NUCLEAR.WIRE
NKorea says China's top nuclear envoy arrives
Softly, Japan turns down volume on NKorea
Russia starts nuclear deliveries to Iran
Bush seeks more pressure on Iran after Russia moves
Bush: Russian offer means Iran should freeze nuclear efforts
Major powers to consult over Iran sanctions on Tuesday: US
US: Russian deliveries show need for Iran nuclear freeze
Russian supplies prove Iran seeks bomb: Israeli minister
US: Russian deliveries another reason to freeze Iran nukes
Russian general says missiles could target US shield: report
Full Version: Nuclear Wire
Pakistan learns the US nuclear way
The United States has spent US$100 million helping Pakistan secure its nuclear weapons and the materials used to make them. Yet the US - which for years had the launch codes for its nuclear missiles cunningly set at 00000000 - suffers serious problems with securing its own nuclear weapons, nuclear materials and weapons-related information. (Dec 18, '07)
The United States has spent US$100 million helping Pakistan secure its nuclear weapons and the materials used to make them. Yet the US - which for years had the launch codes for its nuclear missiles cunningly set at 00000000 - suffers serious problems with securing its own nuclear weapons, nuclear materials and weapons-related information. (Dec 18, '07)
Bush has a little secret on Iran
A senior Iranian military defector is believed to have played a key part in convincing the US intelligence community to radically change its mind on Iran's nuclear program. And despite White House obfuscation, it appears President George W Bush knew all about the reversal at the beginning this year. - Gareth Porter (Dec 18, '07)
A senior Iranian military defector is believed to have played a key part in convincing the US intelligence community to radically change its mind on Iran's nuclear program. And despite White House obfuscation, it appears President George W Bush knew all about the reversal at the beginning this year. - Gareth Porter (Dec 18, '07)
NUCLEAR.WIRE
Major powers postpone consultations over Iran sanctions: US
China's top nuclear envoy inspects NKorea nuke disablement process
Iran sees Bushehr plant at full capacity in one year: official
China's top nuclear envoy arrives in NKorea: foreign ministry
Iran sees Bushehr plant working fully in one year: official
NKorea says China's top nuclear envoy arrives
Softly, Japan turns down volume on NKorea
Russia starts nuclear deliveries to Iran
Bush seeks more pressure on Iran after Russia moves
Bush: Russian offer means Iran should freeze nuclear efforts
Major powers postpone consultations over Iran sanctions: US
China's top nuclear envoy inspects NKorea nuke disablement process
Iran sees Bushehr plant at full capacity in one year: official
China's top nuclear envoy arrives in NKorea: foreign ministry
Iran sees Bushehr plant working fully in one year: official
NKorea says China's top nuclear envoy arrives
Softly, Japan turns down volume on NKorea
Russia starts nuclear deliveries to Iran
Bush seeks more pressure on Iran after Russia moves
Bush: Russian offer means Iran should freeze nuclear efforts
Outside View: The future of INF
Moscow (UPI) Dec 18, 2007 - Twenty years ago, on Dec. 8, 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in Washington. It was the first-ever treaty on reducing available arsenals. It brought the elimination of an entire type of nuclear missiles and set a practical example of openness by introducing mutual in situ checks for 13 years. Today, the United States ... more
Moscow (UPI) Dec 18, 2007 - Twenty years ago, on Dec. 8, 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in Washington. It was the first-ever treaty on reducing available arsenals. It brought the elimination of an entire type of nuclear missiles and set a practical example of openness by introducing mutual in situ checks for 13 years. Today, the United States ... more
India speeding up nuclear missile production
New Delhi (AFP) Dec 14, 2007 - Nuclear-armed India said on Friday it was ready to jump-start production of long-range nuclear missiles which can hit targets deep in China or Pakistan. V. K. Sarswat, the chief of India's missile development project, said the assembly lines were in place to speed up the production of the precision rockets. Military insiders told AFP the announcement was a response to reports of growing ... more
New Delhi (AFP) Dec 14, 2007 - Nuclear-armed India said on Friday it was ready to jump-start production of long-range nuclear missiles which can hit targets deep in China or Pakistan. V. K. Sarswat, the chief of India's missile development project, said the assembly lines were in place to speed up the production of the precision rockets. Military insiders told AFP the announcement was a response to reports of growing ... more
Bush seeks more pressure on Iran after Russia moves
Fredericksburg, Virginia (AFP) Dec 17, 2007 - US President George W. Bush said Monday that Russian deliveries of nuclear fuel to Iran only fed the need for the world to clamp down more firmly on Tehran's home-grown atomic work. And the US State Department announced consultations Tuesday with five other powers on a draft UN Security Council resolution imposing tougher sanctions on the Islamic republic for refusing to freeze uranium enric ... more
Fredericksburg, Virginia (AFP) Dec 17, 2007 - US President George W. Bush said Monday that Russian deliveries of nuclear fuel to Iran only fed the need for the world to clamp down more firmly on Tehran's home-grown atomic work. And the US State Department announced consultations Tuesday with five other powers on a draft UN Security Council resolution imposing tougher sanctions on the Islamic republic for refusing to freeze uranium enric ... more
<h3 class="entry-header">White House Announces (Secret) Nuclear Weapons Cuts</h3> 
By Hans M. Kristensen The While House announced earlier today that the President had "approved a significant reduction in the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile to take effect by the end of 2007." The decision reaffirmed an earlier decision from June 2004 to cut the stockpile "nearly 50 percent," but moved the timeline up five years from 2012 to 2007.
Not included in the White House statement, but added by other government officials, is an additional decision to cut the remaining stockpile by another 15% percent, although not until 2012.
The announcement of these important initiatives unfortunately was hampered by Cold War secrecy which meant that government officials were not allowed to reveal how many nuclear weapons will be cut or what the size of the stockpile is. As a result, news media accounts were full of errors, and one can only imagine the misperceptions this misplaced secrecy creates in other nuclear weapon states.
Estimates of the Secret Cuts
Before the latest announcements, I and my colleague Robert Norris estimated that the stockpile consisted of approximately 9,900 warheads of which roughly 4,600 were operational. With the new announcements, we predict the following development:
The White House announcement reaffirms the 2004 decision to reduce the size of the Defense Department's nuclear weapons stockpile "by nearly 50 percent from the 2001 level." This objective was reaffirmed by the naitonal Nuclear Security Administration in a press release earlier today. The DOD stockpile included roughly 10,500 warheads in 2001, which means that the 2004 stockpile plan probably envisioned a stockpile of some 5,400 warheads by 2012. It is this cut that the White House reaffirmed today, but implemented by the end of 2007 instead of 2012.
The additional 15 percent reduction announced today and confirmed by the White House would cut approximately 800 warheads more from the 5,400, resulting in an estimated stockpile of roughly 4,600 warheads by 2012.
At that time the SORT agreement signed with Russian in 2002 is scheduled to enter into effect, setting an upper limit of no more than 2,200 operationally deployed strategic warheads. The remaining 2,400 warheads will likely include 2,000 reserve warheads to "hedge" against unforseen political developments and 400 non-strategic bombs.
What Doesn't Change
The White House's announcement to implement the 2004 stockpile plan in 2007 does not mean that the "cut" warheads will have been dismantled by then - far from it. In fact, the decision to reduct the stockpile does not in itself result in the destruction of a single warhead. "Reducing" the stockpile by nearly half is a form of nuclear book keeping that means that ownership of the "cut" warheads will shift from DOD to DOE.
But DOE doesn't have storage capacity for all of these weapons at its facility at Pantex. That factory is busy rebuilding the warheads slated to remain in the "enduring stockpile" beyond 2012. As a result, dismantlement of the backlog of warheads from the current reductions is not scheduled to be completed until 2023, more than a decade-and-a-half after today's White House announcement to speed things up. Indeed, the current administration has demonstrated the lowest warhead dismantlement rate of any U.S. government since the Eisenhower administration.
So for now, most of the "cut" warheads will likely remain at the bases where they are and only gradually be moved to the central warhead storage locations such as Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. The only known timeline for this move is 2012, by which time no more than 2,200 strategic warheads can remain at bases for operational delivery platforms according to the SORT agreement.
Observations
The While House statement highlights that "the U.S. nuclear stockpile will be less than one-quarter its size at the end of the Cold War" [1991, ed.]. But the stockpile the administration plans for 2012 is large by post-Cold War standards:
* Four times the combined number of nuclear weapons of all the world’s nuclear weapons states, excluding Russia.
* Almost half of the stockpile – a maximum of 2,200 warheads – will be operational, and a third of those (more than 850) will be on alert.
* More than 10 times bigger than in 1950, when the United States decided to contain the Soviet Union.
Although the White House says the planned reductions seek to "reduce U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons," the statement not only reaffirms that "a credible deterrent remains an essential part of U.S. national security," but also declares that "nuclear forces remain key to meeting emerging security challenges."
In the weeks ahead, we will fine-tune this estimate further.
The W62 is the only nuclear warhead that has been publicly identified for elimination under the Bush administration's secret nuclear stockpile reduction plan.
Not included in the White House statement, but added by other government officials, is an additional decision to cut the remaining stockpile by another 15% percent, although not until 2012.
The announcement of these important initiatives unfortunately was hampered by Cold War secrecy which meant that government officials were not allowed to reveal how many nuclear weapons will be cut or what the size of the stockpile is. As a result, news media accounts were full of errors, and one can only imagine the misperceptions this misplaced secrecy creates in other nuclear weapon states.
Estimates of the Secret Cuts
Before the latest announcements, I and my colleague Robert Norris estimated that the stockpile consisted of approximately 9,900 warheads of which roughly 4,600 were operational. With the new announcements, we predict the following development:
The White House announcement reaffirms the 2004 decision to reduce the size of the Defense Department's nuclear weapons stockpile "by nearly 50 percent from the 2001 level." This objective was reaffirmed by the naitonal Nuclear Security Administration in a press release earlier today. The DOD stockpile included roughly 10,500 warheads in 2001, which means that the 2004 stockpile plan probably envisioned a stockpile of some 5,400 warheads by 2012. It is this cut that the White House reaffirmed today, but implemented by the end of 2007 instead of 2012.
The additional 15 percent reduction announced today and confirmed by the White House would cut approximately 800 warheads more from the 5,400, resulting in an estimated stockpile of roughly 4,600 warheads by 2012.
At that time the SORT agreement signed with Russian in 2002 is scheduled to enter into effect, setting an upper limit of no more than 2,200 operationally deployed strategic warheads. The remaining 2,400 warheads will likely include 2,000 reserve warheads to "hedge" against unforseen political developments and 400 non-strategic bombs.
Estimated U.S. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile 1945-2012
The Bush administration's planned reduction of the nuclear stockpile is significant but modest compared to the cuts in the 1990s, and will leave a stockpile that is four times larger than the combined arsenals of all other nuclear weapon states (excluding Russia).
The White House's announcement to implement the 2004 stockpile plan in 2007 does not mean that the "cut" warheads will have been dismantled by then - far from it. In fact, the decision to reduct the stockpile does not in itself result in the destruction of a single warhead. "Reducing" the stockpile by nearly half is a form of nuclear book keeping that means that ownership of the "cut" warheads will shift from DOD to DOE.
But DOE doesn't have storage capacity for all of these weapons at its facility at Pantex. That factory is busy rebuilding the warheads slated to remain in the "enduring stockpile" beyond 2012. As a result, dismantlement of the backlog of warheads from the current reductions is not scheduled to be completed until 2023, more than a decade-and-a-half after today's White House announcement to speed things up. Indeed, the current administration has demonstrated the lowest warhead dismantlement rate of any U.S. government since the Eisenhower administration.
