npr--2020-01-28--Kobe Bryant's Death Puts A Focus On Helicopter Safety

For the vast majority of Americans , helicopters are hardly a routine form of transportation .
But a high-profile helicopter disaster — like the crash in Calabasas , Calif. , that killed Kobe Bryant and eight other people on Sunday — can draw widespread attention to helicopter safety .
Helicopter rides are significantly riskier than commercial airline flights , but not as dangerous as a trip on a personal plane .
And some trips — like personal or private helicopter rides — are far more likely than others to end in a fatal accident .
`` I think it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accident happens , to start to question the overall safety of a certain type of flying , '' says Anthony Brickhouse , a professor of aerospace and occupational safety at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University .
`` I would just caution people to be patient and to let the investigation play out so that we can figure out what happened . ''
Commercial plane travel is extremely safe , despite recent catastrophes like the Boeing 737 Max crashes ; in many years the fatal accident rate in the U.S. is zero .
Helicopters are more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government , with a fatal accident rate of 0.72 per 100,000 flight hours in 2018 .
But general aviation — like recreational flying — is even more dangerous than that , with a fatal accident rate of more than 1 accident per 100,000 flight hours in 2018 .
In general , helicopters today are safer than they used to be : Over the past two decades , the fatal accident rate has dropped by half , according to the United States Helicopter Safety Team , or USHST , an alliance of government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few years have seen mixed results .
The fatal accident rate rose in 2017 and 2018 before dropping slightly last year .
Some helicopter rides are far riskier than others .
In the U.S. , sightseeing tours , police and news trips , and aerial observation flights tend to be safer than other flights , the USHST says .
Corporate flights and `` air taxi '' flights are in the middle of the pack .
And personal or private helicopter flights are responsible for a disproportionate number of fatal helicopter accidents .
Personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of flight hours but more than a quarter of fatal accidents .
To make helicopter flights safer , the USHST urges changes in training and technology .
It also urges pilots to avoid flying too low .
The group also highlights the risk of `` get-there-itis , '' when pilots are so determined to arrive at a destination that they ignore signs of risk .
In some cases a powerful passenger can also put pressure on a pilot to complete a trip in unsafe conditions , pilots say .
Bob Clifford , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ litigation for decades , says helicopters offer little margin for error , and when disasters do occur , they are often catastrophic .
`` When they work they 're wonderful , '' Clifford says .
`` Incredible convenience , incredible experience .
But the flaws , if there are any in flight , are very fatal . ''
But Brickhouse , the aerospace professor , says there are a number of ways that helicopter flights can go wrong without ending in disaster .
In the event of an engine failure , for instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an aircraft down safely .
`` It 's not like you have an issue with the helicopter and because it 's a helicopter , it 's just going to fall out of the sky and everybody 's going to perish , '' he says .
`` It 's really not that simple . ''
There 's another question that sometimes pops up after high-profile crashes : How does the risk of flying compare to the hazards of the road ?
It 's an oft-repeated fact that commercial air travel is much safer than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case for helicopters — but the crash rates for helicopters and cars are calculated differently , so it 's hard to make a precise comparison .
But one thing is for sure : Americans spend far more time in their cars — some 70 billion hours a year , according to AAA — and as a result , are much more likely to die in a car crash than any other form of transportation .

Kobe Bryant's Death Puts A Focus On Helicopter Safety
Enlarge this image toggle caption Warren Little/Getty Images Warren Little/Getty Images
For the vast majority of Americans, helicopters are hardly a routine form of transportation. But a high-profile helicopter disaster — like the crash in Calabasas, Calif., that killed Kobe Bryant and eight other people on Sunday — can draw widespread attention to helicopter safety.
Helicopter rides are significantly riskier than commercial airline flights, but not as dangerous as a trip on a personal plane. And some trips — like personal or private helicopter rides — are far more likely than others to end in a fatal accident.
"I think it is natural to the public, whenever an accident happens, to start to question the overall safety of a certain type of flying," says Anthony Brickhouse, a professor of aerospace and occupational safety at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. "I would just caution people to be patient and to let the investigation play out so that we can figure out what happened."
Commercial plane travel is extremely safe, despite recent catastrophes like the Boeing 737 Max crashes; in many years the fatal accident rate in the U.S. is zero. Helicopters are more dangerous, according to data from the federal government, with a fatal accident rate of 0.72 per 100,000 flight hours in 2018.
But general aviation — like recreational flying — is even more dangerous than that, with a fatal accident rate of more than 1 accident per 100,000 flight hours in 2018.
In general, helicopters today are safer than they used to be: Over the past two decades, the fatal accident rate has dropped by half, according to the United States Helicopter Safety Team, or USHST, an alliance of government and industry representatives.
But the past few years have seen mixed results. The fatal accident rate rose in 2017 and 2018 before dropping slightly last year.
Some helicopter rides are far riskier than others. In the U.S., sightseeing tours, police and news trips, and aerial observation flights tend to be safer than other flights, the USHST says. Corporate flights and "air taxi" flights are in the middle of the pack.
And personal or private helicopter flights are responsible for a disproportionate number of fatal helicopter accidents. Personal or private rides account for just 3% of flight hours but more than a quarter of fatal accidents.
To make helicopter flights safer, the USHST urges changes in training and technology. It also urges pilots to avoid flying too low.
The group also highlights the risk of "get-there-itis," when pilots are so determined to arrive at a destination that they ignore signs of risk. In some cases a powerful passenger can also put pressure on a pilot to complete a trip in unsafe conditions, pilots say.
Bob Clifford, a lawyer who has worked in aviation litigation for decades, says helicopters offer little margin for error, and when disasters do occur, they are often catastrophic.
"When they work they're wonderful," Clifford says. "Incredible convenience, incredible experience. But the flaws, if there are any in flight, are very fatal."
But Brickhouse, the aerospace professor, says there are a number of ways that helicopter flights can go wrong without ending in disaster. In the event of an engine failure, for instance, a technique called autorotation can bring an aircraft down safely.
"It's not like you have an issue with the helicopter and because it's a helicopter, it's just going to fall out of the sky and everybody's going to perish," he says. "It's really not that simple."
There's another question that sometimes pops up after high-profile crashes: How does the risk of flying compare to the hazards of the road?
It's an oft-repeated fact that commercial air travel is much safer than driving. That's not necessarily the case for helicopters — but the crash rates for helicopters and cars are calculated differently, so it's hard to make a precise comparison.
But one thing is for sure: Americans spend far more time in their cars — some 70 billion hours a year, according to AAA — and as a result, are much more likely to die in a car crash than any other form of transportation.


npr--2020-01-28--Trump Says His Mideast Peace Plan Provides A 'Realistic Two-State Solution'

