight it is gravity defying, like a bubble blown by a child in a park on a sunny afternoon. It’s a competition where the nations of Europe, and some more, compete to see who can deliberately trot out the most vacuous and shallow pop song possible, where winning invites good-hearted ridicule and where coming last is a secret blessed relief…where "Pont-l'Évêque"* level cheesiness becomes an art form in itself.

I managed to sit through the first hour, it went something like this....
 

France

Bursting out of the starting blocks, France was first up in the form of a loud rather shouty female who yelled and waved her head around like a mad headbanger. Perhaps it was avaunt garde industrial disco, who can tell? There was some weird thrashing around to some scittering drum machine, much yelling and not much else. Rather good by Eurovision standards then.

Lithuania

Second up but so immediately forgettable I cannot recall a single thing about it. They could be on to a winner here.

Moldavia

Where exactly is Moldavia?  Oh, don’t worry, for this was Eurovision pop fodder of the first order. That means it was unintentionally hilarious. A singer emerged who looked like an angry, botoxed fairy stranded on top of a luminescent wedding cake. Supporting her were a troupe of backing dancers in shiny pure white outfits who energetically leaped about in regulation Eurovision fashion. This requires that no notice whatsoever be taken of any beat or rhythm (ok, sometimes there isn’t any). Our expressionless fairy delivered a performance of such saccharine proportions that I could feel the enamel peeling of my teeth.  Fortunately, anticipating Eurovision, I had bought some Sensodene toothpaste earlier (especially for sensitive teeth and gums).

Finland

Eurovision exists to host the performance of songs like this. A blond looking like she was trapped in a hyper speed wind tunnel and dressed in what looked like a cross between a wedding dress and an aeroplane braking parachute belted out a number about (I think) gay weddings and ended the proceedings by kissing one of her female backing singers (think Madonna / Brittney revisited). This was Eurovision gold dust, the crowd went quite potty....sure to do well. Turkey banned the entire programme (lucky Turks) on the strength of this sinful kiss to avoid 2 seconds of terrible moral pollution having a deleterious impact on their ancient civilisation, not to mention those members of their citizenry watching television. This may well harm their application to join the Eurozone…

Spain

With a backing band of sorts, including some poor soul who drew the short straw and got to play something called a Spanish bagpipe (run for the hills), some floozy in a yellow dress butchered some ghastly ditty about heaven knows what. On each side she was supported by a bloke strumming a guitar, each one trying unsuccessfully to look like he was enjoying committing musical- career suicide in front of a TV audience of millions.

Belgium

A smug looking man-child with a “Justin Bieber on-speed” hairstyle and Labrador eyes crooned out some syrupy love song. The “backing dancers’ ” choreography was the only high point, being so terrible it became entertaining as they gave a reasonable impersonation of marionettes being electrocuted. Cheesiness award for the evening.

Belarus

This was another Eurovision to order performance. A singer who looked like a 6 foot perm-tanned Barbie doll emerged from a giant silver glitter ball dressed in what looked like the remains of a shredded Christmas decoration. More toe curling choreography, with blokes in white suits, (not that kind although men in white suite were surely needed by this point), doing clumsy schoolboy/ playground level cartwheels and late 70’s over the top disco gyrations.
 

Russia

This might have got passed the first round on X factor, which is more than most would have achieved thus far....

Germany

A towering frau with flowing golden locks tore through some forgettable number sung in faultless English, all against a backdrop of blinding purple strobes, flashing lights, glitter waterfalls, sparkling ticket tape and delirious, cheering crowds. This is sure to do well.

Armenia

I almost fell of the sofa. A song composed by Black Sabbath's Tony Iommi, which must surely be their first euro vision mention. The performance was quite good. It has little chance of winning. A real band on stage, a real drummer, real guitars, a couple of devil horns salutes thrown in for good measure and a guitar solo (5 seconds only please).....a  masterpiece by Eurovision's standards and on that note I decided to go out on a (quite legal) high and decided to call Eurovision 2013 a day.