So for now, most of the "cut" warheads will likely remain at the bases where they are and only gradually be moved to the central warhead storage locations such as Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. The only known timeline for this move is 2012, by which time no more than 2,200 strategic warheads can remain at bases for operational delivery platforms according to the SORT agreement.
Observations
The While House statement highlights that "the U.S. nuclear stockpile will be less than one-quarter its size at the end of the Cold War" [1991, ed.]. But the stockpile the administration plans for 2012 is large by post-Cold War standards:
* Four times the combined number of nuclear weapons of all the world’s nuclear weapons states, excluding Russia.
* Almost half of the stockpile – a maximum of 2,200 warheads – will be operational, and a third of those (more than 850) will be on alert.
* More than 10 times bigger than in 1950, when the United States decided to contain the Soviet Union.
Although the White House says the planned reductions seek to "reduce U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons," the statement not only reaffirms that "a credible deterrent remains an essential part of U.S. national security," but also declares that "nuclear forces remain key to meeting emerging security challenges."
In the weeks ahead, we will fine-tune this estimate further.
Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century 
Major US cities are hit after Russia launches some its 5,000 nuclear warheads in error due to its decaying warning system. This graphic opened Doomsday Machine I on History Channel‘s Modern Marvels in which FAS experts discussed the dangers. Image: History Channel Dec. 28, 2004.Nuclear weapons have been a focus of FAS work since its founding in 1945 by scientists concerned about control of the awesome new technology they had helped create.
Today we are often asked to speak on the dangers of radiological weapons known as dirty bombs. We inform on the dangers of nuclear weapons proliferation by individuals, non-state terrorists, or states. We follow next generation nuclear weapons development including proposed “bunker busters.”
We stay on top of the debate over resuming nuclear weapons testing. We track Administration policy and hard-to-find reports for Congress.
In January 2005 FAS released a study that asked: What missions remain for US nuclear weapons now, 15 years after the end of the Cold War? What rationales justify our keeping 6,000 deployed warheads, plus missiles, bombers and other support, at a cost of <$8 billion taxpayer dollars per year? Why does Russia try to keep <5,000 warheads officially deployed, though they are daily more prone to accidental launch against?
In Missions for Nuclear Weapons after the Cold War FAS Strategic Studies Project Director Ivan Oelrich finds that, of 15 missions claimed for US nuclear forces, only one justifies their present size and structure: a first strike against Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal. Our contined ability to execute such an attack, makes Russia keep its large force to deter us. The two nations stay locked in Cold War military postures, even though no stakes between us justify such holocaust.
“The US and Russian arsenals are the elephant in the living room that no one wants to talk about,” Oelrich says. “Yet millions of Americans could be killed after the launch of even part of the Russian force. By comparison, a dirty bomb attack most likely would kill hundreds of thousands.”
--
Try our NEW Bomb-A-City Calculator. Pick an American city. Pick the size of the bomb you wish to detonate virtually (1 kt to 4 MT). Choose your method of delivery (aircraft or automobile/suitcase). Then see the radius within which most buildings would be destroyed.
What can we do?
“November 2005 will mark the 15th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. This is the year to downsize and restructure both sides’ nuclear forces more drastically than is required by 2012 by the Moscow Treaty,” Oelrich said in releasing his report. How low should we go? Oelrich did the numbers in a paper published by the Institute for Defense Analyses in 2001.--
FAS urges individuals and groups to contact members of Congress to stop work on next generation nuclear weapons including “bunker busters.” FAS urges cool-headed, technically accurate tracking of proliferation issues concerning North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and others. FAS urges citizens to inform themselves about Administration policy and Congressional reports by visting our new Documents page.
Major US cities are hit after Russia launches some its 5,000 nuclear warheads in error due to its decaying warning system. This graphic opened Doomsday Machine I on History Channel‘s Modern Marvels in which FAS experts discussed the dangers. Image: History Channel Dec. 28, 2004.Nuclear weapons have been a focus of FAS work since its founding in 1945 by scientists concerned about control of the awesome new technology they had helped create.Today we are often asked to speak on the dangers of radiological weapons known as dirty bombs. We inform on the dangers of nuclear weapons proliferation by individuals, non-state terrorists, or states. We follow next generation nuclear weapons development including proposed “bunker busters.”
We stay on top of the debate over resuming nuclear weapons testing. We track Administration policy and hard-to-find reports for Congress.
In January 2005 FAS released a study that asked: What missions remain for US nuclear weapons now, 15 years after the end of the Cold War? What rationales justify our keeping 6,000 deployed warheads, plus missiles, bombers and other support, at a cost of <$8 billion taxpayer dollars per year? Why does Russia try to keep <5,000 warheads officially deployed, though they are daily more prone to accidental launch against?
In Missions for Nuclear Weapons after the Cold War FAS Strategic Studies Project Director Ivan Oelrich finds that, of 15 missions claimed for US nuclear forces, only one justifies their present size and structure: a first strike against Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal. Our contined ability to execute such an attack, makes Russia keep its large force to deter us. The two nations stay locked in Cold War military postures, even though no stakes between us justify such holocaust.
“The US and Russian arsenals are the elephant in the living room that no one wants to talk about,” Oelrich says. “Yet millions of Americans could be killed after the launch of even part of the Russian force. By comparison, a dirty bomb attack most likely would kill hundreds of thousands.”
--
Try our NEW Bomb-A-City Calculator. Pick an American city. Pick the size of the bomb you wish to detonate virtually (1 kt to 4 MT). Choose your method of delivery (aircraft or automobile/suitcase). Then see the radius within which most buildings would be destroyed.
What can we do?
“November 2005 will mark the 15th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. This is the year to downsize and restructure both sides’ nuclear forces more drastically than is required by 2012 by the Moscow Treaty,” Oelrich said in releasing his report. How low should we go? Oelrich did the numbers in a paper published by the Institute for Defense Analyses in 2001.--
FAS urges individuals and groups to contact members of Congress to stop work on next generation nuclear weapons including “bunker busters.” FAS urges cool-headed, technically accurate tracking of proliferation issues concerning North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and others. FAS urges citizens to inform themselves about Administration policy and Congressional reports by visting our new Documents page.
Ways of Knowing About Weapons: The Cold War's End at the Los Alamos National Laboratory This is a Ph.D. dissertation by Dr. Laura McNamara, completed at the University of New Mexico Department of Anthropology in 2001. This dissertation is a cultural anthropology of the nuclear weapons program at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
This is a Ph.D. dissertation by Dr. Laura McNamara, completed at the University of New Mexico Department of Anthropology in 2001. This dissertation is a cultural anthropology of the nuclear weapons program at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
India adds oomph to its space race
India's development of a cryogenic engine places it in the ranks of China, the US, Japan, Russia and Europe when it comes to rocket power. The engines are used for communications satellites and will allow India to compete for the commercial satellite market. For less peaceful purposes, the engine will ramp up India's ballistic missile capabilities. - Siddharth Srivastava (Dec 19, '07)
India's development of a cryogenic engine places it in the ranks of China, the US, Japan, Russia and Europe when it comes to rocket power. The engines are used for communications satellites and will allow India to compete for the commercial satellite market. For less peaceful purposes, the engine will ramp up India's ballistic missile capabilities. - Siddharth Srivastava (Dec 19, '07)
Nonproliferation
Understanding the NIE
In a new proliferation analysis, Carnegie Senior Associate Sharon Squassoni discusses the implications of the unclassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran. She explores why the NIE has become controversial and what it really says—and does not say—about Iran's intentions and capabilities.
Assessing the National Intelligence Estimate
While the NIE technically removes the “nuclear weapon program” label from Iranian uranium enrichment and plutonium production activities, Iran continues to pose a potential real threat, argues Carnegie's George Perkovich in a new analysis. Perkovich updates his 2005 Report, Changing Iran’s Nuclear Interests, which suggested the possibility that Iran decided in 2003 to cease clandestine activities in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Weighing the Impact of Iran's Uranium Program
Carnegie's Pierre Goldschmidt recently appeared on NPR's Morning Edition to discuss the impact of Iran's uranium enrichment program in the context of the December 3 release of the unclassified NIE on Iran. Even if Iran has, as reported, stopped its efforts to build a nuclear weapon, it continues to pursue uranium enrichment and other technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons. According to Goldschmidt, the NIE did not draw a clear distinction between the intention to develop nuclear weapons and the intention to develop nuclear weapons capability.
What Will Happen to Diplomatic Efforts with Iran?
In a recent Weekend Edition Sunday on NPR, Carnegie's Karim Sadjadpour spoke with Michele Kelemen on Iranian–U.S. negotiating positions in light of the release of the latest NIE. U.S. intelligence services say that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons program; Russia and China are likely to continue to resist the tough diplomatic approach favored by the U.S. If Washington drops those conditions, it could look weak in the face of Iranian hardliners.
Time to Talk to Iran
In the Washington Post, Carnegie Senior Associate Robert Kagan suggests a new course of action for the Bush Administration following the release of the NIE on Iran: opening direct talks between the United States and Iran. "With its policy tools broken, the Bush administration can sit around isolated for the next year," writes Kagan. "Or it can seize the initiative, and do the next administration a favor, by opening direct talks with Tehran."
Risks and Realities: The "New Nuclear Energy Revival"
In Arms Control Today, Carnegie's Sharon Squassoni writes about the "new nuclear energy revival." "Concern about greenhouse gas emissions and energy security combined with forecasts of strong growth in electricity demand has awakened dormant interest in nuclear energy," she writes. "Yet, the industry has not yet fully addressed the issues that have kept global nuclear energy capacity roughly the same for the last two decades."
Understanding the NIEIn a new proliferation analysis, Carnegie Senior Associate Sharon Squassoni discusses the implications of the unclassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran. She explores why the NIE has become controversial and what it really says—and does not say—about Iran's intentions and capabilities.
Assessing the National Intelligence EstimateWhile the NIE technically removes the “nuclear weapon program” label from Iranian uranium enrichment and plutonium production activities, Iran continues to pose a potential real threat, argues Carnegie's George Perkovich in a new analysis. Perkovich updates his 2005 Report, Changing Iran’s Nuclear Interests, which suggested the possibility that Iran decided in 2003 to cease clandestine activities in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Weighing the Impact of Iran's Uranium ProgramCarnegie's Pierre Goldschmidt recently appeared on NPR's Morning Edition to discuss the impact of Iran's uranium enrichment program in the context of the December 3 release of the unclassified NIE on Iran. Even if Iran has, as reported, stopped its efforts to build a nuclear weapon, it continues to pursue uranium enrichment and other technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons. According to Goldschmidt, the NIE did not draw a clear distinction between the intention to develop nuclear weapons and the intention to develop nuclear weapons capability.
What Will Happen to Diplomatic Efforts with Iran? In a recent Weekend Edition Sunday on NPR, Carnegie's Karim Sadjadpour spoke with Michele Kelemen on Iranian–U.S. negotiating positions in light of the release of the latest NIE. U.S. intelligence services say that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons program; Russia and China are likely to continue to resist the tough diplomatic approach favored by the U.S. If Washington drops those conditions, it could look weak in the face of Iranian hardliners.
