and the mail says nasa has revealed what the paper claims is the strongest evidence yet that alien life may exist. now on bbc news, it is time for newsnight. 10,000 kilograms of bomb, the biggest no—nuke ever deployed, —— non—nuke deloyed by the us, dropped onto the tunnels used by isis in afghanistan. is america trying to tell us something? we are so proud of our military and it was another successful event. did you authorise it too? uh, everybody knows exactly what happened, so what i do is, i authorise my military. it was a device like this. it seems the us military made the decision to use it. we'll ask if it's a sign of a military more willing to flex its muscle? meet the jams. we've been hearing for ages about the squeezed middles and the just about managing, but now the government is helpfully defining who they are. is that a good idea?
and in other news, life on the moon. 0r, kind of in a moon of saturn. possibly. but should we even be looking for extra—terrestrials? hello. gbu—as/b massive 0rd nance air blast, or moab. it's a huge bomb. and it was dropped in afghanistan earlier today, aimed at the tunnels used by the afghan branch of so—called islamic state. the americans have never used a conventional weapon this powerful in combat, and given everything that has been happening in us foreign policy, it is no wonder that everybody is trying to work out what it means. now, don't fall for some of the hyperbole — it's huge, but it would take more than a thousand of these to make one hiroshima.
but does it tell us something about the willingness of the us military to flex its muscle in the world? i'm joined by our diplomatic editor mark urban. as a bomb, is this a big threshold through which the world has passed today? i'm not sure. the raf‘s grand slam that was dropped in world war ii was just slightly below this in size. these sort of super bombs are clearly meant to have some kind of propaganda or psychological operations effect. but if you go back in afghanistan to the early days of american operations after 9/11 in 2001—2, they dropped several examples of a thing called the blu82 daisy cutter which is only slightly smaller than this. so this mega— bomb theory has been tried before. you could argue that they were doing it in 2001 and they are still doing it, so the effect can't be that great. do you think it is political signalling, or is it a political tactic that someone has tried?
it was characterised today by the white house as a thing that came from the military. it was mentioned that the commander in afghanistan wanted this to deal with this cave system. and i think it's like other things we have been seeing. you have a military which under president 0bama, there were often chafing at the bit and would be complaining to us that they felt restricted in what they could do. now under president trump, far less so. it seems general matias is fully empowered to take all kinds of decisions and we are seeing the consequences of that in many different places. the announcement was certainly headline—grabbing — the use of a huge munition to attack a cave complex in afghanistan. the so—called mother of all bombs is so big that it drops
from the tail ramp of a hercules transport aircraft. when it detonates, it creates a one—mile—radius shock wave. so whose idea was this? the white house characterised it as a military decision. the united states takes the fight against isis very seriously. in order to defeat the group, we must deny them operational space, which we did. the united states took all precautions necessary to prevent civilian casualties and collateral damage as a result of the operation. a little later, president trump was asked about it. we're very, very proud of our military. just like we're proud of the folks in this room, we are so proud of our military, and it was another successful event. did you authorise it, sir? everybody knows exactly what happened. what i do is, i authorise my military. we have the greatest military in the world, and they have done the job, as usual. so we have given them total authorisation. the new administration launched a special operations raid
in yemen in january. it stepped up activities in libya and newsnight understands that it has also deployed us special operators in mogadishu, somalia, for the first time since 1993. but the biggest operational change has come in the campaign against the is group in iraq and syria. there, raids have been stepped up and the rules of engagement relaxed, leading to claims that civilian casualties have spiked significantly. in fact, the number of actions in syria for march were down slightly. the number of targets hit by the americans was down. but the number of civilian deaths we think likely went up sixfold. we think more than 300 civilians died in march as a result of us actions. we've never seen numbers like that before. i think that is the clearest indication yet that the rules are changing and civilians are at greater risk of harm because of that. early reports suggest that it was a military decision
to drop such a big weapon in afghanistan, and that seems to be the pattern of a president who has devolved considerable powers to the pentagon to prosecute a more aggressive campaign against militant groups. kurt volker is the former us ambassador to nato and joins us from washington. do you think this is a significant change in the relationship between the government of the us and the military? have they unleashed the military to do what they will? i would phrase that differently. there is a change, but the change is to give the military a clearer and more ambitious mission and to then give them the authorisation to carry that out, not to act without any constraint of law, not to act in ways that would have the us committing war crimes, but to say the mission is to destroy isis. the mission is to stabilise afghanistan. go and do that.