Trump Says His Mideast Peace Plan Provides A 'Realistic Two-State Solution' President Trump says his long-awaited Mideast peace plan unveiled Tuesday is a road map for a `` realistic two-state solution '' that envisions Jerusalem as Israel 's `` undivided capital . ''
However , the plan limits the sovereignty of a future Palestinian state .
Israel would be in charge of maintaining security over the state of Palestine , which would be `` fully demilitarized . ''
The proposal also allows Israel to declare sovereignty over certain areas of the occupied West Bank , including Israeli settlements and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a `` historic breakthrough , '' even though the Palestinian leadership , which severed relations with the U.S. administration as it took a series of pro-Israel moves , rejected it before the proposal was formally released .
`` After 70 years of little progress , this could be the last opportunity they ever have , '' Trump said at a joint briefing at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu .
`` My vision presents a win-win opportunity for both sides — a realistic two-state solution that resolves the risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
The U.S. plan has been in the making since the earliest days of Trump 's administration , when the president assigned his senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner the task of trying to forge the elusive deal .
Trump lauded his own proposal as far more specific than other peace plans to date .
He said it includes a detailed territorial map of the borders showing `` territorial compromises [ Israel ] is willing to make , '' adding that it marks the first time Israel has authorized the release of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. would open a new embassy in `` Eastern Jerusalem '' to the Palestinians .
The Trump administration believes that in addition to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state , this plan could lead to a peace agreement that ends the Israeli-Palestinian conflict .
But Palestinians were outraged by the proposal .
Opposition even appeared to unite longtime Palestinian political rivals the Palestinian Authority and Hamas , which governs the Gaza Strip .
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas chaired an emergency meeting with Hamas , and called it a `` new phase of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to local media .
Trump has described the plan as the `` deal of the century , '' but Abbas called it the `` smack of the century , '' saying it was an unacceptable attempt to `` liquidate the Palestinian issue . ''
Hamas leader Ismael Haniyeh said in a statement that `` the new plot against Palestine is doomed to failure and Palestine will vanquish the colonizers at the end . ''
In announcing the plan alongside Trump , with whom he has close ties , Netanyahu said Tuesday that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Palestinians on the basis of your peace plan .
It 's a great plan for Israel .
It 's a great plan for peace . ''
On Monday , Trump met separately with Netanyahu and with Benny Gantz , the leader of Israel 's Blue and White political alliance , Netanyahu 's principal political opponent .
Gantz also has expressed his approval of the plan .
Trump said at the time that the Palestinians `` probably wo n't want [ the plan ] initially , '' but `` I think in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it . ''
`` So , we 'll see what happens , '' he added .
`` Without them , we do n't do a deal .
And that 's OK. '' After Trump ordered the U.S. Embassy moved to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv in December 2017 , the Palestinians largely broke off relations with the White House .
The move , however , proved extremely popular with Israelis .
In June , the White House released the first half of its peace proposal : a $ 50 billion investment plan billed as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palestinian territories .
The U.S. made the creation of the investment fund contingent upon Palestinian acceptance of the second , political part of the peace plan , released Tuesday .
Some analysts questioned the merits of the plan .
`` While Trump claims a revolutionary approach to the peace process , this plan actually recycles past failed efforts : it places Palestinians on probation while they prove their worthiness of statehood , using conditions that are malleable and ill-defined ; it seeks to induce Palestinian capitulation through economic largesse ; and it removes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concessions until Palestinians declare their full surrender , '' Tareq Baconi , Israel/Palestine analyst for International Crisis Group , said in a statement .
The proposal comes at a politically fraught moment for both Trump and Netanyahu .
Trump is currently on trial in the Senate after he was impeached on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
Netanyahu was formally indicted Tuesday on criminal corruption charges .
Israel 's prime minister `` is trying to make this major diplomatic decision , even though his government is a temporary government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for him domestically as someone who can champion Israel in the international arena , '' Natan Sachs of the Center for Middle East Policy at The Brookings Institution tells NPR .
Sachs also notes that when U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon were facing impeachment , they pushed forward with diplomatic efforts in the Middle East .
The plan includes proposals on several core issues that have been major obstacles to progress in previous attempts to forge a comprehensive peace .
They include : In April , Netanyahu pledged to annex West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ galvanizing support among his right-wing voter base .
He later extended that pledge to include annexation of the Jordan Valley , where Palestinians are seeking an independent state .
Late last year , U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the U.S. does not view settlements as a violation of international law , upending the decades-old U.S. policy that settlements are an obstacle to peace .
Trump said that no Israelis or Palestinians would be uprooted from their homes .
According to the plan , Israeli `` enclaves , '' or settlements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will become part of the State of Israel and be connected through an effective transportation system . ''
A map included in the plan shows 15 such enclaves .
The proposal does not stick to Israel 's pre-1967 borders and mutually-agreed-on territory swaps as a starting point for peace negotiations — which had been U.S. policy under President Barack Obama and which Netanyahu described as indefensible .
Instead , the plan `` contemplates a Palestinian state that encompasses territory reasonably comparable in size to the territory of the West Bank and Gaza pre-1967 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jordan Valley , according to the plan .
Areas in a future Palestinian state would include parts of the West Bank , connected to the Gaza Strip through a tunnel .
It also would include two areas of desert , connected by a thin passage , near Israel 's border with Egypt .
Israel would not need to wait until before taking control of areas allocated to it under the plan , U.S .
Ambassador to Israel David Friedman said in a call to reporters .
Palestinians have long sought their own state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has supported that desire .
In 2002 , then-President George W. Bush called for a Palestinian state as part of his Road Map for Peace .
In 2009 , Netanyahu supported a `` demilitarized '' Palestinian state , but by 2015 , he had reversed course , declaring his own policy `` null and void . ''
On Tuesday , Trump said he told Abbas in a letter `` that the territory allocated for his new state will remain open and undeveloped for a period of four years , '' in which Palestinians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` achieve the criteria for statehood . ''
According to the plan , the U.S. and Israel would judge whether Palestinians have met that criteria .
Those include implementing a governing system that protects certain rights ; establishing `` transparent , independent , and credit-worth financial institutions '' ; ending all programs that `` promote hate '' ; achieving `` civilian and law enforcement control over all of its territory '' ; and demilitarizing its population .
It adds that `` sovereignty is an amorphous concept that has evolved over time . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Palestinian sovereignty are particularly clear when it comes to security .
`` Israel will have the overriding security responsibility and control over the entire territory , from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea , '' Friedman told reporters .
Even so , the plan expresses `` the aspiration that the Palestinians will be responsible for as much of their internal security as possible . ''
It also calls for a Palestinian state to be `` fully demilitarized . ''
And Israel would have the power to expand its internal security role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palestinians are not meeting specific criteria , such as possessing certain weapons .
Both Israelis and Palestinians view the disputed city of Jerusalem as their capital .
When the U.S. moved its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2018 , it sparked huge protests by Palestinians .
Under the Trump administration 's plan , Jerusalem would remain united and would be the capital of Israel .
`` We believe that returning to a divided Jerusalem , and in particular having two separate security forces in one of the most sensitive areas on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' the proposal states .
It envisions the capital of a Palestinian state in portions of East Jerusalem located beyond existing walls , which Israel says it needs for security , that cut it off from the heart of the city .
The plan suggests naming it Al Quds , the Arabic word for Jerusalem .
Jerusalem is home to major holy sites for Muslims , Jews and Christians .
The status quo for these sites would be preserved , including Jordan 's role as custodian of the Muslim sites .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arab-Israeli war .
More than seven decades later , Israel denies first-generation Palestinian displaced persons and their descendants the right to return to communities from which they had been expelled or had abandoned .
Under the plan , `` there shall be no right of return by , or absorption of , any Palestinian refugee into the State of Israel . ''
Rather , the refugees would be absorbed into a Palestinian state or integrated into their current host countries .
Additionally , up to 50,000 Palestinians may be accepted by Organization of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also will `` endeavor to raise a fund to provide some compensation to Palestinian refugees , '' without specifying where the money might come from .