Time to Talk to IranIn the Washington Post, Carnegie Senior Associate Robert Kagan suggests a new course of action for the Bush Administration following the release of the NIE on Iran: opening direct talks between the United States and Iran. "With its policy tools broken, the Bush administration can sit around isolated for the next year," writes Kagan. "Or it can seize the initiative, and do the next administration a favor, by opening direct talks with Tehran."
Risks and Realities: The "New Nuclear Energy Revival"In Arms Control Today, Carnegie's Sharon Squassoni writes about the "new nuclear energy revival." "Concern about greenhouse gas emissions and energy security combined with forecasts of strong growth in electricity demand has awakened dormant interest in nuclear energy," she writes. "Yet, the industry has not yet fully addressed the issues that have kept global nuclear energy capacity roughly the same for the last two decades."
Saving the Relationship, The Moscow Times
Iran Receives Nuclear Fuel in Blow to U.S., The New York Times
German Minister Opposes Nuclear Aid to Middle East, Deutsche Welle
Gulf Arms: Complex Motives, ISN Security Watch
Nuclear Warhead Cut From Spending Bill, The Washington Post
China's Top Nuclear Envoy Inspects NKorea Nuke Disablement Process, Associated Press
Japan Shoots Down Test Missile in Space: Defence Minister, Associated Press
Iran Receives Nuclear Fuel in Blow to U.S., The New York Times German Minister Opposes Nuclear Aid to Middle East, Deutsche Welle Gulf Arms: Complex Motives, ISN Security Watch Nuclear Warhead Cut From Spending Bill, The Washington Post China's Top Nuclear Envoy Inspects NKorea Nuke Disablement Process, Associated Press Japan Shoots Down Test Missile in Space: Defence Minister, Associated Press
French nuclear group targets third of new reactors
Paris (AFP) Dec 19, 2007 - Areva, the world's largest nuclear power group, wants to account for a third of all new nuclear reactors built worldwide between now and 2030, company chief executive Anne Lauvergeon said Wednesday. "Between now and 2030 we believe there could be 100 to 300 (nuclear reactors built around the world)," she told the French National Assembly's economic affairs committee. "We want a third of ... more
+ Outside View: Russia settles Bushehr row
Moscow (UPI) Dec 19, 2007 - Russia and Iran may set up a joint venture to run the Bushehr nuclear power plant and ensure its safety. "We have agreed a time-frame with the Iranian customer for completing the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Difficulties with the Iranian customer have been settled. We'll be able to give an exact time-frame for completing the plant's construction and its commissionin ... more
+ Russia offers to help Libya in pursuit of nuclear energy
Moscow (AFP) Dec 19, 2007 - Russia offered Wednesday to help Libya in its pursuit of nuclear energy and announced a visit to the former pariah state this weekend by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, a report said. "We are ready to help Libya realise its enduring right to attain civilian nuclear (energy)," foreign ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said, according to the Ria Novosti news agency. Kamynin said Lavrov wo ... more
+ Iran sees Bushehr plant at full capacity in one year: official
Tehran (AFP) Dec 18, 2007 - Iran expects its first nuclear power plant will produce electricity at full capacity in around a year after passing a "critical stage" with the delivery of fuel from Russia, a top official said on Tuesday. The 1,000 megawatt plant in the southern city of Bushehr could come on line within three months at up to 200 megawatts before being cranked up to full capacity nine months later, said Moha ... more
+ Italy begins shipments of uranium to France: report
Rome (AFP) Dec 16, 2007 - A first shipment of uranium bars left a disused nuclear plant in northern Italy on Sunday bound for France, where they will be reprocessed in Le Hague, Normandy, the ANSA news agency reported. The 34 uranium bars -- the first 7.5 tonnes of 235 tonnes of waste to be sent to France for disposal -- were first loaded in two casks onto a truck under heavy guard, then placed on a special train for ... more
Paris (AFP) Dec 19, 2007 - Areva, the world's largest nuclear power group, wants to account for a third of all new nuclear reactors built worldwide between now and 2030, company chief executive Anne Lauvergeon said Wednesday. "Between now and 2030 we believe there could be 100 to 300 (nuclear reactors built around the world)," she told the French National Assembly's economic affairs committee. "We want a third of ... more+ Outside View: Russia settles Bushehr row
Moscow (UPI) Dec 19, 2007 - Russia and Iran may set up a joint venture to run the Bushehr nuclear power plant and ensure its safety. "We have agreed a time-frame with the Iranian customer for completing the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Difficulties with the Iranian customer have been settled. We'll be able to give an exact time-frame for completing the plant's construction and its commissionin ... more+ Russia offers to help Libya in pursuit of nuclear energy
Moscow (AFP) Dec 19, 2007 - Russia offered Wednesday to help Libya in its pursuit of nuclear energy and announced a visit to the former pariah state this weekend by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, a report said. "We are ready to help Libya realise its enduring right to attain civilian nuclear (energy)," foreign ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said, according to the Ria Novosti news agency. Kamynin said Lavrov wo ... more+ Iran sees Bushehr plant at full capacity in one year: official
Tehran (AFP) Dec 18, 2007 - Iran expects its first nuclear power plant will produce electricity at full capacity in around a year after passing a "critical stage" with the delivery of fuel from Russia, a top official said on Tuesday. The 1,000 megawatt plant in the southern city of Bushehr could come on line within three months at up to 200 megawatts before being cranked up to full capacity nine months later, said Moha ... more+ Italy begins shipments of uranium to France: report
Rome (AFP) Dec 16, 2007 - A first shipment of uranium bars left a disused nuclear plant in northern Italy on Sunday bound for France, where they will be reprocessed in Le Hague, Normandy, the ANSA news agency reported. The 34 uranium bars -- the first 7.5 tonnes of 235 tonnes of waste to be sent to France for disposal -- were first loaded in two casks onto a truck under heavy guard, then placed on a special train for ... more
We Need New Nukes by Caspar Weinberger, Jr. America must improve our warfare capabilities now, not weaken them.
NUCLEAR.WIRE
US expert on Korea returns from trip to NKorea: officials
Uranium traces found on NKorean tubing: US report
US envoy urges Iran to own up to nuclear weapons programme
Nuclear India moves closer to missile defence shield
France's Sarkozy to visit India Jan 24, nuclear deal on agenda
NKorea must scrap nukes for its own good, says SKorea's Lee
Rice does not rule out NKorea visit, speaks of 'normalization'
Powers fail to reach deal on Iran sanctions
Rice declines to rule out trip to NKorea
Rice urges North Korea to meet nuclear obligations
US expert on Korea returns from trip to NKorea: officials
Uranium traces found on NKorean tubing: US report
US envoy urges Iran to own up to nuclear weapons programme
Nuclear India moves closer to missile defence shield
France's Sarkozy to visit India Jan 24, nuclear deal on agenda
NKorea must scrap nukes for its own good, says SKorea's Lee
Rice does not rule out NKorea visit, speaks of 'normalization'
Powers fail to reach deal on Iran sanctions
Rice declines to rule out trip to NKorea
Rice urges North Korea to meet nuclear obligations
NUCLEAR.WIRE
Russia FM in Libya for nuclear talks
Koreas, China to meet on NKorea energy aid: officials
US expert on Korea returns from trip to NKorea: officials
Uranium traces found on NKorean tubing: US report
US envoy urges Iran to own up to nuclear weapons programme
Nuclear India moves closer to missile defence shield
France's Sarkozy to visit India Jan 24, nuclear deal on agenda
NKorea must scrap nukes for its own good, says SKorea's Lee
Rice does not rule out NKorea visit, speaks of 'normalization'
Powers fail to reach deal on Iran sanctions
Russia FM in Libya for nuclear talks
Koreas, China to meet on NKorea energy aid: officials
US expert on Korea returns from trip to NKorea: officials
Uranium traces found on NKorean tubing: US report
US envoy urges Iran to own up to nuclear weapons programme
Nuclear India moves closer to missile defence shield
France's Sarkozy to visit India Jan 24, nuclear deal on agenda
NKorea must scrap nukes for its own good, says SKorea's Lee
Rice does not rule out NKorea visit, speaks of 'normalization'
Powers fail to reach deal on Iran sanctions
NUCLEAR.WIRE
Pakistan's nuclear weapons safe, despite unrest: analysts
France could provide Egypt with nuclear help: Sarkozy
White House confident Pakistan nuclear arsenal is secure
Analysts disagree on threat to Pakistan nuclear arsenal
Analysts say Pakistan facing worst crisis in history
World media says Pakistan in 'nightmare scenario'
SKorean MPs vote to extend Iraq troop deployment: spokesman
World media says Pakistan now in 'nightmare scenario'
Russia delivers more nuclear fuel to Iran: official
Pakistan vote needs delay to avoid chaos: analysts
Pakistan's nuclear weapons safe, despite unrest: analysts
France could provide Egypt with nuclear help: Sarkozy
White House confident Pakistan nuclear arsenal is secure
Analysts disagree on threat to Pakistan nuclear arsenal
Analysts say Pakistan facing worst crisis in history
World media says Pakistan in 'nightmare scenario'
SKorean MPs vote to extend Iraq troop deployment: spokesman
World media says Pakistan now in 'nightmare scenario'
Russia delivers more nuclear fuel to Iran: official
Pakistan vote needs delay to avoid chaos: analysts
NUCLEAR.WIRE
NKorea fails to meet year-end nuclear deadline
US warning to North Korea as nuclear deadline lapses
US prepares new nuclear talks after NKorean deadline lapses
NKorea set to miss year-end nuclear deadline
Japan regrets NKorea missing nuclear deadline
No radioactive leak at Vietnam oil rig plant, say officials
US stuck with Musharraf: White House runners
US presses N Korea as nuclear deadline looms
US urges nuclear disclosure from N Korea before deadline
US urges nuclear disclosure from North Korea before deadline
NKorea fails to meet year-end nuclear deadline
US warning to North Korea as nuclear deadline lapses
US prepares new nuclear talks after NKorean deadline lapses
NKorea set to miss year-end nuclear deadline
Japan regrets NKorea missing nuclear deadline
No radioactive leak at Vietnam oil rig plant, say officials
US stuck with Musharraf: White House runners
US presses N Korea as nuclear deadline looms
US urges nuclear disclosure from N Korea before deadline
US urges nuclear disclosure from North Korea before deadline
NUCLEAR.WIRE
NKorean leader still undecided on giving up nukes: analyst
Iran envoy says ties with Egypt improving
Iran's top nuclear negotiator reshuffles team
Pakistan, India swap nuclear lists
NKorea calls for stronger military, economy in 2008
NKorea fails to meet year-end nuclear deadline
US warning to North Korea as nuclear deadline lapses
US prepares new nuclear talks after NKorean deadline lapses
NKorea set to miss year-end nuclear deadline
Japan regrets NKorea missing nuclear deadline
NKorean leader still undecided on giving up nukes: analyst
Iran envoy says ties with Egypt improving
Iran's top nuclear negotiator reshuffles team
Pakistan, India swap nuclear lists
NKorea calls for stronger military, economy in 2008
NKorea fails to meet year-end nuclear deadline
US warning to North Korea as nuclear deadline lapses
US prepares new nuclear talks after NKorean deadline lapses
NKorea set to miss year-end nuclear deadline
Japan regrets NKorea missing nuclear deadline
Top Five Nuclear Issues of 2007
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/200...r_top_five.html
By Joseph Cirincione, Alexandra Bell
December 28, 2007
The close of 2007 reveals it was a roller coaster year for nuclear issues, both positive and perilous. We picked the five most important issues of the past year that have had and will have the most impact on U.S. policy in 2008. We explore this top five list in reverse order of importance—to give U.S. policymakers a clear list of priorities for the coming year—but first, we would be remiss not to mention the close contenders that did not make our list, including:
Deal or No Deal with India. The Bush administration this year cut a nuclear trade deal with India, ending 33 years of restrictions after India cheated on pledges not to use civilian nuclear technology to make bombs. Proponents said it would cement a new strategic relationship; opponents said it blew a hole in the non-proliferation regime. Indian domestic politicians are close to killing the deal, as both the left and the right work to block government approval.