what we had previously was a lot of micromanagement of decisions. what ordnance will we use? how much free reign with the military have? the mission for isis was to degrade rather than destroy it? this is giving the military a clear mission and giving them authority to carry that out. do you welcome that? i certainly do. it is important not only for the military to be effective, it is an important signal to adversaries, whether it is isis or the taliban, that they will now face an american and a coalition force that is prepared to actually do what is necessary to win and do the job. that will have an effect on their morale, psychology and operations. it will give momentum back to the international effort. so you used the word i was going to put in my next question, which is signalling. do you think signalling is an important part of a military strategy? you mentioned syria and isis.
the one a lot of people are thinking about is kim jong—un and north korea. do you think there is any element of deciding on these things in order to say to someone like him, watch out? i think it does start as an operational and effectiveness question. what does it take to be effective? here, it is targeting the mission in afghanistan, targeting isis and th taliban. that is the starting point. that said, when you are conveying to the world that the united states is willing to take decisions and act and will be effective, that is a signal that will be picked up by people around the world, probably in a fortuitous way. that someone like kim jong—un in north korea will be thinking twice about the seriousness and effectiveness of the us. what do we think about the civilian deaths? i mean, we have been hearing more of them in syria. one of the things 0bama wanted to do was to improve the reputation and image of the us around the world.
it seemed that every civilian death paid him personally. i wonder whether that pendulum is going to swing back the other way and the us will take some brand damage if it is shown to be more willing to have collateral damage. actually, it speaks well of president 0bama that he was so pained at civilian deaths. we should do everything possible to minimise that. we have to balance this in terms of proportionality and achieving the mission. the reason we are in afghanistan, the reason we are in syria is because of isis, because of the assad regime, because of the chemical weapons used in syria, what they have done to their own populations. without us involvement, there are already 11 million refugees that have spilled out of syria fleeing the conflict, 500,000 people killed. so i agree with the sentiment, that we need to do what we can
to minimise civilian casualties, but we can't minimise to the extent that we are not having an impact on the conflict. do you think the president knew this was about to happen this afternoon, or do you think he has delegated so much that he is told afterwards or sees it on cnn? i don't have a window into the way the briefings work inside the white house. i do believe that he is someone who is going to give the military and general mattis a mission and say, go do it. i also believe general mattis and others will be briefing constantly. they will be letting the president know the status of operations. so in normal circumstances, i think he would have been briefed. ambassador, thanks very much. the oxford dictionary‘s word of the year for 2011 was "squeezed middle". it was the group identified by ed miliband as needing a bit of tender loving care, working people, often working long hours, he said. mr miliband famously struggled to define the group.
it was around average income, he said, not on six—figure salaries. well, hard—working families have long been politically appealing. then theresa may famously talked of jams — the just about managing. thenjams became 0wfs — ordinary working families. but it is only now that any government has tried to pin down the concept. as part of its thinking on grammar schools, the government has tied itself to a definition of who they are. it's the group of working families on below average income, but not living on benefits. is it useful to think about this group as a defined tribe? we'll discuss that shortly, but first here's chris cook. today, we got some clarity about an important question. who exactly are these ordinary working families that the government keeps going on about? we do want to start to provide a clear analysis of the situation of how these children of ordinary working families are faring in our education system and for measuring how our wider reforms can do better for
these families and so better for the country. this group, the 0wfs, are successes to a previous favourite of theresa may's, the just about managings, orjams. let's think about who we are talking about when i talk about the just about managing. these are people who have a job but worry about their job security or have a home but worry about paying the mortgage. who. then. goes in the jamjar? e who is an 0wf? the government has had a definition. families that on the medium. bel-m meelamﬁrﬁmﬁm -, — it depends. the median income for up two parent family with two teenage children is £33,000.
for a lone parent with one young child, it is £70,000. the amount varies with your family type. education purists have been puzzling today about why the government is so interested in these so—called 0wfs. that is because the research that ministers have published doesn't really make the case that the 0wfs have been particularly overlooked. for example, the 0wfs, unlike the poorest children, don't seem to have particular trouble getting into good schools, be they comprehensive or selective. and while it is true that across england, the richer you are, the better your grades seem to be, and that is a particular problem for the 0wfs. it is not unique to them, it is a problem for the whole education system. but the 0wf analysis helps the government grammar schools.