Trump Says His Mideast Peace Plan Provides A 'Realistic Two-State Solution'
Enlarge this image toggle caption Said Khatib/AFP via Getty Images Said Khatib/AFP via Getty Images
Updated at 5:50 p.m. ET
President Trump says his long-awaited Mideast peace plan unveiled Tuesday is a road map for a "realistic two-state solution" that envisions Jerusalem as Israel's "undivided capital."
However, the plan limits the sovereignty of a future Palestinian state. Israel would be in charge of maintaining security over the state of Palestine, which would be "fully demilitarized." The proposal also allows Israel to declare sovereignty over certain areas of the occupied West Bank, including Israeli settlements and the Jordan Valley.
Trump heralded the plan as a "historic breakthrough," even though the Palestinian leadership, which severed relations with the U.S. administration as it took a series of pro-Israel moves, rejected it before the proposal was formally released.
"After 70 years of little progress, this could be the last opportunity they ever have," Trump said at a joint briefing at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "My vision presents a win-win opportunity for both sides — a realistic two-state solution that resolves the risk of Palestinian statehood to Israel's security."
The U.S. plan has been in the making since the earliest days of Trump's administration, when the president assigned his senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner the task of trying to forge the elusive deal.
Trump lauded his own proposal as far more specific than other peace plans to date. He said it includes a detailed territorial map of the borders showing "territorial compromises [Israel] is willing to make," adding that it marks the first time Israel has authorized the release of such information.
He also said the U.S. would open a new embassy in "Eastern Jerusalem" to the Palestinians.
The Trump administration believes that in addition to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, this plan could lead to a peace agreement that ends the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
But Palestinians were outraged by the proposal. Opposition even appeared to unite longtime Palestinian political rivals the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas chaired an emergency meeting with Hamas, and called it a "new phase of Palestinian dialogue and joint work," according to local media.
Trump has described the plan as the "deal of the century," but Abbas called it the "smack of the century," saying it was an unacceptable attempt to "liquidate the Palestinian issue."
Hamas leader Ismael Haniyeh said in a statement that "the new plot against Palestine is doomed to failure and Palestine will vanquish the colonizers at the end."
Enlarge this image toggle caption Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
In announcing the plan alongside Trump, with whom he has close ties, Netanyahu said Tuesday that "I've agreed to negotiate peace with the Palestinians on the basis of your peace plan. It's a great plan for Israel. It's a great plan for peace."
On Monday, Trump met separately with Netanyahu and with Benny Gantz, the leader of Israel's Blue and White political alliance, Netanyahu's principal political opponent. Gantz also has expressed his approval of the plan.
Trump said at the time that the Palestinians "probably won't want [the plan] initially," but "I think in the end they're going to want it."
"So, we'll see what happens," he added. "Without them, we don't do a deal. And that's OK."
After Trump ordered the U.S. Embassy moved to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv in December 2017, the Palestinians largely broke off relations with the White House. The move, however, proved extremely popular with Israelis.
In June, the White House released the first half of its peace proposal: a $50 billion investment plan billed as a "new vision" for the Palestinian territories. The U.S. made the creation of the investment fund contingent upon Palestinian acceptance of the second, political part of the peace plan, released Tuesday.
Some analysts questioned the merits of the plan. "While Trump claims a revolutionary approach to the peace process, this plan actually recycles past failed efforts: it places Palestinians on probation while they prove their worthiness of statehood, using conditions that are malleable and ill-defined; it seeks to induce Palestinian capitulation through economic largesse; and it removes the onus on Israel to make any concessions until Palestinians declare their full surrender," Tareq Baconi, Israel/Palestine analyst for International Crisis Group, said in a statement.
The proposal comes at a politically fraught moment for both Trump and Netanyahu. Trump is currently on trial in the Senate after he was impeached on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Netanyahu was formally indicted Tuesday on criminal corruption charges.
Israel's prime minister "is trying to make this major diplomatic decision, even though his government is a temporary government, in part to shore up support for him domestically as someone who can champion Israel in the international arena," Natan Sachs of the Center for Middle East Policy at The Brookings Institution tells NPR.
Sachs also notes that when U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon were facing impeachment, they pushed forward with diplomatic efforts in the Middle East.
The plan includes proposals on several core issues that have been major obstacles to progress in previous attempts to forge a comprehensive peace. They include:
Israeli settlements in the West Bank
In April, Netanyahu pledged to annex West Bank settlements in a move aimed at galvanizing support among his right-wing voter base. He later extended that pledge to include annexation of the Jordan Valley, where Palestinians are seeking an independent state. Late last year, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the U.S. does not view settlements as a violation of international law, upending the decades-old U.S. policy that settlements are an obstacle to peace.
Trump said that no Israelis or Palestinians would be uprooted from their homes. According to the plan, Israeli "enclaves," or settlements, "located inside contiguous Palestinian territory will become part of the State of Israel and be connected through an effective transportation system." A map included in the plan shows 15 such enclaves.
The proposal does not stick to Israel's pre-1967 borders and mutually-agreed-on territory swaps as a starting point for peace negotiations — which had been U.S. policy under President Barack Obama and which Netanyahu described as indefensible. Instead, the plan "contemplates a Palestinian state that encompasses territory reasonably comparable in size to the territory of the West Bank and Gaza pre-1967."
Israel would annex the entire Jordan Valley, according to the plan. Areas in a future Palestinian state would include parts of the West Bank, connected to the Gaza Strip through a tunnel. It also would include two areas of desert, connected by a thin passage, near Israel's border with Egypt.
Israel would not need to wait until before taking control of areas allocated to it under the plan, U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman said in a call to reporters.
Palestinian statehood
Palestinians have long sought their own state, and much of the international community has supported that desire. In 2002, then-President George W. Bush called for a Palestinian state as part of his Road Map for Peace. In 2009, Netanyahu supported a "demilitarized" Palestinian state, but by 2015, he had reversed course, declaring his own policy "null and void."
On Tuesday, Trump said he told Abbas in a letter "that the territory allocated for his new state will remain open and undeveloped for a period of four years," in which Palestinians may deliberate and study the deal and "achieve the criteria for statehood."
According to the plan, the U.S. and Israel would judge whether Palestinians have met that criteria.
Those include implementing a governing system that protects certain rights; establishing "transparent, independent, and credit-worth financial institutions"; ending all programs that "promote hate"; achieving "civilian and law enforcement control over all of its territory"; and demilitarizing its population.
It adds that "sovereignty is an amorphous concept that has evolved over time."
Security Arrangements
The limits that the plan would place on Palestinian sovereignty are particularly clear when it comes to security.
"Israel will have the overriding security responsibility and control over the entire territory, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea," Friedman told reporters.
Even so, the plan expresses "the aspiration that the Palestinians will be responsible for as much of their internal security as possible."
It also calls for a Palestinian state to be "fully demilitarized." And Israel would have the power to expand its internal security role at any time if it deems the Palestinians are not meeting specific criteria, such as possessing certain weapons.
Jerusalem
Both Israelis and Palestinians view the disputed city of Jerusalem as their capital. When the U.S. moved its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2018, it sparked huge protests by Palestinians.
Under the Trump administration's plan, Jerusalem would remain united and would be the capital of Israel. "We believe that returning to a divided Jerusalem, and in particular having two separate security forces in one of the most sensitive areas on earth, would be a grave mistake," the proposal states.
It envisions the capital of a Palestinian state in portions of East Jerusalem located beyond existing walls, which Israel says it needs for security, that cut it off from the heart of the city. The plan suggests naming it Al Quds, the Arabic word for Jerusalem.
Jerusalem is home to major holy sites for Muslims, Jews and Christians. The status quo for these sites would be preserved, including Jordan's role as custodian of the Muslim sites.
Palestinian Right of Return
Some 750,000 Palestinians were displaced during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. More than seven decades later, Israel denies first-generation Palestinian displaced persons and their descendants the right to return to communities from which they had been expelled or had abandoned.
Under the plan, "there shall be no right of return by, or absorption of, any Palestinian refugee into the State of Israel." Rather, the refugees would be absorbed into a Palestinian state or integrated into their current host countries. Additionally, up to 50,000 Palestinians may be accepted by Organization of Islamic Cooperation member countries.
The proposal also will "endeavor to raise a fund to provide some compensation to Palestinian refugees," without specifying where the money might come from.


npr--2020-01-28--U.K. Will Allow Huawei To Build Part Of Its 5G Network, Despite U.S. Pressure

U.K. Will Allow Huawei To Build Part Of Its 5G Network , Despite U.S. Pressure Updated at 9:30 a.m .
ET The U.K. government says it will allow telecom giant Huawei a `` limited role '' in building its new 5G data network , despite U.S. pressure to cut the Chinese company out of development plans .
The U.S. considers Huawei a security risk and has long cited its ties to China 's Communist Party and possible links to the military .
The U.K. says it will prevent Huawei 's equipment from being used in `` sensitive 'core ' parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It will also cap the involvement of Huawei and other `` high risk '' vendors at 35 percent of nonsensitive parts of Britain 's network .
The U.K. 's National Cyber Security Centre , which conducted a security and technical analysis for the government 's 5G supply chain review , says it considers Huawei a high-risk vendor – but rather than banning the company from its important new network , the center is asking British companies `` to use Huawei in a limited way so we can collectively manage the risk .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries should not include Huawei in their 5G network plans unless they have `` a really robust regulatory system . ''
`` We 've never 'trusted ' Huawei , '' the agency says , noting that it formed a special Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre 10 years ago .
The U.S. has said the company could build `` backdoor '' access that would allow China to spy on anyone from regular citizens to sensitive government agencies .
Huawei has denied those allegations .
`` No law requires any company in China to install @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CEO Ren Zhengfei said last year .
The United States is `` disappointed '' by the U.K. 's decision , a senior Trump administration official told NPR on Tuesday .
`` There is no safe option for untrusted vendors to control any part of a 5G network , '' the official said .
`` We look forward to working with the U.K. on a way forward that results in the exclusion of untrusted vendor components from 5G networks . ''
The official added , `` We continue to urge all countries to carefully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impacts of allowing untrusted vendors access to important 5G network infrastructure . ''
Huawei welcomed what it calls the U.K. 's `` evidence-based '' decision .
`` Huawei is reassured by the U.K. government 's confirmation that we can continue working with our customers to keep the 5G rollout on track , '' Huawei Vice President Victor Zhang said in a video statement about the decision .
`` The U.K. faced a dilemma , weighing economic costs with concerns about national security and the country 's relationships with its closest ally , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy , China , '' NPR 's Frank Langfitt reports from London .
Last summer , the U.S. warned some of its closest allies that if Huawei is part of their 5G telecom infrastructure , U.S. agencies might be reluctant to share intelligence .
In explaining the U.K. 's rationale , the NCSC said it weighed all the options – but blamed a `` broken '' market for limiting its choices for large-scale 5G suppliers to just three companies : Nokia , Ericsson and Huawei .
And without naming any specific company , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only `` high risk '' vendor analyzed for the 5G review .
In that environment , the best strategy for the U.K. is to not become `` nationally dependent '' on any one 5G supplier , according to the NCSC .
`` We can now move forward and seize the huge opportunities of 21st century technology , '' said the U.K. 's digital secretary , Baroness Nicky Morgan .
In the U.S. , the government 's campaign against Huawei includes a ban that prevents agencies from using federal money to buy services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the Trump administration also is allowing Huawei to play a role in U.S. infrastructure — the Commerce Department granted an extension in November to allow American companies to work with Huawei on rural networks .
The U.S. has been openly skeptical of Huawei since at least 2012 , when the House Intelligence Committee issued a report criticizing the company over its ties to China 's government and a lack of transparency .