All I Wanted for Christmas Was a New Nuclear Bomb. Congress played the Grinch, delaying production funds for a new nuclear weapon sought by the Bush administration. The announcement in late December that the total U.S. arsenal will shrink to about 5,000 weapons by the end of the decade underscored congressional requirements for a comprehensive plan before it authorizes any new weapon.
Not in My Backyard. The Bush administration also wanted to start building anti-missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic to counter Iran. The plan backfired, roiling U.S.-Russian relations, provoking opposition from the Polish and Czech people, publics, and causing Congress to deny construction funds until it gets studies verifying that the threat is real and the technology works.
The Mystery Box in the Desert. Israel bombed a square building in Syria anonymous officials claimed was a nuclear reactor built with North Korean aid. Four months after the strike, conflicting reports and fuzzy data mean we still do not know if this was a bold strike at a covert program, a mistaken attack based on faulty intelligence, or an Israeli message to Iran. International inspectors that could solve the puzzle have still not been called in to investigate.
All four of these nuclear developments in 2007 that could rise in prominence in 2008 were important, but we believe the top five issues of 2007 with more serious implications in 2008 are:
No. 5: Do You Know Where Your Nukes Are? The U.S. Air Force lost track of the equivalent of 60 Hiroshima bombs for 36 hours, as a B-52 bomber flew across the country with six nuclear missiles no one knew were tucked under its wings. The Air Force has not flown nuclear weapons on bombers for almost 40 years and has not even practiced loading these weapons on bombers for over 16 years. The live bombs were put on by accident. Most experts thought it impossible that any aircrew could get past the half-dozen security checks designed to prevent the unauthorized use of the most dangerous weapons on earth.
Yet, Washington Post reporter Joby Warrick disclosed that the loaded bomber "sat on the tarmac overnight without special guards, protected for 15 hours by only the base's exterior chain-link fence and roving security patrols." To its credit, the Air Force disciplined the officers and crews involved. But if the country with the most sophisticated nuclear security system in the world can lose six hydrogen bombs, what could happen in other countries? How secure are the estimated 15,000 weapons in Russia? Or those in Pakistan? Or the highly enriched uranium and plutonium—enough for hundreds of thousands of weapons—scattered in hundreds of buildings in over 40 countries?
No 4: Winding Down the North Korea Nuclear Program. What a difference a year makes. By the end of 2006, President Bush’s policy had forced the collapse of the deal that had frozen North Korea’s plutonium production, triggering new North Korean tests of a long-range missile—that exploded soon after launch—and then its first nuclear weapon that fizzled, but sent shock waves around the world and started debate in Japan about whether that nation needed its own nuclear weapons. After President Bush shifted to negotiations reminiscent of Clinton-era efforts, 2007 ended with a deal that shut down the plutonium reactor, began its disablement, and could conclude in 2008 with the full disclosure and dismantlement of the nuclear program and the normalization of U.S.-North Korean relations.
Suspicions still run high on both sides. Full North Korean compliance is not at all assured; and there are already delays to the most recent accord—par for the course when dealing with Pyongyang. But the overall progress is encouraging. Responding to a personal letter from President Bush, North Korean officials confirmed that they would stick to the deal if America did the same. Despite efforts by neoconservatives to use everything from the Israeli attack on Syria to the election of Lee Myung-bak as South Korea’s new president to derail the deal, all signs are that Bush is staying with what could be his one major foreign policy victory.
No. 3: An Iranian Puzzle Inside an Enigma Wrapped in Uranium. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s vitriolic attacks on the United States and Israel continued, as did the development of his nation’s 3,000 centrifuges. These machines are running at only 10 percent of their designed capabilities, but once perfected and multiplied to tens of thousands, these machines could eventually produce fuel for reactors or bombs. A new U.S. National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran ended any covert work on weapons in 2003 and has likely not resumed since. With the likelihood of an immediate Iranian nuclear breakout now considered remote, the new intelligence estimate derailed the belligerent Bush administration rhetoric and strategy of the past year that rested on military options now clearly off the table.
The failure of the U.S. strategy to compel Iranian compliance or collapse temporarily weakens our leverage. A third United Nations sanctions resolution against Iran will be weak, if it happens at all. Russia has delivered the first two—and long delayed—shipments of nuclear fuel for Iran’s reactor. And the Iranians are doing a touchdown dance in the end zone. But it does not mean the game is over.
The Iran challenge is still serious, but the new intelligence estimate could bring U.S. policy more in line with other countries that see this not as a nuclear- bomb crisis but as a nuclear- diplomacy crisis. A new strategy could contain and engage Iran. The United States is still the most powerful country in the world with global alliances that include most of Iran’s neighbors, while Iran is a relatively isolated nation with a stagnant economy the size of Thailand’s, whose major exports after oil and gas are dates, pistachios, and carpets. There are multiple levers to use, if U.S. leaders are smart enough to use them— and if Iranian pragmatists are smart enough to know when to make a deal.
No 2: A Nuclear-Armed Pakistan Teeters on the Edge. The assassination this week of former prime minister and top opposition leader Benazir Bhutto and the intensification of the political crisis in Pakistan at the end of the year brings into sharp relief our most immediate nuclear threat. It comes not from Iraq or Iran, but Pakistan. With an unstable military ruler, enough material for 50- to- 100 nuclear bombs, strong Islamic fundamentalist influences in the country and armed, Islamic fundamentalist groups—including Al Qaeda—operating within its territory, Pakistan is the most dangerous country on earth.
Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and material are believed secure for now, but increased instability could split the military or distract the units guarding the weapon materials, providing an opening for a raid by an organized radical group. For all the focus on Iraq and Iran over the past six years, it is in Pakistan that Osama bin Laden may have his best chance of getting the nuclear weapon we know he wants.
It did not have to be this way. The crisis underscores the serious consequences of the failed Bush doctrine that saw regime change as the cure for nuclear proliferation and the military as the major instrument of statecraft. Rather than focus on the actual threats from nuclear weapons and Al Qaeda, administration officials systematically inflated threats elsewhere to justify pre-existing plans to attack Iraq and apparently Iran.
If President Bush had stayed focused on pursuing Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora in Afghanistan back in 2001 instead of diverting troops to Iraq, Al Qaeda would not have had camps in Pakistan to train its assassins. If he had focused on promoting democracy rather that propping up a military dictator, Pakistan would have already had elections and a new government. If President Bush had worked on eliminating nuclear weapons where they actually existed instead of where they might, Pakistan would be reducing its arsenal, not expanding it. Bad policy has consequences; Pakistan is now suffering from years of wrong choices.
No. 1: Cold Warriors Prepare for Another Battle: Critical Nonproliferation. The greatest hope for reducing all these nuclear threats came from a policy plan developed completely outside the frame established by the Bush administration and largely followed by the press. The problem, said former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and former Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn in a January 4 Wall Street Journal op-ed, is not just nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue regimes, but nuclear weapons anywhere.
The answer, said these four veteran cold warriors, is for the United States to: recommit to the vision of eliminating nuclear weapons and marry that vision with an eight-point action plan, including steep reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, ratification of the nuclear test ban treaty, eliminating as much nuclear weapon material as possible, and securing all weapons and material as well as we secure the gold in Fort Knox.
Their effort picked up momentum and new adherents throughout the year. They will soon announce the support of many other former secretaries of defense and state. In October, they got the endorsement of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who told the group: “You have a big vision, a vision as big as humanity—to free the world of nuclear weapons… Let me know how I can use my power and influence as governor to further your vision.” Schwarzenegger’s embrace of a new role as “The Eliminator,” signals the broad appeal of their plan.
Though the dream of a nuclear-free world has been advocated by many over the past six decades, for the first time since the Truman years the call comes not from the left, but from the moderate middle. This is the fusion of John F. Kennedy’s vision that “we must abolish the weapons of war before they abolish us,” with Ronald Reagan’s vision of making “nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.”
It also marks a rediscovery of Reagan as a nuclear abolitionist who came very close at his summit with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986 to a deal eliminating all nuclear weapons within 10 years. As Schultz, Kissinger, Perry, and Nunn emphasized: “Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America's moral heritage.”
We will hear much more about all these nuclear stories in 2008, but it is this last issue that holds the greatest promise and hope for the future.
Joseph Cirincione is a senior fellow and Alexandra Bell is a research associate at the Center for American Progress in Washington, DC. To read more about the Center's foreign policy decision please see our National Security page.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/200...r_top_five.html
By Joseph Cirincione, Alexandra Bell
December 28, 2007
The close of 2007 reveals it was a roller coaster year for nuclear issues, both positive and perilous. We picked the five most important issues of the past year that have had and will have the most impact on U.S. policy in 2008. We explore this top five list in reverse order of importance—to give U.S. policymakers a clear list of priorities for the coming year—but first, we would be remiss not to mention the close contenders that did not make our list, including:
Deal or No Deal with India. The Bush administration this year cut a nuclear trade deal with India, ending 33 years of restrictions after India cheated on pledges not to use civilian nuclear technology to make bombs. Proponents said it would cement a new strategic relationship; opponents said it blew a hole in the non-proliferation regime. Indian domestic politicians are close to killing the deal, as both the left and the right work to block government approval.
All I Wanted for Christmas Was a New Nuclear Bomb. Congress played the Grinch, delaying production funds for a new nuclear weapon sought by the Bush administration. The announcement in late December that the total U.S. arsenal will shrink to about 5,000 weapons by the end of the decade underscored congressional requirements for a comprehensive plan before it authorizes any new weapon.
Not in My Backyard. The Bush administration also wanted to start building anti-missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic to counter Iran. The plan backfired, roiling U.S.-Russian relations, provoking opposition from the Polish and Czech people, publics, and causing Congress to deny construction funds until it gets studies verifying that the threat is real and the technology works.
The Mystery Box in the Desert. Israel bombed a square building in Syria anonymous officials claimed was a nuclear reactor built with North Korean aid. Four months after the strike, conflicting reports and fuzzy data mean we still do not know if this was a bold strike at a covert program, a mistaken attack based on faulty intelligence, or an Israeli message to Iran. International inspectors that could solve the puzzle have still not been called in to investigate.
All four of these nuclear developments in 2007 that could rise in prominence in 2008 were important, but we believe the top five issues of 2007 with more serious implications in 2008 are:
No. 5: Do You Know Where Your Nukes Are? The U.S. Air Force lost track of the equivalent of 60 Hiroshima bombs for 36 hours, as a B-52 bomber flew across the country with six nuclear missiles no one knew were tucked under its wings. The Air Force has not flown nuclear weapons on bombers for almost 40 years and has not even practiced loading these weapons on bombers for over 16 years. The live bombs were put on by accident. Most experts thought it impossible that any aircrew could get past the half-dozen security checks designed to prevent the unauthorized use of the most dangerous weapons on earth.