 

* Pont-l'Évêque - rated the world's smelliest, stinkiest cheese.

Who won the North Korean War that never was?

So, who won the great North Korean War that never was? It's not that clear, save that China lost, at least in the short term. China could not control it's former friend North Korea. It was embarrassed that its influence was exposed as light, if not even feeble. The bankrupt and impoverished hermit kingdom thumbed its nose at the only country thought to have had any sway over it. Japan and all the other nations of south east asia will have seen and noted all this.

In fact, the sudden cessation of noisy rhetoric suggested that, like a naughty child, North Korea's Kim Jong-Un (Fatty the Third) has been "rewarded” in some way for turning down the volume and conducting the affairs of his state slightly less abnormally than has been his recent custom. The only country likely to have done that is North Korea's northern neighbour, China. His good behaviour would likely have been in exchange for food aid, financial aid and other packages to ease his position. The onlystring to the deal would have been not to have publicised China's largesse.

Fatty the Third might have emerged from this war of words intact, even with his internal reputation enhanced. However, he hasn't really emerged a victor, in that sense. Behind the scenes his only ally of note must be absolutely seething. Making an enemy of China is not particularly smart and there may well now be a reckoning as China must surely be thinking about their longer term relationship with North Korea and how this can be restructured to their advantage. How much longer can they tolerate him? Whether Fatty the Third figures in that future is a moot point. If he has a jot of common sense, he needs to do some urgent bridge building with his powerful neighbour.

For South Korea it's been an quite a good outcome too. They were seen to stand firm and did not give in to the normal temptation to reward North Korea's bad behaviour with aid sweeteners. The sunshine policy of trying to be matey with the monster next door has been put on the back burner - trying to appease tyrants and bullies does not work, as just a cursory glance at history would have informed them.

For the USA it's been quite a good non-war too. All the surrounding countries will have been alarmed by North Korea's aggression and China's seeming impotence when it comes to controlling Fatty the Third. On the other hand they will have been assured to some extent by the USA's presence and apparent willingness to do what was necessary in the event of a worst outcome scenario. This is in stark contrast to the dithering and vacillation over Syria where it's now almost too late to do anything constructive.

In the medium term it's probably also put China's attempts to reassure its nervous neighbours that it's a force for stability and peace in the region on the back foot. Those neighbours may now start looking to the US for that assurance and sense of protection, as its pivots towards the east and the Pacific.

Interestingly, China has in the last few days, announced its claim on the Japanese island on Okinawa. Done obliquely through the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences,  an institution close to the Communist Government, this may well be part of the wider game being played over the spate of territorial demarcations stretcdhing to as far away as India. However, it's not insignificant that, in its report, the Academy refers to Okinawa as part of a former vassal state. Such a phrase will have been deliberate and loaded with nationalist implications, for it is the terminology used by imperial China in its heyday to refer to its supplicant and dependent neighbouring countries, including Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand and others. These vassal states, in a semi feudal relationship, paid tribute to China in the form of materials and supplies that recognised its overall dominance and superiority.

So, whilst Fatty the Third might be going easy on the bloodcurdling rhetoric for now, China is sending out its own increasingly clear and confident signals for its long term aspirations. Along with new President Xi Jinping's promotion of the "Chinese Dream", the talk of rewriting borders and claiming former vassal states is tapping into a millennia old view of Chinese superiority and of China, the ancient Middle Kingdom and centre of the civilised world.  So, just as America pivots towards it, China starts to more openly pivot towards its century-long suppressed, but very much alive, dream of restoring the dominance of its imperial/Confucian past, dressed up in the (communist) emperor’s new clothes.

Also see North Korean Roulette and Fatty The Third

Near Death Experiences (NDE): Can They be Explained?