U.K. Will Allow Huawei To Build Part Of Its 5G Network, Despite U.S. Pressure
Enlarge this image toggle caption Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP via Getty Images Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP via Getty Images
Updated at 9:30 a.m. ET
The U.K. government says it will allow telecom giant Huawei a "limited role" in building its new 5G data network, despite U.S. pressure to cut the Chinese company out of development plans. The U.S. considers Huawei a security risk and has long cited its ties to China's Communist Party and possible links to the military.
The U.K. says it will prevent Huawei's equipment from being used in "sensitive 'core' parts of 5G" and other high-speed networks. It will also cap the involvement of Huawei and other "high risk" vendors at 35 percent of nonsensitive parts of Britain's network.
The U.K.'s National Cyber Security Centre, which conducted a security and technical analysis for the government's 5G supply chain review, says it considers Huawei a high-risk vendor – but rather than banning the company from its important new network, the center is asking British companies "to use Huawei in a limited way so we can collectively manage the risk."
The NCSC also warns that other countries should not include Huawei in their 5G network plans unless they have "a really robust regulatory system."
"We've never 'trusted' Huawei," the agency says, noting that it formed a special Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre 10 years ago.
The U.S. has said the company could build "backdoor" access that would allow China to spy on anyone from regular citizens to sensitive government agencies. Huawei has denied those allegations. "No law requires any company in China to install mandatory back doors," founder and CEO Ren Zhengfei said last year.
The United States is "disappointed" by the U.K.'s decision, a senior Trump administration official told NPR on Tuesday.
"There is no safe option for untrusted vendors to control any part of a 5G network," the official said. "We look forward to working with the U.K. on a way forward that results in the exclusion of untrusted vendor components from 5G networks."
The official added, "We continue to urge all countries to carefully assess the long-term national security and economic impacts of allowing untrusted vendors access to important 5G network infrastructure."
Huawei welcomed what it calls the U.K.'s "evidence-based" decision.
"Huawei is reassured by the U.K. government's confirmation that we can continue working with our customers to keep the 5G rollout on track," Huawei Vice President Victor Zhang said in a video statement about the decision.
"The U.K. faced a dilemma, weighing economic costs with concerns about national security and the country's relationships with its closest ally, the U.S., and the world's second-largest economy, China," NPR's Frank Langfitt reports from London.
Last summer, the U.S. warned some of its closest allies that if Huawei is part of their 5G telecom infrastructure, U.S. agencies might be reluctant to share intelligence.
In explaining the U.K.'s rationale, the NCSC said it weighed all the options – but blamed a "broken" market for limiting its choices for large-scale 5G suppliers to just three companies: Nokia, Ericsson and Huawei. And without naming any specific company, the agency also said Huawei isn't the only "high risk" vendor analyzed for the 5G review.
In that environment, the best strategy for the U.K. is to not become "nationally dependent" on any one 5G supplier, according to the NCSC.
"We can now move forward and seize the huge opportunities of 21st century technology," said the U.K.'s digital secretary, Baroness Nicky Morgan.
In the U.S., the government's campaign against Huawei includes a ban that prevents agencies from using federal money to buy services or equipment from the telecom company.
But the Trump administration also is allowing Huawei to play a role in U.S. infrastructure — the Commerce Department granted an extension in November to allow American companies to work with Huawei on rural networks.
The U.S. has been openly skeptical of Huawei since at least 2012, when the House Intelligence Committee issued a report criticizing the company over its ties to China's government and a lack of transparency.
NPR's Franco Ordoñez contributed to this report.


npr--2020-01-29--1 Simple Step Could Help Election Security. Governments Aren't Doing It

1 Simple Step Could Help Election Security .
Governments Are n't Doing It Local governments across the United States could perform a simple upgrade to strengthen voters ' confidence that they are what they say they are : use websites that end in .gov .
Federal officials control the keys to the `` .gov '' top-level domain , making it less likely that somebody could get one fraudulently and use it to fool people .
Domains that end in .com or .org , meanwhile , could be set up by attackers to try to intercept users seeking information from real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the country about the way a fake website could deceive users , and with little guidance from officialdom about what to do , many counties are n't taking that step , cyberspecialists say .
`` The big problem today is we do n't have a simple rule to tell people how to differentiate a legitimate election domain from one that was set up for malicious purposes , '' says Steve Grobman , a senior vice president at the cybersecurity firm McAfee .
A McAfee analysis found that 95 % of counties in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counties in Michigan and 90 % of counties in New Hampshire are n't using .gov addresses .
An NPR analysis of counties in Iowa , where voters are set to take part in the first-in-the-nation primary caucuses on Monday , found just nine of 99 counties using .gov addresses .
That 's a glaring issue that could open up the door for a simple but potentially disastrous disinformation attack , says Grobman .
An attacker could mimic a real elections site by buying a similar domain name , copying the site and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes .
`` They could choose urban areas if they wish to suppress Democratic votes .
They could choose rural areas if they choose to suppress Republican votes , '' Grobman says .
`` They would then send an email to users in those different districts that point them to a fraudulent site . ''
A fake site could look identical to a real site , only with slightly wrong polling-location information or slightly wrong times .
If both websites — the real one and the fake one — are closely alike and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have no idea they were being manipulated until they showed up at a closed or empty polling location .
`` Even narrowing the window slightly could suppress enough votes to make a material difference in the outcome of the election , '' Grobman says .
When it comes to getting good information , the Internet is a minefield .
That 's a problem especially for governments , which need to get information out to people about things such as voting and have people be confident that what they 're reading is legitimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 .
A plurality of Americans think misleading information is the biggest threat to a secure and accurate election this year , according to a recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll .
`` One of the effective ways we think to counter disinformation campaigns is to have highly visible , credible and trustworthy sources of information , '' says Chris Krebs , the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency within the Department of Homeland Security .
Cybersecurity experts as well as federal government officials say having the entire government system — from localities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all using .gov addresses would make it simple for people to know immediately that the website they 're reading is to be trusted .
`` Dot-gov is an authoritative message , '' Krebs says .
`` It says this is , in fact , government . ''
But thousands of local governments across the country are n't using it for websites that house their election information .
That creates the possibility for attackers to exploit such domains by creating a fake site .
While such a plot might sound complicated , Grobman says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a malicious actor to build such a trap website .
Experts also say not having a consistent domain name structure for local governments makes it harder for them to communicate with each other .
Leading up to the 2016 election , attackers used email addresses that mimicked real addresses within the elections world to try to entice local officials to click on links .
Dot-gov addresses are harder to spoof than dot-coms or dot-orgs , so phishing attacks like this would be harder to pull off if official websites were uniform .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ The biggest reason more counties do n't use the .gov infrastructure is a lack of communication from the federal government , officials , including Krebs , told NPR .
Basically , many local election leaders do n't know it matters .
Last year , for example , Clinton County , Iowa , got a brand-new elections website .
It has a clean layout with easy-to-use buttons labeled `` Register to Vote , '' `` Am I Registered ? ''
and `` How Do I Vote ? ''
`` We love it , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of elections for Clinton County .
`` We 've been looking for something like this for years . ''
The URL , however , is clintoncountyelections.com — a dot-com URL .
Getting a .gov address is n't a particularly difficult process : It costs around $ 400 a year and usually takes a few weeks for the paperwork to process .
But Van Lancker says he just was n't aware that it was recommended by the federal government .
`` I think I 'm pretty on top of the election issues and such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Van Lancker says .
`` But I never heard anything about that . ''
That 's not surprising , says Andrea Limbago , the chief social scientist at the cybersecurity company Virtru .
She says that local officials have many disparate roles , and thinking about how their websites fit into the broader information landscape of America is n't usually at the top of the list .
`` To assume that county officials have the full knowledge to be cybersecurity experts , I think it 's unfair to expect that of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do n't really provide them a lot of the tools that are necessary . ''
A bill currently in committee in Congress would make .gov domain names available to local governments at `` no cost or negligible cost . ''
If passed , it would also move responsibility for the domain program and the outreach about that domain program from the General Services Administration to Krebs ' agency in DHS .
`` There 's an awareness gap , '' Krebs says .
`` We need to do a better job of going out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that this is something available to them . ''

1 Simple Step Could Help Election Security. Governments Aren't Doing It
Enlarge this image toggle caption Mel Evans/AP Mel Evans/AP
Local governments across the United States could perform a simple upgrade to strengthen voters' confidence that they are what they say they are: use websites that end in .gov.
Federal officials control the keys to the ".gov" top-level domain, making it less likely that somebody could get one fraudulently and use it to fool people.
Domains that end in .com or .org, meanwhile, could be set up by attackers to try to intercept users seeking information from real sources.
But with an uneven appreciation across the country about the way a fake website could deceive users, and with little guidance from officialdom about what to do, many counties aren't taking that step, cyberspecialists say.
"The big problem today is we don't have a simple rule to tell people how to differentiate a legitimate election domain from one that was set up for malicious purposes," says Steve Grobman, a senior vice president at the cybersecurity firm McAfee.
A McAfee analysis from 2018 found that 95% of counties in Texas and Minnesota, 91% of counties in Michigan and 90% of counties in New Hampshire aren't using .gov addresses.
A recent NPR analysis of counties in Iowa, where voters are set to take part in the first-in-the-nation primary caucuses on Monday, found just nine of 99 counties using .gov addresses.
That's a glaring issue that could open up the door for a simple but potentially disastrous disinformation attack, says Grobman.
An attacker could mimic a real elections site by buying a similar domain name, copying the site and then picking a district in which to suppress votes.
"They could choose urban areas if they wish to suppress Democratic votes. They could choose rural areas if they choose to suppress Republican votes," Grobman says. "They would then send an email to users in those different districts that point them to a fraudulent site."
A fake site could look identical to a real site, only with slightly wrong polling-location information or slightly wrong times.
If both websites — the real one and the fake one — are closely alike and use .com top-level domains, voters probably would have no idea they were being manipulated until they showed up at a closed or empty polling location.
"Even narrowing the window slightly could suppress enough votes to make a material difference in the outcome of the election," Grobman says.
Information war
When it comes to getting good information, the Internet is a minefield.
That's a problem especially for governments, which need to get information out to people about things such as voting and have people be confident that what they're reading is legitimate.
That's not a given in 2020.
A plurality of Americans think misleading information is the biggest threat to a secure and accurate election this year, according to a recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll.
"One of the effective ways we think to counter disinformation campaigns is to have highly visible, credible and trustworthy sources of information," says Chris Krebs, the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency within the Department of Homeland Security.
Cybersecurity experts as well as federal government officials say having the entire government system — from localities to states to the federal government — all using .gov addresses would make it simple for people to know immediately that the website they're reading is to be trusted.
"Dot-gov is an authoritative message," Krebs says. "It says this is, in fact, government."
But thousands of local governments across the country aren't using it for websites that house their election information. That creates the possibility for attackers to exploit such domains by creating a fake site.
While such a plot might sound complicated, Grobman says it would take less than an hour for a malicious actor to build such a trap website.
Experts also say not having a consistent domain name structure for local governments makes it harder for them to communicate with each other.
Leading up to the 2016 election, attackers used email addresses that mimicked real addresses within the elections world to try to entice local officials to click on links.
Dot-gov addresses are harder to spoof than dot-coms or dot-orgs, so phishing attacks like this would be harder to pull off if official websites were uniform.
"Never heard anything about that"
The biggest reason more counties don't use the .gov infrastructure is a lack of communication from the federal government, officials, including Krebs, told NPR.
Basically, many local election leaders don't know it matters.
Last year, for example, Clinton County, Iowa, got a brand-new elections website. It has a clean layout with easy-to-use buttons labeled "Register to Vote," "Am I Registered?" and "How Do I Vote?"
"We love it," says Eric Van Lancker, the commissioner of elections for Clinton County. "We've been looking for something like this for years."
The URL, however, is clintoncountyelections.com — a dot-com URL.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Screenshot of Clintoncountyelections.com Screenshot of Clintoncountyelections.com
Getting a .gov address isn't a particularly difficult process: It costs around $400 a year and usually takes a few weeks for the paperwork to process.
But Van Lancker says he just wasn't aware that it was recommended by the federal government.
"I think I'm pretty on top of the election issues and such here in the state of Iowa," Van Lancker says. "But I never heard anything about that."
That's not surprising, says Andrea Limbago, the chief social scientist at the cybersecurity company Virtru. She says that local officials have many disparate roles, and thinking about how their websites fit into the broader information landscape of America isn't usually at the top of the list.
"To assume that county officials have the full knowledge to be cybersecurity experts, I think it's unfair to expect that of them," Limbago says. "We don't really provide them a lot of the tools that are necessary."
A bill currently in committee in Congress would make .gov domain names available to local governments at "no cost or negligible cost."
If passed, it would also move responsibility for the domain program and the outreach about that domain program from the General Services Administration to Krebs' agency in DHS.
"There's an awareness gap," Krebs says. "We need to do a better job of going out there and helping state and local partners know that this is something available to them."