Yet, Washington Post reporter Joby Warrick disclosed that the loaded bomber "sat on the tarmac overnight without special guards, protected for 15 hours by only the base's exterior chain-link fence and roving security patrols." To its credit, the Air Force disciplined the officers and crews involved. But if the country with the most sophisticated nuclear security system in the world can lose six hydrogen bombs, what could happen in other countries? How secure are the estimated 15,000 weapons in Russia? Or those in Pakistan? Or the highly enriched uranium and plutonium—enough for hundreds of thousands of weapons—scattered in hundreds of buildings in over 40 countries?
No 4: Winding Down the North Korea Nuclear Program. What a difference a year makes. By the end of 2006, President Bush’s policy had forced the collapse of the deal that had frozen North Korea’s plutonium production, triggering new North Korean tests of a long-range missile—that exploded soon after launch—and then its first nuclear weapon that fizzled, but sent shock waves around the world and started debate in Japan about whether that nation needed its own nuclear weapons. After President Bush shifted to negotiations reminiscent of Clinton-era efforts, 2007 ended with a deal that shut down the plutonium reactor, began its disablement, and could conclude in 2008 with the full disclosure and dismantlement of the nuclear program and the normalization of U.S.-North Korean relations.
Suspicions still run high on both sides. Full North Korean compliance is not at all assured; and there are already delays to the most recent accord—par for the course when dealing with Pyongyang. But the overall progress is encouraging. Responding to a personal letter from President Bush, North Korean officials confirmed that they would stick to the deal if America did the same. Despite efforts by neoconservatives to use everything from the Israeli attack on Syria to the election of Lee Myung-bak as South Korea’s new president to derail the deal, all signs are that Bush is staying with what could be his one major foreign policy victory.
No. 3: An Iranian Puzzle Inside an Enigma Wrapped in Uranium. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s vitriolic attacks on the United States and Israel continued, as did the development of his nation’s 3,000 centrifuges. These machines are running at only 10 percent of their designed capabilities, but once perfected and multiplied to tens of thousands, these machines could eventually produce fuel for reactors or bombs. A new U.S. National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran ended any covert work on weapons in 2003 and has likely not resumed since. With the likelihood of an immediate Iranian nuclear breakout now considered remote, the new intelligence estimate derailed the belligerent Bush administration rhetoric and strategy of the past year that rested on military options now clearly off the table.
The failure of the U.S. strategy to compel Iranian compliance or collapse temporarily weakens our leverage. A third United Nations sanctions resolution against Iran will be weak, if it happens at all. Russia has delivered the first two—and long delayed—shipments of nuclear fuel for Iran’s reactor. And the Iranians are doing a touchdown dance in the end zone. But it does not mean the game is over.
The Iran challenge is still serious, but the new intelligence estimate could bring U.S. policy more in line with other countries that see this not as a nuclear- bomb crisis but as a nuclear- diplomacy crisis. A new strategy could contain and engage Iran. The United States is still the most powerful country in the world with global alliances that include most of Iran’s neighbors, while Iran is a relatively isolated nation with a stagnant economy the size of Thailand’s, whose major exports after oil and gas are dates, pistachios, and carpets. There are multiple levers to use, if U.S. leaders are smart enough to use them— and if Iranian pragmatists are smart enough to know when to make a deal.
No 2: A Nuclear-Armed Pakistan Teeters on the Edge. The assassination this week of former prime minister and top opposition leader Benazir Bhutto and the intensification of the political crisis in Pakistan at the end of the year brings into sharp relief our most immediate nuclear threat. It comes not from Iraq or Iran, but Pakistan. With an unstable military ruler, enough material for 50- to- 100 nuclear bombs, strong Islamic fundamentalist influences in the country and armed, Islamic fundamentalist groups—including Al Qaeda—operating within its territory, Pakistan is the most dangerous country on earth.
Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and material are believed secure for now, but increased instability could split the military or distract the units guarding the weapon materials, providing an opening for a raid by an organized radical group. For all the focus on Iraq and Iran over the past six years, it is in Pakistan that Osama bin Laden may have his best chance of getting the nuclear weapon we know he wants.
It did not have to be this way. The crisis underscores the serious consequences of the failed Bush doctrine that saw regime change as the cure for nuclear proliferation and the military as the major instrument of statecraft. Rather than focus on the actual threats from nuclear weapons and Al Qaeda, administration officials systematically inflated threats elsewhere to justify pre-existing plans to attack Iraq and apparently Iran.
If President Bush had stayed focused on pursuing Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora in Afghanistan back in 2001 instead of diverting troops to Iraq, Al Qaeda would not have had camps in Pakistan to train its assassins. If he had focused on promoting democracy rather that propping up a military dictator, Pakistan would have already had elections and a new government. If President Bush had worked on eliminating nuclear weapons where they actually existed instead of where they might, Pakistan would be reducing its arsenal, not expanding it. Bad policy has consequences; Pakistan is now suffering from years of wrong choices.
No. 1: Cold Warriors Prepare for Another Battle: Critical Nonproliferation. The greatest hope for reducing all these nuclear threats came from a policy plan developed completely outside the frame established by the Bush administration and largely followed by the press. The problem, said former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and former Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn in a January 4 Wall Street Journal op-ed, is not just nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue regimes, but nuclear weapons anywhere.
The answer, said these four veteran cold warriors, is for the United States to: recommit to the vision of eliminating nuclear weapons and marry that vision with an eight-point action plan, including steep reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, ratification of the nuclear test ban treaty, eliminating as much nuclear weapon material as possible, and securing all weapons and material as well as we secure the gold in Fort Knox.
Their effort picked up momentum and new adherents throughout the year. They will soon announce the support of many other former secretaries of defense and state. In October, they got the endorsement of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who told the group: “You have a big vision, a vision as big as humanity—to free the world of nuclear weapons… Let me know how I can use my power and influence as governor to further your vision.” Schwarzenegger’s embrace of a new role as “The Eliminator,” signals the broad appeal of their plan.
Though the dream of a nuclear-free world has been advocated by many over the past six decades, for the first time since the Truman years the call comes not from the left, but from the moderate middle. This is the fusion of John F. Kennedy’s vision that “we must abolish the weapons of war before they abolish us,” with Ronald Reagan’s vision of making “nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.”
It also marks a rediscovery of Reagan as a nuclear abolitionist who came very close at his summit with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986 to a deal eliminating all nuclear weapons within 10 years. As Schultz, Kissinger, Perry, and Nunn emphasized: “Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America's moral heritage.”
We will hear much more about all these nuclear stories in 2008, but it is this last issue that holds the greatest promise and hope for the future.
Joseph Cirincione is a senior fellow and Alexandra Bell is a research associate at the Center for American Progress in Washington, DC. To read more about the Center's foreign policy decision please see our National Security page.
China planning to secure North Korea's nuclear arsenal: report
US envoy seeks '100 percent' truth from NKorea
IAEA chief to visit Tehran later this week
During Mideast tour, Bush to insist Iran remains a threat
US nuclear envoy to meet next SKorea president: official
US envoy on NKorea starts tour
Iran mocks US bid to break alliance with Syria
NKorea steps up anti-US propaganda amid stalled talks
Hillary Clinton proposes joint oversight of Pakistan nukes
Britain planning 'diplomatic surge' in Mideast, SAsia: minister
US envoy seeks '100 percent' truth from NKorea
IAEA chief to visit Tehran later this week
During Mideast tour, Bush to insist Iran remains a threat
US nuclear envoy to meet next SKorea president: official
US envoy on NKorea starts tour
Iran mocks US bid to break alliance with Syria
NKorea steps up anti-US propaganda amid stalled talks
Hillary Clinton proposes joint oversight of Pakistan nukes
Britain planning 'diplomatic surge' in Mideast, SAsia: minister
IAEA's Iran probe moves into final stage: diplomat
By Mark Heinrich
VIENNA (Reuters) - A U.N. inquiry into Iran's nuclear activity has entered its final phase with Tehran addressing U.S. intelligence about secret, past efforts to "weaponize" atomic material, a diplomat close to the process said on Tuesday.
The development coincides with International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei's decision to pay a rare visit to Tehran on Friday and Saturday for talks with Iranian leaders to speed efforts to clarify Iran's past and present nuclear work.
Tehran denies its program to generate electricity from enriching uranium is a facade for bomb-making. It long refused even to discuss intelligence obtained by U.N. inspectors pointing to military diversions, rejecting it as propaganda.
Therefore IAEA officials see Tehran's new readiness to examine and respond to the information as a potentially important step to rebuild confidence in its nuclear intentions.
Ahead of ElBaradei, IAEA officials flew into Tehran late on Monday to resume talks aimed at resolving lingering questions about the program. Iran hid it from the IAEA until 2003 and stonewalled inquiries until agreeing last August to come clean.
After broadly clarifying how work began with materials obtained from nuclear smugglers, Iran has begun substantive talks with IAEA officials on the intelligence about attempts to militarize the program, the diplomat said.
"The work plan (transparency process) is now looking at 'weaponization', so it's now in its final phase, or chapter, and this is very significant."
The issue involves alleged administrative and research links between processing of uranium ore, testing high explosives and designing a missile warhead. Iran has denied any such links.
The diplomat denied accounts from some Western sources in Vienna two weeks ago that Iran was apparently balking at dealing with the last, most sensitive issues in the investigation.
The reports surfaced as some U.S.-led Western powers were renewing a case for harsher U.N. sanctions against Iran, and as ElBaradei's mooted time frame for completing the inquiry by the end of 2007 passed with issues still outstanding.
They also followed a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on December 3 that said Iran had shelved a covert nuclear arms drive in 2003. This undercut the White House stance that Tehran was actively seeking a bomb and a U.S. push for tough sanctions.
Western diplomats said the NIE could undo Iran's motivation to come clean to the IAEA, although Washington said Iran could resume efforts to build a bomb since it curbs U.N. inspections.
The diplomat close to the IAEA said senior agency officials had not noticed such an NIE effect on Iran.
"Reports of Iran posing new obstacles are not true. ElBaradei mentioned the end of 2007 timeline to help put pressure on Iran but he never thought everything would be resolved by then," the diplomat said.
Western diplomats remained skeptical of Iran's readiness to open up entirely if, they said, this risked self-incrimination.
"On weaponization, it may be too optimistic. The main shift in Iran's stance could be from, 'It's all fabrications,' to, 'We will look at the documents.' Providing answers and explanations will be another step," one Western diplomat told Reuters.
ElBaradei now hopes to wrap up the inquiry by the next session of the IAEA's 35-nation governing board in March. But resolving past issues would not put Iran in the clear.
Tehran has done little to satisfy international demands for transparency about the scope of its current program, by ending curbs on inspector movements meant to verify there is no more covert activity. ElBaradei was to press this point in Tehran.
(Editing by Dominic Evans)
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...lBrandChannel=0
By Mark Heinrich
VIENNA (Reuters) - A U.N. inquiry into Iran's nuclear activity has entered its final phase with Tehran addressing U.S. intelligence about secret, past efforts to "weaponize" atomic material, a diplomat close to the process said on Tuesday.
The development coincides with International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei's decision to pay a rare visit to Tehran on Friday and Saturday for talks with Iranian leaders to speed efforts to clarify Iran's past and present nuclear work.
Tehran denies its program to generate electricity from enriching uranium is a facade for bomb-making. It long refused even to discuss intelligence obtained by U.N. inspectors pointing to military diversions, rejecting it as propaganda.
Therefore IAEA officials see Tehran's new readiness to examine and respond to the information as a potentially important step to rebuild confidence in its nuclear intentions.
Ahead of ElBaradei, IAEA officials flew into Tehran late on Monday to resume talks aimed at resolving lingering questions about the program. Iran hid it from the IAEA until 2003 and stonewalled inquiries until agreeing last August to come clean.