a lot more 0wfs schools getting to selective schools than the poorest. but many remain sceptical. we have looked at the outcome of all of those living in selected areas and factored in the losers as well as winners. where you have an area with a concentration of grammar schools, the children who don't get into those schools suffer a gcse penalty by comparison with similar children who live in a comprehensive area. what we see from this new ordinary working families group is that while they may have their access to grammar schools, actually, the majority of them would expect not to get a place in a grammar school. that means that they would not be benefiting. they would be in the group that are missing out. ms greening today hinted at measures to address the fact that grammars do take disproportionate numbers of wealthier children. but the politics get a little muddy here. some of her supporters don't want her to push too hard there. i certainly don't think quotas are a good idea and i would be
concerned to see a dramatic reduction in the pass mark. i think we should be pragmatic about how we do this, but it would be reasonable to say to existing grammar schools and to new ones, let's try our hardest to make this system is fair as it can be. we want to make sure that opportunities are open to everybody who can benefit from them. there is another reason to focus on the jams, or the 0wfs — politics. in focus groups all the time, people talk and define themselves as the people stuck in the middle who are too well off to get the support that poor people get and not well enough to manage without it. they feel neglected by politicians. it is certainly helpful for this prime minister to pitch to people in the middle. fall} é‘l’: "5 z’eziz’ and one of the brains behind the genservatiyss= ‘big society‘ strategy. polly billington was special advisor to ed miliband,
because they make better graphics, but there was a shift? as i understand that there was a shift when the mandarins, now not popular with theresa may, looked at what just about managing looked like, firstly there was not enough of them and secondly they looked too poor to switch to voting tory anyway. out is a slightly broader... a broader term, includes more people and does go further up the income scale. big question, is it useful to focus on this group because we are talking about one third of families. i think it is worth asking who has politics been about since the times of mrs thatcher? i would argue predominantly for the most part it has only been about the top 10% and the bottom 10%. and arguably all policy and politics
has really been in the interests of the top 10% and the concern for the bottom 10% is done so to justify that settlement. so i think the concern with something else is more spoken to before, things like brexit, trump, going beyond button or become explainable. what is clear is that we have significant groups in this country who feel they are being ignored so it is not wrong to try to centre policy around them, and i think in part, you know, this is to be welcomed. is that what your former boss tried to do, polly? what i think you have a problem with here, is you will come unstuck of your politics and
policy are not aligned. of the squeezed middle, allure, the same with the just about managing. people think they are ordinary then they are extraordinary, they think they are ordinary working people are not working, they think they are a family when they are not family. so you can include everybody. if your policy only affects a small number of people, and everyone else will think, wait a minute, i thought this was for the many, not the few, and i am not entitled to it. that is where things get unstuck. what you have you with this grammar school policy which in principle of places are available for this 50% core of peopll how can that be seen as a progressive their policy
when two thirds of the places will be kept for the 50% that are the richest? £15552; §$:: zim: egg—ee—egzz—mme what is the effective argument that says, i should be more worried about the person who is 60th in the list of poor people rather than the person who is... you can deploy a range of arguments to make this point. i repeat, these other people who have been ignored over the past goodness knows how long. i thought ed miliband, who's made some great contributions to conservative thinking, really hit it right with the squeeze medal. but where labour went wrong was that they came with a small—bore offer, only speaking to those on limited incomes, or those on benefits, let's go mad, look at the now famous elephant graph which shows basically over the last 30 years that globalisation has not benefited middle or working—class people only super
rich people and the poor in the third world. so he makes the argument quite convincingly that these people haven't experienced any real increase in incomes for long time. that's why it makes sense to speak to them. not only that but if you look at modern britain today £752 hﬁlizz §ifiis éiééiifﬁséfﬁ iifij decline or relative stagnation almost anywhere on that ladder so people feel, wherever they are, the middle is by definition... people are feeling penalised so i think it is good politics and if the conservatives come up with a... i don't think this is that and that is part of the problem. in that area. polly, can you think of an area? financial security more generally,
phillip makes a good point but if you think of accessing work that is more secure, because work is becoming more flexible that means people spend more time feeling a bit on the edge, and making sure that people have something they could fall back on, not for ever but while they are flexing between jobs, the fact that more people are experiencing that flexibility, notjust hipsters on their laptop but the people on the street corner waiting... we have no through life education option for people. we educate ourselves intensely at 221 and then nothing. what we have to develop, and this will be anotherjams policy is a 2— life education officer so anyone can retrain at any point in their lives.