npr--2020-01-29--Impeachment Trial Moves To Question Phase, While Witness Vote Looms

With Trump 's legal team resting its defense of the president , the impeachment trial now moves to its next phase : asking written questions .
Over 16 hours , senators of both parties will submit questions to House managers prosecuting the case and Trump 's defense lawyers , with Chief Justice John Roberts , who is presiding over the trial , reading the questions aloud on the floor of the chamber .
During the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton in 1999 , senators asked more than 150 questions across two days .
Republicans and Democrats reached a deal in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions for up to eight hours on Wednesday .
The same rules and duration of question time has been allotted for Thursday .
That sets the stage for a Friday vote on witnesses .
According to Democrats , multiple possible witnesses have first-hand accounts of what they say as a quid-pro-quo scheme with Ukraine that forms the basis of the two impeachment charges Trump is facing .
Democrats say bringing witnesses into the impeachment trial is essential to conducting a fair trial , while conservatives fear the entry of witnesses can inject uncertainty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Among the sought-after witnesses is former National Security Adviser John Bolton , who captured Washington 's attention following the release of revelations in his forthcoming book that Trump allegedly told Bolton that the military assistance was only to be released after Ukraine opened investigations into his Democratic rivals .
Those purported book details , first reported by The New York Times , placed pressure on senators to vote to allow witnesses into the trial .
Trump 's defense team , in response , argued that a manuscript of Bolton 's book would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Defense lawyer Jay Sekulow saying impeachment `` is not a game of leaks and unsourced manuscripts . ''
And anything Bolton would have to offer in person about his conversations with Trump , argued Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz , would not rise to the level of an impeachable offense .
Whether Republicans can defeat the Democrats ' push for witnesses , including Bolton , remains an open question .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told Republicans in a closed-door meeting late Tuesday that the party does not yet have the votes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not mean Democrats will be able to subpoena Bolton , or any other witness .
That decision will come down to moderate Republicans including Mitt Romney , R-Utah , Lamar Alexander , R-Tenn. , Lisa Murkowski , R-Alaska and Susan Collins , R-Maine who have indicated they may be open to hearing from witnesses , but their final decision is still unknown .
Trump 's defense team argued earlier this week that the case against the president presented by Democrats does not constitute any impeachable offenses .
Lawyers for Trump have also accused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the 2016 election .
They also argued that Trump has not committed any crime and therefore can not be removed from office , even though many legal scholars say breaking a law is not required in order to secure an impeachment conviction that would remove a president from office .
Democrats have impeached Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for what the prosecution team says was a campaign to pressure Ukraine into opening investigations into Trump 's political rivals and held-up $ 391 million in congressionally approved security assistance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorities .
House Democrats say the White House 's refusal to cooperate with the impeachment investigation is proof of a cover-up and amounts to obstruction .

Democrats Decry 'Dangerous' Foreign Interference Argument Made By Trump Lawyers
Enlarge this image toggle caption AP AP
Updated at 11:40 p.m. ET
The Senate on Wednesday night concluded the first of two days full of questions in the impeachment trial of President Trump. The proceeding offered clues about the thinking of senators, but the session consisted mostly of trial lawyers on both sides magnifying arguments they have already delivered.
There were, however, controversial moments in which Trump's counsel took positions Democrats decried as radical or even unlawful.
Trump lawyer Patrick Philbin and Rep. Adam Schiff, one of the Democrats prosecuting Trump, sparred over a topic that reverberated after Wednesday's session ended.
Philbin defended accepting "credible" information from foreign sources about a political rival, arguing that "mere information is not something that would violate the campaign finance laws."
"If it's credible information," he said, "it's relevant information for the voters to know about for people to be able to decide on who is the best candidate for an office."
His defense echoes comments Trump has previously made about accepting compromising information from foreign governments about political opponents.
Schiff became animated in responding, saying the suggestion that seeking foreign interference in an American election is a president's policy should have another name.
"I'm sorry, that's what I call corruption. And they can dress it up in fine legalese, but corruption is still corruption," Schiff said.
Federal campaign finance laws do prohibit foreign contributions, or taking a "thing of value" from a foreign source in U.S. elections.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said Senate Democrats were in "shock" when Philbin defended what she called a type of foreign interference.
"This is setting precedent that is unheard of in our country. And it's dangerous, dangerous, dangerous," she said.
Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said he was "flabbergasted" by Philbin's "inappropriate" remarks. "The president's counsel tonight, in a sense gave a green light for that kind of behavior to continue," he said. "I hope and pray that cooler heads will prevail but I think there was a dramatic step backwards in terms of protecting the integrity of our election."
Warner, a lead Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Philbin's advocacy contradicts the work of the intelligence community.
"Mr. Trump's own Director of the CIA, Director of NSA, Director of National Intelligence, Director of FBI, who've all said their top priority going into 2020 is to make sure foreign interference does not continue and is not allowed," Warner said.
Schiff, sounding aghast, agreed.
"It's now okay to criminally conspire with another country to get help in a presidential election?" Schiff said.
Another striking exchange occurred when Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz said if a president orchestrates a quid pro quo, or an exchange of favors, and it is done for more reasons than being corrupt, then the action should not trigger an impeachment.
"If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment," Dershowitz said.
Dershowitz said if a president does not act out of purely a "corrupt motive," but rather has a "mixed motive," meaning a president is acting of the country's interest and in hopes of improving reelection prospects, then the behavior cannot warrant articles of impeachment.
"How many presidents have made foreign policy decisions after checking with their political advisers and pollsters?" he asked.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said the position brought Dershowitz "into the land of legal absurdity," he tweeted. "That anything a public official does for re-election is OK. That cannot be true."
The formal proceedings on Capitol Hill, in which senators from both parties submitted written questions to House managers prosecuting the case as well as Trump's defense lawyers, commenced as news emerged from the White House that the National Security Council told John Bolton, its former chief, in a letter that the manuscript for his upcoming book "appears to contain significant amounts of classified information" that needs to be excised before the book can be published.
That is being contested by Bolton's lawyer, Charles Cooper, who on Wednesday released an email he sent last week to the National Security Council in which he asserted that nothing in Bolton's book "could reasonably be considered classified."
Cooper said the National Security Council never responded to the email.
That manuscript, which reportedly contains dozens of pages on Trump's dealing with Ukraine, has loomed over this week's Senate impeachment trial sessions. That is because the book purportedly says Trump told Bolton that military assistance to Ukraine would be released only after Ukraine opened investigations into Trump's Democratic rivals — the allegation at the heart of Trump's impeachment and the proceedings in the Senate.
The first question Wednesday came from Susan Collins, Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski, three Republican senators who have signaled they may support a vote to hear from witnesses. They asked the president's defense lawyers how the Senate should weigh impeachment if Trump had more than one motive for his conduct. The question — like all others — were submitted to U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the trial, who read them aloud.
Attorney Patrick Philbin responded that "once you're in mixed-motive land, once it is established that there is a legitimate public interest that could justify looking into something, just asking a question about something, the managers' case fails."
The first question from the Democratic side was whether the Senate could render a verdict without hearing from key witnesses, such as Bolton and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Jacquelyn Martin/AP Jacquelyn Martin/AP
Lead House manager Adam Schiff, D-Calif., responded, "The short answer to that question is, there is no way to have a fair trial without witnesses."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters later on Wednesday that he was uncertain about the prospect of getting 51 senators to vote to call witnesses: All Democrats and those who caucus with them would need at least four Republican senators to join them in order to get witnesses.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asked whether it mattered legally if Trump sought a quid pro quo from Ukraine's leader. Trump's attorney Alan Dershowitz responded with a broad view of executive powers, arguing that "if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."
But later, Schiff said: "All quid pro quos are not the same. Some are legitimate and some are corrupt, and you don't need to be a mind reader to figure out which is which. For one thing, you can ask John Bolton."
There was a definite shift in activity in the chamber Wednesday. Senate pages ran question cards and notes back and forth — in addition to their usual duties of running water and mail to senators' desks. Senators were also much more engaged in the question-and-answer portion. Dozens had question cards on their desks, took notes or prepared questions. Many watched the speaker at the lectern.
The session, which was scheduled to last eight hours on Wednesday, will continue for a further eight on Thursday. This stage in the proceedings comes a day after the president's legal team rested in its defense of Trump. Democratic House managers made their case last week on why the president should be removed from office. Trump was impeached last month on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Among those watching the session Wednesday was Joseph Bondy, the attorney for Lev Parnas, a former associate of Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Bondy was in the Senate gallery as a guest of Schumer. Parnas, who has been indicted in New York for alleged campaign finance violations, wasn't in the gallery because he has to wear a GPS monitoring device as part of his pretrial release. Bondy declined to say where Parnas would watch the proceedings from.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Patrick Semansky/AP Patrick Semansky/AP
The two days of Senate questions set the stage for a Friday vote on whether to allow witnesses.
"I hope we can get witnesses and documents," Schumer told reporters during a break in the questioning. "It's an uphill fight. Is it more likely than not? Probably no. But is it a decent good chance? Yes."
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell also expressed concerns about GOP senators Tuesday. Although Senate Republicans including Romney of Utah, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Murkowski of Alaska and Collins of Maine have indicated they may be open to hearing from witnesses, their final decision is still unknown.
According to Democrats, multiple potential witnesses have firsthand accounts of what they say is a quid pro quo scheme with Ukraine that forms the basis of the two impeachment charges that Trump is facing. But Republicans maintain that witnesses can inject uncertainty into the proceedings and prolong the trial.
Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., told NPR's Claudia Grisales that he remains "very, very skeptical that there is any witness that is going to shed any light that is going to cause me to change my view on what the final outcome of what this trial ought to be." Republicans overwhelmingly support Trump's acquittal.
Among the sought-after witnesses is Bolton, the former national security adviser who captured Washington's attention this week following the release of revelations in his forthcoming book. Those purported book details, first reported by The New York Times, placed pressure on senators to vote to allow witnesses into the trial.
Loading...
But the NSC in a Jan. 23 letter to Cooper, Bolton's lawyer, said: "Under federal law and the nondisclosure agreements your client signed as a condition for gaining access to classified information, the manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information."
The letter, signed by the NSC's record management official, Ellen Knight, said the council would work with Bolton to help identify what material in the manuscript could be used.
Trump's defense team has argued that the manuscript would be "inadmissible" in the trial.
Lawyers for Trump have accused Democrats of trying to invalidate the result of the 2016 election. They say Trump has not committed any crime and therefore cannot be removed from office, even though many legal scholars say a law need not be broken to secure an impeachment conviction that would remove a president from office.
Although two previous presidents, Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson, have also been impeached, no U.S. president has ever been removed from office.
Democrats impeached Trump last month for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for what the prosecution team says was a campaign to pressure Ukraine into opening investigations into Trump's political rivals by holding up $391 million in congressionally approved security assistance in order to apply leverage on Ukrainian authorities. House Democrats say the White House's refusal to cooperate with the impeachment investigation is proof of a cover-up and amounts to obstruction.