After broadly clarifying how work began with materials obtained from nuclear smugglers, Iran has begun substantive talks with IAEA officials on the intelligence about attempts to militarize the program, the diplomat said.
"The work plan (transparency process) is now looking at 'weaponization', so it's now in its final phase, or chapter, and this is very significant."
The issue involves alleged administrative and research links between processing of uranium ore, testing high explosives and designing a missile warhead. Iran has denied any such links.
The diplomat denied accounts from some Western sources in Vienna two weeks ago that Iran was apparently balking at dealing with the last, most sensitive issues in the investigation.
The reports surfaced as some U.S.-led Western powers were renewing a case for harsher U.N. sanctions against Iran, and as ElBaradei's mooted time frame for completing the inquiry by the end of 2007 passed with issues still outstanding.
They also followed a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on December 3 that said Iran had shelved a covert nuclear arms drive in 2003. This undercut the White House stance that Tehran was actively seeking a bomb and a U.S. push for tough sanctions.
Western diplomats said the NIE could undo Iran's motivation to come clean to the IAEA, although Washington said Iran could resume efforts to build a bomb since it curbs U.N. inspections.
The diplomat close to the IAEA said senior agency officials had not noticed such an NIE effect on Iran.
"Reports of Iran posing new obstacles are not true. ElBaradei mentioned the end of 2007 timeline to help put pressure on Iran but he never thought everything would be resolved by then," the diplomat said.
Western diplomats remained skeptical of Iran's readiness to open up entirely if, they said, this risked self-incrimination.
"On weaponization, it may be too optimistic. The main shift in Iran's stance could be from, 'It's all fabrications,' to, 'We will look at the documents.' Providing answers and explanations will be another step," one Western diplomat told Reuters.
ElBaradei now hopes to wrap up the inquiry by the next session of the IAEA's 35-nation governing board in March. But resolving past issues would not put Iran in the clear.
Tehran has done little to satisfy international demands for transparency about the scope of its current program, by ending curbs on inspector movements meant to verify there is no more covert activity. ElBaradei was to press this point in Tehran.
(Editing by Dominic Evans)
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...lBrandChannel=0
$1.4b for nuclear reactor
By Wang Hongyi and Hu Yinan (China Daily)
Updated: 2008-01-08 09:02
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2008...ent_6377476.htm
China will contribute about 10 billion yuan ($1.4 billion) to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project, construction of which will begin in France this year.
The figure represents about 10 percent of the project's cost.
About half of China's contribution will be spent during the 10-year construction phase of the multination undertaking, sources at the Oriental Science and Technology Forum, held in Shanghai last weekend, said.
"The goal of the project is to find a shortcut to solve our energy shortage," Luo Delong, deputy director of the ITER China Office, told the forum.
He said Chinese researchers will be in charge of building components such as heating, diagnostic and remote maintenance equipment, as well as transporting it to Cadarache in the south of France, where the ITER reactor will be built.
ITER, which means "the way" in Latin, is an 11-billion-euro experiment to study the scientific and technical feasibility of the world's most advanced nuclear fusion reactor. The device is described as an "artificial sun" as it will create conditions similar to those occurring in solar nuclear fusion reactions.
If successful, the project could generate infinite, safe and clean energy to replace fossil fuels such as oil and coal, and will be 30 times more powerful than the Joint European Torus (JET), the largest comparable experiment.
The ITER project was first initiated by the United States and the then Soviet Union in the mid-1980s. Today, it involves the European Union (EU), the US, Japan, Russia, the Republic of Korea, China and India. China joined in February 2003.
The ITER Agreement, signed in November 2006, came into effect last October and has an initial duration of 35 years, though it could be extended for an additional 10 years.
Under the agreement, the EU will be responsible for half of the construction costs, while the other five parties excluding India, will contribute equally to cover the remaining expenses.
Earlier reports said China would send 30 scientists to France during the construction phase. At the moment, more than a dozen scientists and managers are already working at Cadarache, and more will soon join them.
Russia, France and Japan have all developed similar experimental fusion reactors.
China became the first country to build a superconducting experimental Tokamak fusion device in September, after successfully completing a series of trials in Hefei, capital of Anhui Province. Despite this success, China still faces a shortage of talent in the field. Scientists and researchers have called for increased efforts to train more scientists to improve the nation's research capabilities.
By Wang Hongyi and Hu Yinan (China Daily)
Updated: 2008-01-08 09:02
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2008...ent_6377476.htm
China will contribute about 10 billion yuan ($1.4 billion) to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project, construction of which will begin in France this year.
The figure represents about 10 percent of the project's cost.
About half of China's contribution will be spent during the 10-year construction phase of the multination undertaking, sources at the Oriental Science and Technology Forum, held in Shanghai last weekend, said.
"The goal of the project is to find a shortcut to solve our energy shortage," Luo Delong, deputy director of the ITER China Office, told the forum.
He said Chinese researchers will be in charge of building components such as heating, diagnostic and remote maintenance equipment, as well as transporting it to Cadarache in the south of France, where the ITER reactor will be built.
ITER, which means "the way" in Latin, is an 11-billion-euro experiment to study the scientific and technical feasibility of the world's most advanced nuclear fusion reactor. The device is described as an "artificial sun" as it will create conditions similar to those occurring in solar nuclear fusion reactions.
If successful, the project could generate infinite, safe and clean energy to replace fossil fuels such as oil and coal, and will be 30 times more powerful than the Joint European Torus (JET), the largest comparable experiment.
The ITER project was first initiated by the United States and the then Soviet Union in the mid-1980s. Today, it involves the European Union (EU), the US, Japan, Russia, the Republic of Korea, China and India. China joined in February 2003.
The ITER Agreement, signed in November 2006, came into effect last October and has an initial duration of 35 years, though it could be extended for an additional 10 years.
Under the agreement, the EU will be responsible for half of the construction costs, while the other five parties excluding India, will contribute equally to cover the remaining expenses.
Earlier reports said China would send 30 scientists to France during the construction phase. At the moment, more than a dozen scientists and managers are already working at Cadarache, and more will soon join them.
Russia, France and Japan have all developed similar experimental fusion reactors.
China became the first country to build a superconducting experimental Tokamak fusion device in September, after successfully completing a series of trials in Hefei, capital of Anhui Province. Despite this success, China still faces a shortage of talent in the field. Scientists and researchers have called for increased efforts to train more scientists to improve the nation's research capabilities.
Left for India getting N-fuel, but scrapping deal with US
6 Jan, 2008, 2312 hrs IST, TNN
NEW DELHI: Two days after the UPA government made the familiar “we-have-not-given-up” statement on Indo-US nuclear deal assertions, top Left leaders reaffirmed their opposition to the 123 Agreement. Playing down external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee’s statements on going ahead with the deal, the Left sees little hope for the 123 Agreement.
With the nuclear deal soon to take centre stage in the political scenario, general secretaries of the CPM and the CPI — Prakash Karat and A B Bardhan — on Sunday firmed up the Left position on the issue. During an hour-long meeting, the leaders decided that the Left will stick to its opposition to the 123 Agreement. However, the Left is concerned about India being denied nuclear fuel from other countries, like Russia and France, if the safeguards agreement with the IAEA is not in place.
In other words, the Left’s strategy would be to ask the government to work out a mechanism to ensure that the nuclear fuel market opens up for India but the deal with the US is not operationalised. However, without the US support, India would find it impossible to evolve a consensus in the NSG. In fact, doors are opening for India because of the US backing for the deal.
The Left, which had relented to the government’s plea to allow it to hold India-specific negotiations with the IAEA, is expecting that the government will get in touch with it later this month for the next round of the UPA-Left co-ordination committee meeting on the deal. Meanwhile, the Left is hopeful that the deal will be put on the backburner. It is pinning its hopes on several reasons - one being Mr Mukherjee’s own statement that the international community will not be keen on working out an agreement with a minority government.
Mr Mukherjee had admitted “time is running out. But one cannot help it. Either you lose the majority and if a government loses (its) majority nobody is going to have an arrangement with a minority government.”
Amidst the negotiations with the IAEA, Mr Karat had given a fresh ultimatum to end talks by December or face mid-term polls. He had said the Left had allowed the government to discuss India-specific safeguards with the IAEA as it did not want the government to fall before the Gujarat elections. He had made it clear that when the government returned from talks with the IAEA, the Left would ask it not to go ahead. The Left also is of the view that with the US going into election mode, the nuclear deal is likely to fade into the background in Washington.
6 Jan, 2008, 2312 hrs IST, TNN
NEW DELHI: Two days after the UPA government made the familiar “we-have-not-given-up” statement on Indo-US nuclear deal assertions, top Left leaders reaffirmed their opposition to the 123 Agreement. Playing down external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee’s statements on going ahead with the deal, the Left sees little hope for the 123 Agreement.
With the nuclear deal soon to take centre stage in the political scenario, general secretaries of the CPM and the CPI — Prakash Karat and A B Bardhan — on Sunday firmed up the Left position on the issue. During an hour-long meeting, the leaders decided that the Left will stick to its opposition to the 123 Agreement. However, the Left is concerned about India being denied nuclear fuel from other countries, like Russia and France, if the safeguards agreement with the IAEA is not in place.
In other words, the Left’s strategy would be to ask the government to work out a mechanism to ensure that the nuclear fuel market opens up for India but the deal with the US is not operationalised. However, without the US support, India would find it impossible to evolve a consensus in the NSG. In fact, doors are opening for India because of the US backing for the deal.
The Left, which had relented to the government’s plea to allow it to hold India-specific negotiations with the IAEA, is expecting that the government will get in touch with it later this month for the next round of the UPA-Left co-ordination committee meeting on the deal. Meanwhile, the Left is hopeful that the deal will be put on the backburner. It is pinning its hopes on several reasons - one being Mr Mukherjee’s own statement that the international community will not be keen on working out an agreement with a minority government.
Mr Mukherjee had admitted “time is running out. But one cannot help it. Either you lose the majority and if a government loses (its) majority nobody is going to have an arrangement with a minority government.”
Amidst the negotiations with the IAEA, Mr Karat had given a fresh ultimatum to end talks by December or face mid-term polls. He had said the Left had allowed the government to discuss India-specific safeguards with the IAEA as it did not want the government to fall before the Gujarat elections. He had made it clear that when the government returned from talks with the IAEA, the Left would ask it not to go ahead. The Left also is of the view that with the US going into election mode, the nuclear deal is likely to fade into the background in Washington.
How the U.S. seeks to avert nuclear terror
'Much better prepared'
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...=la-home-center
‘MUCH BETTER PREPARED’: Retired Rear Adm. Joseph J. Krol, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Office of Emergency Operations, with a radiation-detecting helicopter.
Scientists scan cities. Response teams are ready. And if there were a lethal device, experts would work on tracing the source.
By Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 6, 2008
About every three days, unknown to most Americans, an elite team of federal scientists hits the streets in the fight against nuclear terrorism.
The deployments are part of an effort since 2001 to ratchet up the nation's defenses. More than two dozen specialized teams have been positioned across the nation to respond to threats of nuclear terrorism, and as many 2,000 scientists and bomb experts participate in the effort. Spending on the program has more than doubled since it was launched.
And an evolving national policy aims to create a system of nuclear forensics, in which scientific analysis could quickly identify the source of a nuclear attack or attempted attack. A key report on nuclear forensics is due next month.