with robotics and ai, everyone will suffer. lots to say about the jams and the alfs. it's going to be hugely important weekend in turkey, a referendum on the weekend could transform the country from a slightly dysfunctional parliamentary democracy to a full on presidential system. the man who stands to reign supreme is president erdogan, very much to the concern of civil libertarians and liberal secularists. he has dominated turkish practically, there will be no prime minister, he will be the leader of his party and the president so there will be in turkey, a violent kurdish insurgency and attacks by the islamic state group have all been used to justify a state of emergency so would a newly empowered president be better equipped to face these challenges?
countries in the multiple conflicts engulfing the region; ' ~ ' ,,, then that is a good thing for the region. but only if a stronger erdogan means a more stable, more certain turkey. i spoke earlier to ilnur cevik, chief adviser to president erdogan. started by asking him if we should be worried the proposed constitutional changes will give president erdogan much power. not really, because actually what he is doing is, he is shedding power. fgniiﬁﬂs tr; lﬁﬂﬁi'ﬁi rig"? e3115 71:7: . has dictatorial powers. he has the powers of a junta leader because the presidential powers were given, designed for a junta leader after the 1980 coup. but let's just be clear, does president erdogan,
after the referendum, if he gets his way, he will have power to appoint half the senior judges, his own vice presidents, he will be able to make law? that's not true. no, not true. he can only appoint only four of the judges and seven judges are being appointed by the parliament. by the parliament, of the seniorjudges, yes, he appoints half of them. yes. he can hire and fire civil servants and of course he can make law by executive order. the reason why constitutional experts are worried about it is precisely because it gives them so much power. just a minute. the presidential executive orders can be overruled by the parliament. if there is any law that clashes with the executive orders, then, the law overrides the executive order. why do you think so many constitutional experts and others are worried as hell about what turkey looks like it's about to embark upon? truly, it's hard to understand why, because we wanted
a brand—new constitution. we wanted everything from nil. to bring a new system, scrap the military drafted constitution, and change everything. but we didn't have the majority to do that, so all we could do is suffice with the changes that willjust bring a clear—cut distinction between separation of power and allow the president to run the country while the legislative really does its legislative work. and was the president wrong when he said on february 12th that the referendum would be an answer to the coup and that those who vote no, vote against him in the referendum, will be siding with the coup and siding with terrorists, as some of the akp party leaders have been saying? well, look at it this way.
the coup was a stark reminder of what is in store for turkey in the future as well. the coup was a kind of, unfortunately, referendum by the people who flocked into the streets and defended democracy. they braved tanks, they braved f—16 fighters, and the people of turkey stood by democracy in those days. and now we are saying that we're switching to a new system so that we never have these things. we never have these interventions. would you be happy if president erdogan saw out another full two terms under the new constitution and would thus have been in power for 25 years? does that strike you as good governance, good leadership and a good way for turkey to go? well, if the people vote for it,
if they are satisfied with the way he runs the country, why not? they may get fed up with him in the next two years, nobody knows. i mean, nothing is certain. and if erdogan shows bad leadership, let's put it this way, if people are unhappy with the way he's running the country, the parliament can easily take the country to early elections. the eu does not seem very enthusiastic about these constitutional changes, to say the least. does it bother you that the eu and your prospect of eu membership is receding further into the distant, nonexistent future? not really, because we're not sure where the eu is going anyway. we are trying to get into the eu, while you guys are trying to get out! the irony is, we have been pushing and pushing and pushing
and they haven't accepted us for the past 5a years. we've been at the doorstep, being treated like beggars. and our people are very, very unhappy about that and we see our friends back in britain with brexit coming out of the eu, and we are saying, is it really worth all the effort? but we will see after the referendum, the president will sit down with the eu leaders, and i think we will really ask for an account of what has happened until now. ilnur cevik, very nice to talk to you, thank you very much. a pause for thought now, because it's time for viewsnight. tonight, heart surgeon stephen westaby wonders whether we are unwittingly pushing his profession into a culture that runs away from risk. politics is destroying british heart surgery. british heart surgery used to be the best in the world.