npr--2020-01-29--What Iowa Looks Like Ahead Of The Caucuses

What Iowa Looks Like Ahead Of The Caucuses In Iowa , voters expect candidates to come to them .
Homes @ @ @ @ @ as intimate venues for presidential hopefuls to meet and greet with folks who could have @ @ @ @ @ of their campaigns .
`` We expect to shake their hands , we expect to @ @ @ @ @ , we expect to be able to ask them the questions we care about , @ @ @ @ @ , a political science professor at Drake University in Des Moines .
The Iowa caucuses @ @ @ @ @ first contest of the 2020 presidential race — and candidates are making a final push @ @ @ @ @ A tradition that has been disrupted for candidates who are also senators and obligated to @ @ @ @ @ trial . )
Here 's what it looks and sounds like to be among the @ @ @ @ @ ahead of the big event .

VIDEO: What Iowa Looks Like Ahead Of The Caucuses
Enlarge this image toggle caption Michael Zamora/NPR Michael Zamora/NPR
In Iowa, voters expect candidates to come to them. Homes, churches and schools serve as intimate venues for presidential hopefuls to meet and greet with folks who could have an impact on the momentum of their campaigns.
"We expect to shake their hands, we expect to look them in the eye, we expect to be able to ask them the questions we care about," says Rachel Paine Caufield, a political science professor at Drake University in Des Moines.
The Iowa caucuses are on Monday — the first contest of the 2020 presidential race — and candidates are making a final push in the state. (A tradition that has been disrupted for candidates who are also senators and obligated to observe President Trump's impeachment trial.)
Here's what it looks and sounds like to be among the eager voters and committed activists ahead of the big event.
Media no longer available
Video produced by NPR's Michael Zamora.


npr--2020-01-29--Florida's Brightline Railroad Is Nation's Deadliest After High Rate Of Track Deaths

Florida 's Brightline Railroad Is Nation 's Deadliest After High Rate Of Track Deaths Officials in Florida are considering legislation aimed at curbing the high number of deaths on the tracks of a new passenger rail line .
Brightline is a privately owned rail service operating trains between Miami and West Palm Beach .
In its first two years , more than 40 people have been killed by Brightline trains on tracks and at rail crossings , earning it a designation as the nation 's deadliest railroad .
Brightline 's trains operate at speeds of up to 79 miles per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in South Florida .
It 's not high-speed rail but is still much faster than the trains that people have been used to seeing on these tracks .
The rail line has been here more than a century , part of the Florida East Coast Railway .
In recent decades , until Brightline , the line was used just by slower freight trains .
Since Brightline launched two years ago , on average more than one person a month has been killed on the tracks , in a car , on a bike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Associated Press found that this was the worst death rate per mile of any of the nation 's railroads .
Brightline has responded with a public education campaign , warning people to stay off the tracks .
At a recent news conference , Ben Porritt of Brightline said , `` Too many people take unnecessary chances by driving around the gates , running across the tracks . ''
At the news conference next to the company 's tracks in Oakland Park , Porritt focused on a group that he said makes up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seventy-five percent of the incidents that we 've seen are the results of suicide or drugs , '' Porritt said .
`` It 's an industrywide concern .
It just does n't affect Brightline .
It affects every railroad across the country . ''
Suicides on train tracks are a national problem , but nowhere near the 75 % figure cited by Brightline .
A U.S. Department of Transportation study shows that suicides account for about 30 % of all rail fatalities .
Accident reports on the Federal Railroad Administration 's website attribute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suicide .
The company says it arrived at its higher number after conducting investigations that included analyzing videos of the accidents filmed from its train cabs .
`` We say its baloney that high a percentage of suicide , '' says Susan Mehiel , with Alliance for Safe Trains , a group that has advocated for closer government regulation of the privately owned rail line .
`` We believe that trains and communities everywhere have problems with drugs and alcohol addiction and suicide .
But not like this . ''
Mehiel believes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fatalities is because its trains run so fast through densely populated communities .
`` There are not enough safety features , including pedestrian gates , pedestrian channeling , pedestrian bridges and fencing , '' she says .
`` Fencing is a really big one . ''
Mehiel 's group supports a bill in Florida 's legislature that would allow the state 's Department of Transportation to enforce safety standards for rail lines like Brightline .
At a hearing in Tallahassee , Brightline 's Rusty Roberts said the company has been working with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has upgraded fencing and other barriers .
But , he said , doing so is expensive .
`` That fencing in our case is over $ 200,000 a mile , '' he says .
`` So if you start regulating fencing in a blanket way , it 's very costly for the railroads to do that . ''
Brightline is working on a $ 4 billion expansion that will take the rail line from West Palm Beach north along the coast and then west to Orlando .
The sponsor of the rail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Debbie Mayfield , represents Indian River and Brevard counties , two of the coastal areas the train will run through .
At the hearing , she said , `` 40 deaths since they have started operating from West Palm to Miami .
My goal is to not have deaths when it comes through Martin , St. Lucie , Indian River , Brevard and goes on up . ''
Brightline says too much regulation could threaten the nation 's largest privately funded transportation project , one that 's aiming to take cars off Florida @ @ @ @