The counter-terrorism efforts are becoming routine. Scientists in specially equipped helicopters and airplanes use radiation detectors to scan cities for signs of weapons. They blend into crowds at major sporting events, wearing backpacks containing instruments that can identify plutonium or highly enriched uranium.
So far, they have not encountered a terrorist. Near the Las Vegas Strip, they investigated a homeless person who somehow had picked up a piece of radioactive material. On the streets of Manhattan, a hot-dog vendor fresh from a medical test triggered a policeman's radioactivity sensor.
But the teams have not become complacent. If the many layers of federal defense against nuclear smuggling break down, these unarmed weapons designers and physicists, along with experts from the FBI, could be the last hope of staving off a catastrophic attack.
They are supposed to rush up to a ticking nuclear explosive (or a "dirty" bomb, which would disperse radioactive material) and defuse it before it's too late -- a situation often depicted by Hollywood that seems less fictional every year.
"After everything else fails, we come in," said Deborah A. Wilber, the scientist who directs the Office of Emergency Response at the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration. "I don't believe it is a question of if it will happen. It is a question of when."
Since the attacks of 2001, the office has created 26 rapid-response units around the nation.
If a device were located, two other specialized teams would rush to the scene, one from a base in Albuquerque, where a fueled jetliner is on 24-hour alert. Another FBI team would depart from rural Virginia.
The teams would first attempt to disable a bomb's electrical firing system and then quickly transfer the weapon to the Nevada desert. There, the bomb would be lowered into the G Tunnel, a 5,000-foot-deep shaft, where a crew of scientists and FBI agents would attempt to disassemble the device behind steel blast doors, logging any evidence.
About 1,000 nuclear weapons scientists and 500 to 1,000 more FBI professionals participate in the nation's emergency response effort, though not full time. Increased investment in the project reflects an acknowledgment that the nation remains vulnerable to nuclear terrorism.
But the effort is also reaching for something greater than defense: a Cold War style of deterrence.
The scientists are also experts in the rapidly evolving field of nuclear forensics, which aims to track nuclear materials to their country of origin. Even if a bomb detonates, fallout can be analyzed to identify the terrorists and their state sponsors. A retaliatory strike could be the response.
The idea is to force other nations to take better care of their own nuclear fuels or else find themselves in the cross hairs of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
A major technical and policy analysis of this approach -- the report that is due next month -- is being conducted by some of the nation's top nuclear weapons experts, sponsored by the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science and led by Stanford University physicist Michael M. May.
In the meantime, the United States is retrieving and locking down nuclear fuels abroad, has created a line of radiation detectors at foreign and domestic ports, and has increased intelligence efforts.
If those and other measures fail, the emergency response teams are a last hope, but one nobody should rely on, said Charles B. Curtis, president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, which pushes for stronger efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism.
Intercepting a device "is a very, very, very difficult problem, but not impossible," said Curtis, a former Energy Department deputy secretary.
Vahid Majidi, a nuclear weapons chemist and head of the FBI Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate, seemed more confident. Asked how good his chances would be to find a nuclear bomb in Manhattan with 24 hours' warning, he said, "Quite reasonable."
He continued: "When you think of issues only as a technical problem, you only think of technical capability. I am not sitting on my hands waiting for some detector to go off. We will use every asset at our disposal. Technology is a very small portion of what we do."
The full capability of the teams is classified. Bruce Goodwin, nuclear weapons chief at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said the teams now had "some really remarkable tools that can prevent nuclear function," suggesting a device that can foil the arming system or perhaps even neutralize its basic operation.
It is assumed that any terrorist bomb would have booby traps and anti-tampering devices, perhaps designed by scientists who studied at the same universities that trained U.S. weapons scientists. Emergency response scientists run exercises in which one team designs a booby-trapped bomb and another team tries to disarm it.
A weapon stolen from a national stockpile might pose fewer problems than a makeshift terrorist device.
"We know a lot about other people's weapons," said Curtis. "They will tolerate a greater intrusive disarming strategy than an improvised nuclear device."
History has some unfortunate lessons. In 1980, Energy Department experts were sent to help disarm a 1,000-pound conventional bomb placed by an extortionist at Harvey's Resort Hotel in Stateline, Nev. The bomb had extraordinary anti-tampering devices that prevented the teams from disassembling, disarming or even moving it.
So the bomb experts decided to fire a shaped charge into the arming mechanism, hoping to sever it from the rest of the bomb before it could detonate. After the hotel was evacuated, the team triggered the charge from a safe distance. The strategy failed and the bomb badly damaged the hotel.
But today's level of expertise would easily have solved the problem, said Joseph J. Krol Jr., a retired Navy rear admiral who heads the National Nuclear Security Administration's Office of Emergency Operations, to which Wilber's emergency response office belongs.
"We are very much better prepared," Krol said. "How we operated then and how we operate now is like night and day."
Indeed, Philip E. Coyle, a former deputy director at Lawrence Livermore, recalled that when he served on the emergency teams in the 1970s and 1980s, he carried a card in his wallet to present at an airport in an emergency so he could order airlines to take him where he needed to go.
"It sounded good, but I always wondered whether it would work," he said. Now the teams travel by government aircraft and other federal vehicles.
A successful terrorist nuclear attack would trigger the so-called national response plan.
Many federal agencies would swing into action, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Defense Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, as would myriad obscure offices unknown to the vast majority of Americans. For example, the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center, based at the Livermore lab, would run advanced computation models of fallout patterns to provide evacuation plans for potentially millions of people.
Whether so many federal agencies could work together in the chaos of a nuclear attack, all while coordinating with state and local officials, is a matter of grave concern in Congress. But Majidi and Krol say extensive planning and exercises have clarified the lines of authority.
Communications would be a major undertaking.
"If you tell 100 million people to go east, 25 million will go west because they don't trust the government," said Jay C. Davis, a retired weapons scientist who is working on the forensics study.
The forensics study is trying to assess how authoritative the U.S. could be in attributing a nuclear device to a particular source and in making its case to the American public and the rest of the world.
Davis said it was hoped that nuclear forensics could determine the size of a detonation within one hour; the sophistication of the bomb design within six hours; how the fuel was enriched within 72 hours; and the peculiar details of national design -- "Does this look like a Russian, a Chinese or a Pakistani device, or something we have never seen before?" -- within a week.
What next? That part of the strategy is still evolving. Retaliation is one option that counter-terrorism officials have suggested in congressional testimony. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Pasadena), who has sponsored legislation to increase funding for nuclear forensics, suggested that any policy had to be flexible.
"It would be left to the administration in office to determine what the repercussions would be," he said.
Deterrence might depend simply on the perception that the U.S. could respond with a counterstrike. But if nuclear fuel were traced back to Russia, would the U.S. start a nuclear exchange? And what if the nuclear materials came from the U.S.?
Of course, those on the front lines hope such a quandary never has to be confronted.
The scientists and engineers -- who say anonymity is their only defense -- talk about their jobs with marked calm.
"I told my wife that I have a job that might require me to leave home in the middle of the night and I won't be able to say where I'm going," said Jerry, one team member. "Well, that didn't set too well with her. But she works in the Pentagon, and was right next to the corridor that took the hit in the 9/11 attack. So we share what this service means."
ralph.vartabedian@
latimes.com
'Much better prepared'
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...=la-home-center
‘MUCH BETTER PREPARED’: Retired Rear Adm. Joseph J. Krol, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Office of Emergency Operations, with a radiation-detecting helicopter.
Scientists scan cities. Response teams are ready. And if there were a lethal device, experts would work on tracing the source.
By Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 6, 2008
About every three days, unknown to most Americans, an elite team of federal scientists hits the streets in the fight against nuclear terrorism.
The deployments are part of an effort since 2001 to ratchet up the nation's defenses. More than two dozen specialized teams have been positioned across the nation to respond to threats of nuclear terrorism, and as many 2,000 scientists and bomb experts participate in the effort. Spending on the program has more than doubled since it was launched.
And an evolving national policy aims to create a system of nuclear forensics, in which scientific analysis could quickly identify the source of a nuclear attack or attempted attack. A key report on nuclear forensics is due next month.
The counter-terrorism efforts are becoming routine. Scientists in specially equipped helicopters and airplanes use radiation detectors to scan cities for signs of weapons. They blend into crowds at major sporting events, wearing backpacks containing instruments that can identify plutonium or highly enriched uranium.
So far, they have not encountered a terrorist. Near the Las Vegas Strip, they investigated a homeless person who somehow had picked up a piece of radioactive material. On the streets of Manhattan, a hot-dog vendor fresh from a medical test triggered a policeman's radioactivity sensor.
But the teams have not become complacent. If the many layers of federal defense against nuclear smuggling break down, these unarmed weapons designers and physicists, along with experts from the FBI, could be the last hope of staving off a catastrophic attack.
They are supposed to rush up to a ticking nuclear explosive (or a "dirty" bomb, which would disperse radioactive material) and defuse it before it's too late -- a situation often depicted by Hollywood that seems less fictional every year.
"After everything else fails, we come in," said Deborah A. Wilber, the scientist who directs the Office of Emergency Response at the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration. "I don't believe it is a question of if it will happen. It is a question of when."
Since the attacks of 2001, the office has created 26 rapid-response units around the nation.
If a device were located, two other specialized teams would rush to the scene, one from a base in Albuquerque, where a fueled jetliner is on 24-hour alert. Another FBI team would depart from rural Virginia.
The teams would first attempt to disable a bomb's electrical firing system and then quickly transfer the weapon to the Nevada desert. There, the bomb would be lowered into the G Tunnel, a 5,000-foot-deep shaft, where a crew of scientists and FBI agents would attempt to disassemble the device behind steel blast doors, logging any evidence.
About 1,000 nuclear weapons scientists and 500 to 1,000 more FBI professionals participate in the nation's emergency response effort, though not full time. Increased investment in the project reflects an acknowledgment that the nation remains vulnerable to nuclear terrorism.
But the effort is also reaching for something greater than defense: a Cold War style of deterrence.
The scientists are also experts in the rapidly evolving field of nuclear forensics, which aims to track nuclear materials to their country of origin. Even if a bomb detonates, fallout can be analyzed to identify the terrorists and their state sponsors. A retaliatory strike could be the response.
The idea is to force other nations to take better care of their own nuclear fuels or else find themselves in the cross hairs of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
A major technical and policy analysis of this approach -- the report that is due next month -- is being conducted by some of the nation's top nuclear weapons experts, sponsored by the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science and led by Stanford University physicist Michael M. May.
In the meantime, the United States is retrieving and locking down nuclear fuels abroad, has created a line of radiation detectors at foreign and domestic ports, and has increased intelligence efforts.
If those and other measures fail, the emergency response teams are a last hope, but one nobody should rely on, said Charles B. Curtis, president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, which pushes for stronger efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism.
Intercepting a device "is a very, very, very difficult problem, but not impossible," said Curtis, a former Energy Department deputy secretary.
Vahid Majidi, a nuclear weapons chemist and head of the FBI Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate, seemed more confident. Asked how good his chances would be to find a nuclear bomb in Manhattan with 24 hours' warning, he said, "Quite reasonable."
He continued: "When you think of issues only as a technical problem, you only think of technical capability. I am not sitting on my hands waiting for some detector to go off. We will use every asset at our disposal. Technology is a very small portion of what we do."
The full capability of the teams is classified. Bruce Goodwin, nuclear weapons chief at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said the teams now had "some really remarkable tools that can prevent nuclear function," suggesting a device that can foil the arming system or perhaps even neutralize its basic operation.