we were at the centre of research and innovation. over the past 35 years, i've performed almost 12,000 heart operations for the nhs. but now heart surgery has been suffocated by a culture of blame. british heart surgeons are becoming a rare breed. after the bristol children's heart inquiry and the infamous staffordshire hospitals scandal, nhs england decided to publish surgeons' death rates under the banner of improving transparency. mortality rates were published hastily, newspapers named and shamed, careers were ruined. the implication was that surgeons have responsibility for every death. most deaths actually occur when a common post—operative complication isn't managed well. this happens most at nights and weekends in the presence of temporary staff. we call this failure to rescue.
so who has the highest death rates? is it the worst surgeon or the best? surely the best surgeon should have the highest death rates because they take the worst cases. now we have an elephant in the consulting room. surgeons are becoming risk averse and the sickest patients go without surgery. prospective surgeons are now discouraged from entering such a high risk specialty. in 2000, 70% of heart surgery trainees came from british universities. by 2015, this number was 14%. so the nhs now relies on heart surgeons who have trained in other countries. british heart surgery is dying for political principle. publishing surgeons death rates has not provided shorter waiting times, improved facilities, consistent surgical teams or the of life—saving equipment, with the nhs crumbling around us it is time to ditch the blame and shame culture and give us the tools to do the job. stephen westaby there.
he has recently written his memoir — fragile lives — about his work as a heart surgeon. now, this next story should probably have been the lead on this programme, but it is just possible that it is a lot of hype and one to be ignored. the news is that nasa has made a pretty dramatic statement about the possibility of life existing inside one of saturn's moons. nasa tells us that its cassini spacecraft has flown within 120 kilometres of the moon enceladus, where they use metric measurements, and they have found hydrogen molecules, which was the last piece of evidence they were looking for that microbial life may exist. in a moment, we'll discuss whether humans should be looking for alien life at all — but first, we are joined from washington by dr mary voytek, the head of nasa's astrobiology programme. how big a moment is this? this is an incredible moment. we have been waiting for evidence just like this since we first discovered
that there were ocean worlds outside of our own earth. the mantra of nasa has been, follow the water. if we find lots of water in these oceans, we find evidence of organics and the building blocks of life and now we have found a source of energy. an incredible moment for us. what is the terrain we are talking about and how similar is it to anything you might find on this planet? so the hydrogen is being produced because the core of enceladus is very porous. so ocean water can move through it, get heated by energy from the core, interact with the rocks and then vent in some fashion into the overlying ocean water. a good example of this is what we find in our deep oceans, known as hydrothermal vents. we are not sure that we have these tall structures, but it's the same kind of chemistry.
as you may know, when we discovered these a0 years ago, we found them because they were surrounded by incredibly complex and beautiful ecosystems, giant worms, shrimp, fish, basically supported by energy coming out of these fluids from beneath the surface. i am not going to ask you to put a percentage chance on it, but when we say life is possible, does that mean we can't rule it out, or does it mean we are talking 50—50? give us a sense of how likely it would be. well, so, this is the first step in knowing that this environment could support life. whether or not life emerged, it is probably likely that it has emerged somewhere. i am not sure if it is on this
particular moon or if this moon has had enough time. on our own planet, recent results suggest that life emerged maybe within 400 million years of the formation of our planet. we think that this moon might be as young as 100 million years, we are not sure of its age. so we have all the ingredients, we are just not sure if there has been enough time for life to have emerged and started to take advantage of this food source. where would this life come from? this hasn't come from a meteorite flying around the solar system and planting life, this is life evolving out of the chemistry of the soup it sits in? absolutely. the idea of panspermia is something we talk about, which is sharing a genesis on one body by ceding the second one. that is something that could happen between the earth and mars where there has been a significant amount of material exchanged.
this is very far from us. enceladus is a billion kilometres away, so the likelihood that there would be seeding from earth out there is almost nil. so we would be talking about a second genesis. mary, thanks forjoining us. professor nick bostrom, director and founder of the future of humanity institute, at oxford university where he looks at understudied existential threats to the future of humanity. he wrote: "where are they — why i hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing". do you really feel that you don't want us to find it? i think no news is good news as far as the search for extraterrestrial life is concerned. it would be tremendously exciting and scientifically interesting, but i think it would be a bad omen for our own future. explain this to us,
because it is quite a complicated argument. why would it be bad to discover worms on another planet? in a nutshell, the idea is that we look out at the universe and we see a grand total of zero advanced to extraterrestrial civilisations. as far as we know, it looks empty out there. we know there are a lot of planets and moons. so there has got to be some great filter or something that takes these billions of planets and moons a hard that for life that then produces zero space colonising civilisations that we would have seen. there are two possibilities. this great filter could be behind us in our evolutionary past. maybe it is just really hard for life to produce even the simplest organisms or to evolve more compact life. or it could be in ourfuture. maybe all this sufficiently advanced civilisations destroyed themselves before they can colonise the universe. so if we do find life, it might be a sign that they are poised to destroy us?