I remember reading Raymond Moody’s book “Life After Life” as a kid. Since then I've read about other people who claim to have had near death experiences. Amazing tales abound of people, who having "died" (or nearly died) on the operating table or in accidents, are resuscitated and able to relate amazing accounts of how, generally speaking they walked down a sort of tunnel of bright light, many experiencing great peace, some having a life-review, and sometimes being told that their time was not up, and that they should go back, or words to that effect.

 

Sometimes this message is given to them by loved ones gone before or by beings clothed in light, all of which fuels, or confirms, a belief in life hereafter. Allegedly about 3% of Americans claim to have had such an experience. This is not too dissimilar to the percentage who believes they have been abducted by aliens. I must say I find it all a bit hard to believe.

What "being dead" actually means isn't that simple either. It is when the heart stops, or the brain becomes incapable of further thought or activity, or when cell decay commences and all electrical and chemical activity ceases?. It doesn't all happen at once and parts of us may be “dead” whilst others are still alive. Some NDEs have even been reported when the individual was not anywhere near death (for example, when fainting) which points to a physical and not supernatural experience.

 

The broad similarity of the experiences recounted suggests that, when the brain is in the process of shutting down, perhaps under highly traumatised circumstances, certain reactions occur. Under such conditions the ability to filter and make sense of information may become compromised, or stop working altogether. Imagine if certain parts of the brain continue to try to function whilst others stop. Mix in with that potential surges in adrenalin and other chemicals at such a traumatic time and, perhaps unavoidably, the experiences and memories are going to be very much out of the ordinary.

 

Many people also have very fixed beliefs in the afterlife and its format. Should we be surprised then that sometimes these beliefs surface at times like this, perhaps when the brain (the individual) most expects them to become manifest? Is it surprising that those who expect to meet up with the loved ones, in fact experience meeting up with them? Likewise, those perhaps expecting to be met by angels, then experience these “beings of light”.

Our memories may also play a part here too. There is the well-known saying “my life flashed before me”, normally uttered as a reaction to some life-threatening event. Perhaps there is some part of our brain which, at these critical moments, pushes these memories to the fore; thereby explaining the meeting of deceased loved ones and the "life review" during the NDE ".

Given its incredible complexity and power, the psychological impact of experiencing one’s brain partly or even totally shutting down during a near death event (or even when thinking one is nigh) may give rise to all sorts of unavoidable dream-like or hallucinatory experiences that when combined, trigger the NDE. However, whilst the brain is quite possibly the most complicated, sophisticated product of evolution, it is an organ and its workings should have natural explanations. Just because we cannot yet fully understand all its working, does not mean we should fill those gaps with supernatural assumptions.

I suspect the explanation for these undoubtedly powerful, sometimes life-changing experiences lies deep within our minds. The brain’s extraordinary power to shape our perceptions and to fire our imaginations in ways we do not yet fully understand is more likely than not, to be the basis for these supernatural and paranormal experiences. It would be wonderful to know that upon death some essence of consciousness is to be magically spirited away, down a tunnel of light to some other plane where it is going to be greeted by the spirits of loved ones gone before and where everything will be alright.

Irrespective of how tempting this is though, we may once again be at risk of letting our imaginations run away with ourselves.......

NORTH KOREAN ROULETTE: FATTY THE THIRD THROWS HIS WEIGHT AROUND

Chinese bloggers don't like Kim Jong-un. They refer to the chubby ruler of North Korea as either Fatty the Third, or Fatty Kim. No longer the revered brother in the struggle against capitalism, but now a figure of caricature and ridicule?

That's where the joking ends through. With their frequent and blood-curdling threats to engulf South Korean cities in Nuclear "seas of fire”, Kim's spokespeople mix clumsy horror/sci-fi prose with chilling possibility. At the moment the risk to an already very fragile geopolitical balance is at its greatest. With emotions taunt and mistrust high, a simple miscalculation or misreading of  signals from the other side could easily tip the entire region into disaster and war. As North Korea plans to launch its next “test” missile, any mishap there, say it crash lands in South Korea or Japan (a not indistinct possibility) or the North claims the US shot it down (say to cover a failure or malfunction), could trigger a conflict.