Florida's Brightline Railroad Is Nation's Deadliest After High Rate Of Track Deaths
Enlarge this image toggle caption Wilfredo Lee/AP Wilfredo Lee/AP
Officials in Florida are considering legislation aimed at curbing the high number of deaths on the tracks of a new passenger rail line. Brightline is a privately owned rail service operating trains between Miami and West Palm Beach. In its first two years, more than 40 people have been killed by Brightline trains on tracks and at rail crossings, earning it a designation as the nation's deadliest railroad.
Brightline's trains operate at speeds of up to 79 miles per hour over a 70-mile stretch of track in South Florida. It's not high-speed rail but is still much faster than the trains that people have been used to seeing on these tracks. The rail line has been here more than a century, part of the Florida East Coast Railway. In recent decades, until Brightline, the line was used just by slower freight trains.
Since Brightline launched two years ago, on average more than one person a month has been killed on the tracks, in a car, on a bike or on foot. An analysis by The Associated Press found that this was the worst death rate per mile of any of the nation's railroads.
Brightline has responded with a public education campaign, warning people to stay off the tracks. At a recent news conference, Ben Porritt of Brightline said, "Too many people take unnecessary chances by driving around the gates, running across the tracks."
At the news conference next to the company's tracks in Oakland Park, Porritt focused on a group that he said makes up a majority of the fatalities.
"Seventy-five percent of the incidents that we've seen are the results of suicide or drugs," Porritt said. "It's an industrywide concern. It just doesn't affect Brightline. It affects every railroad across the country."
Suicides on train tracks are a national problem, but nowhere near the 75% figure cited by Brightline. A U.S. Department of Transportation study shows that suicides account for about 30% of all rail fatalities. Accident reports on the Federal Railroad Administration's website attribute only a handful of Brightline fatalities to suicide. The company says it arrived at its higher number after conducting investigations that included analyzing videos of the accidents filmed from its train cabs.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Greg Allen/NPR Greg Allen/NPR
But rail safety activists aren't convinced.
"We say its baloney that high a percentage of suicide," says Susan Mehiel, with Alliance for Safe Trains, a group that has advocated for closer government regulation of the privately owned rail line. "We believe that trains and communities everywhere have problems with drugs and alcohol addiction and suicide. But not like this."
Mehiel believes the reason the rail line leads the nation in fatalities is because its trains run so fast through densely populated communities.
"There are not enough safety features, including pedestrian gates, pedestrian channeling, pedestrian bridges and fencing," she says. "Fencing is a really big one."
National Privately-Owned Rail Company In Florida Gets Richard Branson As New Partner Privately-Owned Rail Company In Florida Gets Richard Branson As New Partner Listen · 2:59 2:59
Mehiel's group supports a bill in Florida's legislature that would allow the state's Department of Transportation to enforce safety standards for rail lines like Brightline. At a hearing in Tallahassee, Brightline's Rusty Roberts said the company has been working with local communities to identify problem areas where it has upgraded fencing and other barriers. But, he said, doing so is expensive.
"That fencing in our case is over $200,000 a mile," he says. "So if you start regulating fencing in a blanket way, it's very costly for the railroads to do that."
Brightline is working on a $4 billion expansion that will take the rail line from West Palm Beach north along the coast and then west to Orlando. The sponsor of the rail safety bill in the Florida Senate, Debbie Mayfield, represents Indian River and Brevard counties, two of the coastal areas the train will run through. At the hearing, she said, "40 deaths since they have started operating from West Palm to Miami. My goal is to not have deaths when it comes through Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, Brevard and goes on up."
Brightline says too much regulation could threaten the nation's largest privately funded transportation project, one that's aiming to take cars off Florida's crowded roads.


npr--2020-01-28--Starbucks Closes More Than 2,000 Stores In China Amid Coronavirus Outbreak

Starbucks Closes More Than 2,000 Stores In China Amid Coronavirus Outbreak Starbucks has temporarily closed more than half of its stores in mainland China as an outbreak of coronavirus has surged through the country , affecting thousands of people .
Starbucks executives on Tuesday called the viral outbreak a `` very complex situation , '' adding that the company closed its locations in China at the direction of local government officials as well as `` proactively , '' to limit the spread of the virus among workers and customers .
`` Our immediate focus is on two key priorities in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysts on an earnings call .
`` First , caring for the health and well-being of our partners and customers in our stores .
Second : playing a constructive role in supporting local health officials and government leaders as they work to contain the coronavirus . ''
China is a key , fast-growing market for Starbucks and many other companies that are starting to see an impact from the outbreak and the measures that Chinese authorities have imposed in response , including a lockdown of multiple cities with tens of millions of residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and KFC have also been closing stores .
McDonald 's is expected to share an update on Wednesday when it reports its quarterly earnings .
Apple CEO Tim Cook said on Tuesday that his company has closed one of its retail stores .
`` Many of the stores that remain open have also reduced operating hours , '' Cook said .
`` We 're taking additional precautions and frequently deep-cleaning our stores as well as conducting temperature checks for employees . ''
Starbucks CEO Johnson said he had anticipated raising the company 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but would not do so now `` due to the dynamic situation unfolding with the coronavirus . ''
China is the second-largest market for Starbucks , which had almost 4,300 stores there at the end of 2019 .
In a company earnings release on Tuesday , Starbucks said `` Currently , we have closed more than half of our stores in China and continue to monitor and modify the operating hours of all of our stores in the market in response to the outbreak of the coronavirus . ''
Chinese authorities say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rapidly spreading coronavirus in recent weeks has sickened nearly 6,000 people as of Wednesday , with more than 130 deaths .
Additional cases have been reported outside of China , including in Australia , France and Canada and the U.S .
In the United States , five confirmed cases involve people who recently traveled to Wuhan , China , the epicenter of the outbreak .
At a news conference Tuesday , top U.S. health officials reiterated that the disease — while serious — is not currently a threat to ordinary Americans .
NPR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this report .

Starbucks Closes More Than 2,000 Stores In China Amid Coronavirus Outbreak
toggle caption Ng Han Guan/AP
Updated at 8:20 p.m. ET
Starbucks has temporarily closed more than half of its stores in mainland China as an outbreak of coronavirus has surged through the country, affecting thousands of people.
Starbucks executives on Tuesday called the viral outbreak a "very complex situation," adding that the company closed its locations in China at the direction of local government officials as well as "proactively," to limit the spread of the virus among workers and customers.
"Our immediate focus is on two key priorities in China," CEO Kevin Johnson told analysts on an earnings call. "First, caring for the health and well-being of our partners and customers in our stores. Second: playing a constructive role in supporting local health officials and government leaders as they work to contain the coronavirus."
China is a key, fast-growing market for Starbucks and many other companies that are starting to see an impact from the outbreak and the measures that Chinese authorities have imposed in response, including a lockdown of multiple cities with tens of millions of residents.
Other chains such as McDonald's and KFC have also been closing stores. McDonald's is expected to share an update on Wednesday when it reports its quarterly earnings. Apple CEO Tim Cook said on Tuesday that his company has closed one of its retail stores.
"Many of the stores that remain open have also reduced operating hours," Cook said. "We're taking additional precautions and frequently deep-cleaning our stores as well as conducting temperature checks for employees."
Starbucks CEO Johnson said he had anticipated raising the company's financial forecast for the year on Tuesday, but would not do so now "due to the dynamic situation unfolding with the coronavirus." China is the second-largest market for Starbucks, which had almost 4,300 stores there at the end of 2019.
In a company earnings release on Tuesday, Starbucks said "Currently, we have closed more than half of our stores in China and continue to monitor and modify the operating hours of all of our stores in the market in response to the outbreak of the coronavirus."
Chinese authorities say that a surge in cases of the rapidly spreading coronavirus in recent weeks has sickened nearly 6,000 people as of Wednesday, with more than 130 deaths. Additional cases have been reported outside of China, including in Australia, France and Canada and the U.S.
In the United States, five confirmed cases involve people who recently traveled to Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the outbreak. At a news conference Tuesday, top U.S. health officials reiterated that the disease — while serious — is not currently a threat to ordinary Americans.
NPR's Shannon Bond and Richard Harris contributed to this report.


npr--2020-01-29--Interior Department Grounds All Of Its Drones, Citing Cybersecurity, Other Concerns

Interior Department Grounds All Of Its Drones , Citing Cybersecurity , Other Concerns The Interior Department has grounded its fleet of more than 800 drones , citing potential cybersecurity risks and the need to support U.S. drone production – suggesting the move is aimed at least in part at China , a leading drone producer .
Interior Secretary David Bernhardt signed an order on Wednesday grounding the drones , formalizing a `` pause '' he ordered nearly three months ago .
`` We 've had only 12 drone flights since that time for emergency operations related to fires and floods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2018 , the Interior Department reported making 10,432 drone flights — part of a broad expansion of its use of the aircraft under President Trump .
When the agency announced that figure last summer , it said it employs `` 400 FAA certified and DOI trained operators '' in 42 states .
The Interior Department has used its drones for a variety of purposes , from surveying federal lands to collecting research data and helping law enforcement .
But for the foreseeable future , all but the most vital missions are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernhardt does not say whether his department has determined that its drones were somehow susceptible to being hacked .
But he did say that information collected during drone flights could be `` valuable to foreign entities , organizations , and governments . ''
The secretary 's order also does n't mention China — but that country was cited as a key factor in the initial decision to ground the fleet last year .
In late October , Bernhardt `` directed that drones manufactured in China or made from Chinese components be grounded , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , citing another department spokesperson .
The Chinese drone giant DJI issued a statement Wednesday saying it is `` extremely disappointed '' by the Interior Department 's move .
`` We are opposed to the politically-motivated country of origin restrictions masquerading as cybersecurity concerns , '' DJI said in a statement published on its website .
DJI makes special `` government edition '' versions of two of its drones specifically for the Interior Department : the Matrice 600 Pro and Mavic Pro .
Both models are listed as being in the U.S. agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last summer that the Interior Department had independently validated its `` high-security '' drones during a 15-month testing period .
The department seemed to agree , releasing a 53-page report in July recommending it use the special DJI drones .
The aircraft include firmware and software that is tailored to meet the agency 's requirements , DJI said .
But in Bernhardt 's order , he noted that the president had signed a memorandum in June stating , `` I hereby determine ... the domestic production capability for small unmanned aerial systems is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The memo said that without presidential action , `` United States industry can not reasonably be expected to provide the production capability for small unmanned aerial systems adequately and in a timely manner . ''
As he cited that presidential determination , Bernhardt said his agency is taking action for a variety of reasons , `` which include cybersecurity , technological consideration , and facilitating domestic production capability . ''
The secretary 's order to ground the fleet is open-ended : it will remain in effect until it is revoked , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` Drone operations will continue to be allowed in approved situations for emergency purposes , such as fighting wildfires , search and rescue , and dealing with natural disasters that may threaten life or property , '' Danko said .