which would be bad news. the other argument, maybe inspired by films we have seen, is that we become infected. if we find a little thing there and bring it back here, is that a plausible risk? it is a small risk, but a risk. 0n the one hand, we might discover a lot of useful stuff by investigating the different biochemistry. maybe we could find new drugs or organisms that would be useful. but you can't rule out the possibility that this life would have discovered some different metabolic pathway that is more efficient than earth's so if you brought it back, it could outcompete our microorganisms.
as somebody who thinks about the future of humanity in quite a deep way, how likely is it, do you think, that we will encounter intelligent life at any point? a lot of people speculate on ufos. is that tiny? it is very small. of course, a lot of cosmologists think the universe is literally infinite, in which case we can be pretty sure that there is intelligent life out there, but it might be so far away that we will never come into contact. but isn't that why we haven't encountered these intelligent species, it is because it takes too long to get around? but we know that even within a reasonable sea, and remember that the timescales are very large because the universe has been around for billions of years, so that would be a long time to cover quite far. even within the radius that we know a civilisation could have travelled, there are billions of planets and none of those has produced any space—faring civilisation so far as we can tell. mick, thanks very much. now, before we go, all of that data
about life on enceladus came from the space probe cassini. cassini was launched in 1997, and has been sending back astonishing information and images ever since it reached saturn in 200a. it will run out of fuel this autumn, and for its final, doomed, mission, it has been programmed to plunge through saturn's rings and burn out as it enters the planet's atmosphere. this is what nasa thinks the mission will look like. have a lovely easter. that will be a spectacular end. now the start of some rather unspectacular weather this weekend. a lot of dry weather around, just not as warm as it was last weekend, if you remember. we will all get to see sunshine at some stage. not a huge amount of rain, but there is some, especially for good friday and easter sunday. this is how it looks through the night. a couple of showers around and quite chilly in the clear areas. we begin to bring out rates of rain to northern
ireland, south—west scotland, north—west england, northwest wales late in the night. chillier than this in clearer path at the touch of frost here and there. it is already chilly in northern scotland tomorrow. this is the picture at 9am. showers around, some sunny spells. cloudierfor northern ireland, south—west scotland, north—west england and in the north—west england and in the north—west wales. notjust cloudy but some outbreaks of rain. patchy in nature. in north—west wales it will turn heavier into the afternoon. for much of southern england and across into east anglia it's a dry day to come and just like today there will be breaks in the cloud. sunshine to come through. when it shines it will be pleasantly warm. chilly in northern scotland. showers and maybe hail. 0utbreaks warm. chilly in northern scotland. showers and maybe hail. outbreaks of rainfor showers and maybe hail. outbreaks of rain for northern ireland. the rest of north—west england, in the north—west wales, turning heavier into the afternoon. through western counties into the evening as well.
16 in london, 93 is install more way. in the tomorrow evening there will be some outbreaks of rain pushing south. —— nine degrees in storm way. on saturday we all have some cooler air. it looks like saturday will be the coldest day of the easter weekend. there will still be some pleasant spells in the sun. temperatures are down on saturday, but not feeling bad. some showers around. most frequent on saturday in northern scotland. hail, thunder, wintry on the hills. chilly start the easter day. some outbreaks of rainfor many the easter day. some outbreaks of rain for many parts of northern ireland. that could change the position of that weather system. we will keep you updated. easter monday is breezy down eastern side the uk. lighter winds. a fair amount of dry weather for easter monday. welcome to newsday. the headlines: a
show of force in north korea, amid fears the military is about to carry out its sixth nuclear test. and the us military drops its largest non— nuclear bomb, seen here in test is, on so—called islamic state in afghanistan. we are so proud of our military, and it was another successful event. 1 billion kilometres away, nasser says one assassin‘s news may now be the best single place to look for life beyond earth —— nasa.