Everyone hopes that Fatty the Third is making these hair raising threats with no serious intention of carrying them out. The pundits ensure us nothing is changing on the ground and that it’s all just bluster and sabre rattling. Let’s hope they’re right. But it’s difficult to know just who is in control. Is Kim Jong-un telling his generals what to do, or are they pulling the young dictator's strings behind all those Stalinist banners?  Or, as is so often the case with Dictators, their henchmen tell them what they want to hear. Does Fatty the Third believe his own propaganda?

And China? As ever, it has its own geopolitical agenda. It wants to ensure that North and South Korea are not reunited as one democratic Korea on its border; open, liberal and friendly to the West and America. North Korea is its barrier and buffer zone to this risk. So, whilst it wants North Korea and Kim to behave a little better, it still wants its bothersome ally to be a thorn in the flesh of both South Korea and the USA. However a destruction-threatening Fatty the Third, acting like some upstart megalomaniac playing dare with his nuclear bombs and missiles is the last thing in their plans.

In the event of a war, even a small one, China would be in a quandary. Would it come to the aid of its ally to prevent the fall of the regime with all its negative consequences and thereby risk a much greater conflict with powerful enemies? Could it afford not to come to Kim's aid and, in the event his being toppled (very probable) end up with the South Korean and US military on its north east border? It would suffer enormous loss of face and shame – a huge deal for China. But what would be the impact on its other, already uneasy Asian neighbours, of a display of Chinese militarism? It could well push them into an alliance with America and Japan to counter growing Chinese might and influence. For China, such a war would be North Korean style roulette with no empty chambers.

And what of Japan in the event of a Korean war? With China's attention diverted, Japan might well size that moment to press is claims in the South China Sea, a hotly contested area of rich natural resources and some unoccupied islands that both it and China claim as their own.

Any outbreak of hostilities in the Korean Peninsula would understandably become the all-consuming focus of the political world. That could well have repercussions elsewhere, notably in the Middle East and Syria. With the world's focus suddenly and totally diverted, what new outrages might Assad be tempted to perpetrate in Syria, possibly involving his chemical weapons. The likelihood is that Assad deployed a non-lethal chemical bomb last month. What might he be tempted to do next, with the world's attention diverted and the Syrian opposition increasingly a focal point for Islamic and Al Qaeda based extremists and therefore Western unease. He might even be encouraged by both Russia and China to take this next step in the event of a Korean crisis.

The most likely outcome, we are being assured, is that it will all fizzle out, with North Korea making grand claims that it's threats have once again ensured the safety of their state, having frightened South Korea and the USA into backing down. Perhaps a “successful testing of its latest missile will enable this?

Yet, even such an outcome is not all that great. China's influence over its neighbour and increasingly dubious ally will have been exposed as less influential that everyone had hoped. It will stand somewhat diminished within its sphere of influence. It will have lost some face. The US will be increasingly alarmed. Its military presence in the area is not likely to diminish anytime soon – and the proposed slashing of its military defence spend may be reconsidered in light of the threats it believes it faces.

Kim Jong-un, left untouched and reputation as a strongman secured, will be even more emboldened to develop his weapons (and probably less likely to be parodied as Fatty the Third). Others will also have been watching and may be tempted to think about a nuclear deterrent of their own?. Iran will be encouraged. It has cooperated with North Korea in the past with nuclear technology. Would it be surprising to see a defence pact between these two countries next, each relying on the other's nuclear deterrence and between them, being able to cast an ever wider nuclear shadow with their combined weapons?

That cooperation may be even more overt now, since one of the messages emerging from all of this, is that if you really want to develop nuclear weapons, no one will really be able to stop you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------