Interior Department Grounds Chinese-Made Drones, Months After It Approved Them
Enlarge this image toggle caption Department of Interior / Screenshot by NPR Department of Interior / Screenshot by NPR
The Interior Department has grounded its fleet of more than 800 drones, citing potential cybersecurity risks and the need to support U.S. drone production – suggesting the move is aimed at least in part at China, a leading drone producer.
Interior Secretary David Bernhardt signed an order on Wednesday grounding the drones, formalizing a "pause" he ordered nearly three months ago.
"We've had only 12 drone flights since that time for emergency operations related to fires and floods," DOI Spokesperson Carol Danko said.
In his order, Bernhardt does not say whether his department has determined that its drones were somehow susceptible to being hacked. But he did say that information collected during drone flights could be "valuable to foreign entities, organizations, and governments."
The secretary's order also doesn't mention China — but that country was cited as a key factor in the initial decision to ground the fleet last year.
In late October, Bernhardt "directed that drones manufactured in China or made from Chinese components be grounded," as The Verge reported last fall, citing another department spokesperson.
The Chinese drone giant DJI — which has worked with the U.S. government to allay security concerns about its drones — issued a statement Wednesday saying it is "extremely disappointed" by the Interior Department's move.
"We are opposed to the politically-motivated country of origin restrictions masquerading as cybersecurity concerns," DJI said in a statement published on its website.
In 2018, the Interior Department reported making 10,432 drone flights — part of a broad expansion of its use of the aircraft under President Trump. When the agency announced that figure last summer, it said it employs "400 FAA certified and DOI trained operators" in 42 states.
The Interior Department has used its drones for a variety of purposes, from surveying federal lands to collecting research data and helping law enforcement. But for the foreseeable future, all but the most vital missions are on hold.
DJI makes special "government edition" versions of two of its drones specifically for the Interior Department: the Matrice 600 Pro and Mavic Pro. Both models are listed as being in the U.S. agency's drone fleet.
The Chinese company announced last summer that the Interior Department had independently validated its "high-security" drones during a 15-month testing period. The department seemed to agree, releasing a 53-page report in July recommending it use the special DJI drones.
The aircraft include firmware and software that is tailored to meet the agency's requirements, DJI said.
But in Bernhardt's order, he noted that the president had signed a memorandum in June stating, "I hereby determine ... the domestic production capability for small unmanned aerial systems is essential to the national defense."
The memo said that without presidential action, "United States industry cannot reasonably be expected to provide the production capability for small unmanned aerial systems adequately and in a timely manner."
As he cited that presidential determination, Bernhardt said his agency is taking action for a variety of reasons, "which include cybersecurity, technological consideration, and facilitating domestic production capability."
The secretary's order to ground the fleet is open-ended: it will remain in effect until it is revoked, and the order does not include an expiration date.
"Drone operations will continue to be allowed in approved situations for emergency purposes, such as fighting wildfires, search and rescue, and dealing with natural disasters that may threaten life or property," Danko said.


npr--2020-01-29--U.S. Has Deployed New, Small Nukes On Submarine, According To Group

U.S. Has Deployed New , Small Nukes On Submarine , According To Group The U.S. has begun deploying a new type of low-yield nuclear warhead aboard some ballistic missile submarines , according to a report by an independent monitor .
When the USS Tennessee , an Ohio-class submarine , went on patrol in the final weeks of 2019 , it carried `` one or two '' of the new weapons , according to a post by the Federation of American Scientists .
`` It is apparently still out there now and expected to come back sometime in February , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group 's nuclear information project .
He believes a second submarine carrying the weapon may also be patrolling in the Pacific .
Kristensen says the assessment is based on conversations with government officials , who have spoken to the group about the weapon 's deployment .
The Pentagon officially declined to comment on the report : `` It is U.S. policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence of nuclear weapons at any general or specific location , as such , we can not confirm or deny this reporting at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written statement to NPR .
The warheads were produced by the Department of Energy over the past year .
An Energy Department spokesperson confirmed to NPR in November that they had been transferred to the U.S. Navy .
The weapon is known as the W76-2 , and it appears superficially identical to the much more powerful W76-1 nuclear weapons carried by the same submarines .
But unlike those thermonuclear whoppers , the W76-2 has a relatively `` small '' yield of perhaps , 5 kilotons — or about one-third the size of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was developed in response to the Trump Administration 's Nuclear Posture Review , which outlined the need for smaller nukes .
Much of that need centers around Russia , which the administration says is preparing to use small nukes in a conflict .
The idea is that Russia would use relatively low-yield nuclear weapon to get a superior adversary such as the U.S. or NATO to back down in a conflict , according to Katarzyna Zysk , who studies Russian military doctrine at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies in Oslo .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of vague statements about nuclear use recently , while deploying several systems that are capable of carrying smaller `` tactical '' nuclear weapons .
Deploying a weapon such as the W76-2 undermines any Russian strategy of using small nukes in a conflict , she says , because it gives the U.S. a way to respond without rolling out the big ones .
`` That 's the simple logic , '' she says .
But critics warn that the strategy carries huge risks .
For one thing , there is no way for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the launch of a ballistic missile tipped with a low-yield warhead and one carrying a `` large '' warhead .
The Russians , monitoring U.S. launches , could easily confuse the two .
Perhaps the greater risk , Kristensen warns , is that a tit-for-tat exchange of small nuclear weapons could lead to a larger nuclear war .
`` Once you start popping nukes , the bets are off , '' he says .

U.S. Has Deployed New, Small Nukes On Submarine, According To Group
Enlarge this image toggle caption Petty Officer 1st Class James Kimber/U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class James Kimber/U.S. Navy
The U.S. has begun deploying a new type of low-yield nuclear warhead aboard some ballistic missile submarines, according to a report by an independent monitor.
When the USS Tennessee, an Ohio-class submarine, went on patrol in the final weeks of 2019, it carried "one or two" of the new weapons, according to a post by the Federation of American Scientists.
"It is apparently still out there now and expected to come back sometime in February," says Hans Kristensen, director of the group's nuclear information project. He believes a second submarine carrying the weapon may also be patrolling in the Pacific.
Kristensen says the assessment is based on conversations with government officials, who have spoken to the group about the weapon's deployment.
The Pentagon officially declined to comment on the report: "It is U.S. policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence of nuclear weapons at any general or specific location, as such, we cannot confirm or deny this reporting at this time," it said in a written statement to NPR.
The warheads were produced by the Department of Energy over the past year. An Energy Department spokesperson confirmed to NPR in November that they had been transferred to the U.S. Navy.
The weapon is known as the W76-2, and it appears superficially identical to the much more powerful W76-1 nuclear weapons carried by the same submarines. But unlike those thermonuclear whoppers, the W76-2 has a relatively "small" yield of perhaps, 5 kilotons — or about one-third the size of the Hiroshima bomb, according to Kristensen. It was developed in response to the Trump Administration's Nuclear Posture Review, which outlined the need for smaller nukes.
Much of that need centers around Russia, which the administration says is preparing to use small nukes in a conflict. The idea is that Russia would use relatively low-yield nuclear weapon to get a superior adversary such as the U.S. or NATO to back down in a conflict, according to Katarzyna Zysk, who studies Russian military doctrine at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies in Oslo.
Zysk says that Russia has made a number of vague statements about nuclear use recently, while deploying several systems that are capable of carrying smaller "tactical" nuclear weapons. Deploying a weapon such as the W76-2 undermines any Russian strategy of using small nukes in a conflict, she says, because it gives the U.S. a way to respond without rolling out the big ones. "That's the simple logic," she says.
But critics warn that the strategy carries huge risks. For one thing, there is no way for a potential adversary to tell the difference between the launch of a ballistic missile tipped with a low-yield warhead and one carrying a "large" warhead. The Russians, monitoring U.S. launches, could easily confuse the two.
Perhaps the greater risk, Kristensen warns, is that a tit-for-tat exchange of small nuclear weapons could lead to a larger nuclear war. "Once you start popping nukes, the bets are off," he says.