It is assumed that any terrorist bomb would have booby traps and anti-tampering devices, perhaps designed by scientists who studied at the same universities that trained U.S. weapons scientists. Emergency response scientists run exercises in which one team designs a booby-trapped bomb and another team tries to disarm it.
A weapon stolen from a national stockpile might pose fewer problems than a makeshift terrorist device.
"We know a lot about other people's weapons," said Curtis. "They will tolerate a greater intrusive disarming strategy than an improvised nuclear device."
History has some unfortunate lessons. In 1980, Energy Department experts were sent to help disarm a 1,000-pound conventional bomb placed by an extortionist at Harvey's Resort Hotel in Stateline, Nev. The bomb had extraordinary anti-tampering devices that prevented the teams from disassembling, disarming or even moving it.
So the bomb experts decided to fire a shaped charge into the arming mechanism, hoping to sever it from the rest of the bomb before it could detonate. After the hotel was evacuated, the team triggered the charge from a safe distance. The strategy failed and the bomb badly damaged the hotel.
But today's level of expertise would easily have solved the problem, said Joseph J. Krol Jr., a retired Navy rear admiral who heads the National Nuclear Security Administration's Office of Emergency Operations, to which Wilber's emergency response office belongs.
"We are very much better prepared," Krol said. "How we operated then and how we operate now is like night and day."
Indeed, Philip E. Coyle, a former deputy director at Lawrence Livermore, recalled that when he served on the emergency teams in the 1970s and 1980s, he carried a card in his wallet to present at an airport in an emergency so he could order airlines to take him where he needed to go.
"It sounded good, but I always wondered whether it would work," he said. Now the teams travel by government aircraft and other federal vehicles.
A successful terrorist nuclear attack would trigger the so-called national response plan.
Many federal agencies would swing into action, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Defense Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, as would myriad obscure offices unknown to the vast majority of Americans. For example, the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center, based at the Livermore lab, would run advanced computation models of fallout patterns to provide evacuation plans for potentially millions of people.
Whether so many federal agencies could work together in the chaos of a nuclear attack, all while coordinating with state and local officials, is a matter of grave concern in Congress. But Majidi and Krol say extensive planning and exercises have clarified the lines of authority.
Communications would be a major undertaking.
"If you tell 100 million people to go east, 25 million will go west because they don't trust the government," said Jay C. Davis, a retired weapons scientist who is working on the forensics study.
The forensics study is trying to assess how authoritative the U.S. could be in attributing a nuclear device to a particular source and in making its case to the American public and the rest of the world.
Davis said it was hoped that nuclear forensics could determine the size of a detonation within one hour; the sophistication of the bomb design within six hours; how the fuel was enriched within 72 hours; and the peculiar details of national design -- "Does this look like a Russian, a Chinese or a Pakistani device, or something we have never seen before?" -- within a week.
What next? That part of the strategy is still evolving. Retaliation is one option that counter-terrorism officials have suggested in congressional testimony. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Pasadena), who has sponsored legislation to increase funding for nuclear forensics, suggested that any policy had to be flexible.
"It would be left to the administration in office to determine what the repercussions would be," he said.
Deterrence might depend simply on the perception that the U.S. could respond with a counterstrike. But if nuclear fuel were traced back to Russia, would the U.S. start a nuclear exchange? And what if the nuclear materials came from the U.S.?
Of course, those on the front lines hope such a quandary never has to be confronted.
The scientists and engineers -- who say anonymity is their only defense -- talk about their jobs with marked calm.
"I told my wife that I have a job that might require me to leave home in the middle of the night and I won't be able to say where I'm going," said Jerry, one team member. "Well, that didn't set too well with her. But she works in the Pentagon, and was right next to the corridor that took the hit in the 9/11 attack. So we share what this service means."
ralph.vartabedian@
latimes.com
Atomic chief fears for security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal
Beirut (AFP) Jan 8, 2008 - The head of the UN atomic watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei has voiced concern over the possibility that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal could fall into extremist hands, in statements published on Tuesday. "I fear that chaos... or an extremist regime could take root in that country which has 30 to 40 warheads," ElBaradei told the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat in an interview. He stressed that he was "worr ... more
Beirut (AFP) Jan 8, 2008 - The head of the UN atomic watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei has voiced concern over the possibility that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal could fall into extremist hands, in statements published on Tuesday. "I fear that chaos... or an extremist regime could take root in that country which has 30 to 40 warheads," ElBaradei told the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat in an interview. He stressed that he was "worr ... more
IAEA, Iran tackle last major issue in nuclear probe: diplomat
Vienna (AFP) Jan 8, 2008 - Iran and the UN atomic watchdog have started talks on the last major issue regarding possible military use in the long-running probe into Tehran's disputed nuclear activities, diplomats here said Tuesday. As International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei was preparing to fly to Tehran for a rare visit at the end of the week, IAEA officials were already "on the ground" in the Iran ... more
Vienna (AFP) Jan 8, 2008 - Iran and the UN atomic watchdog have started talks on the last major issue regarding possible military use in the long-running probe into Tehran's disputed nuclear activities, diplomats here said Tuesday. As International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei was preparing to fly to Tehran for a rare visit at the end of the week, IAEA officials were already "on the ground" in the Iran ... more
NUCLEAR.WIRE
Britain approves new nuclear reactors, to Green fury
US envoy wants NKorea progress by end-February
Areva looks to build six nuclear plants in Britain
Britain approves new nuclear reactors: minister
Britain approves new nuclear reactors to Green fury
'All options on table' to stop nuclear Iran: Israel
Britain expected to approve new nuclear reactors
US envoy wants NKorea nukes progress by end-February
US nuclear envoy meets new SKorea leader
US nuclear deals with North Korea, India in limbo
Britain approves new nuclear reactors, to Green fury
US envoy wants NKorea progress by end-February
Areva looks to build six nuclear plants in Britain
Britain approves new nuclear reactors: minister
Britain approves new nuclear reactors to Green fury
'All options on table' to stop nuclear Iran: Israel
Britain expected to approve new nuclear reactors
US envoy wants NKorea nukes progress by end-February
US nuclear envoy meets new SKorea leader
US nuclear deals with North Korea, India in limbo
Groups lobby for restrictions on US-India nuclear deal
1 day ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Some 130 nuclear experts and non-governmental groups have sent letters to governments to a bid to lobby for curbs on a controversial US nuclear deal with India, officials said Wednesday.
The letter was addressed to about 50 governments ahead of meetings to scrutinize the deal by global atomic regulatory groups, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).
The IAEA is the UN's nuclear watchdog while the 45-nation NSG regulates nuclear commerce.
"What we are doing here is calling upon the NSG states and the IAEA board of governors to take an extremely careful look at the proposal to exempt India from key safeguards, conditions for nuclear trade," Daryl Kimball, executive director of the US Arms Control Association, told AFP.
The association was among lead groups of the signature campaign.
Under the deal, the United States would provide India with nuclear fuel and technology even though the Asian nation has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W. Bush forged the deal more than two years ago but Singh is facing pressure against it from communist and other left-wing parties propping up his government in parliament.
"My sense is that our message will be well received by many of these governments who are concerned about this deal," Kimball said.
"If the deal gets pass domestic opposition in India, I think several states are going to raise key objections at the NSG," he said.
Under the deal, India must put selected nuclear facilities under international safeguards, including inspections.
The United States and India adopted an operational agreement for the deal in August last year after complex negotiations and New Delhi is negotiating with the IAEA on a separate pact that would incorporate critical safeguards.
They also have to endorsed by the NSG and get mandatory approval from the US Congress, where legislators have vowed to give the deal close scrutiny.
The letter wanted governments "to play an active role in supporting measures that would ensure this controversial proposal does not: further undermine the nuclear safeguards system and efforts to prevent the proliferation of technologies that may be used to produce nuclear bomb material," or "in any way contribute to the expansion of India's nuclear arsenal."
US nuclear deals with North Korea, India in limbo
WASHINGTON (AFP) — US deals to end North Korea's nuclear weapons drive and to bring India into the loop of global atomic commerce are in a limbo amid doubts they can be wrapped up before President George W. Bush leaves office in a year.
The deal with North Korea under a six-nation agreement had been progressing well last year until Pyongyang failed to meet a December 31 deadline to fully declare its nuclear program and disable its key plutonium reactor.
Washington says it has evidence that Pyongyang has imported material for a suspected uranium enrichment program aside from its plutonium activities.
The elusive North Koreans, on the other hand, have vowed to slow down their nuclear disablement activities.
They claim the United States and the other parties in the deal have failed to meet their commitments, including providing North Korea with energy aid and diplomatic and security guarantees.
The impasse sets back the landmark nuclear accord reached four years after the Bush administration decided to bring a negotiated settlement to the nuclear turmoil in the Korean peninsula with the help of China, Russia, South Korea and Japan.
"The declaration issue really could be a show stopper because how can you proceed with a commitment to eliminate North Korea's nuclear program completely if they haven't been transparent about the whole program," Robert Einhorn, a former US government non-proliferation chief, told AFP.
"In other words, if they are continuing to deny part of it, how can you count on them to eliminate the whole thing? It is something that has to be addressed, you can't work around it, you can't sweep it under the rug," he said.
Even if the North Koreans are able to convince Washington that they have washed their hands of any uranium enrichment program and the deal persists, the hawks within the Bush administration will not take it lying down, said Sharon Squassoni, a former nuclear safeguards expert in the State Department.
The Clinton administration in 2002 scrapped a deal to freeze Pyongyang's nuclear weapons drive after accusing it of pursuing a covert program to produce highly enriched uranium, based on intelligence information.
"The neocons (neo-conservatives) within the administration will now say that we are back to square one, except that North Korea has also now tested a nuclear weapon," Squassoni said.
But chief US nuclear envoy Christopher Hill, who is in the region trying to salvage the deal, called for patience, saying neither the North nor its negotiating partners "want to walk away" from the deal.
The nuclear deal with India is virtually stuck on two fronts -- in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's administration, where communist and other leftist coalition parties are against it, and at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), where New Delhi is struggling to forge critical atomic safeguards.
Bush and Singh agreed more than two years ago that Washington would provide India with nuclear fuel and technology even though the Asian nation has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
But India had to place selected nuclear facilities under international safeguards, including inspections, which has to be agreed upon by the IAEA board of directors.
A third round of talks between Indian and IAEA officials ended last week without resolution on India's demands for a mechanism to create a strategic reserve to meet lifetime fuel supply for its civilian nuclear plants, as well as "corrective measures" in the event of stoppage of fuel to power plants, experts said.
Even if IAEA agreed on the safeguards, the Nuclear Suppliers' Group, another regulatory body which also operates by consensus, has to agree to a US proposal to exempt India from a "full scope safeguards" condition of nuclear supply.
Then, an operational agreement for the nuclear deal that has already been adopted by India and the United States as well as the IAEA safeguards has to be approved by the US Congress before summer for it to be implemented by year end, experts said.
The deadline stems from a tight 2008 legislative calendar ahead of the November US presidential elections.
"There will be a very, very significant push to complete it this year but it is going to be tough. Even if everything works perfectly, it is still going to be tough," Squassoni said.
Although the US Congress has agreed in principle to the Indian nuclear deal, Einhorn said that there could be a delay and some controversial issues associated with it.
"There will be some members of Congress who will say this should be dealt by the next president and the next Congress," he said.
"At the end of the day, the votes are probably there but it's not going to breeze through Congress."
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j04Dfb...9615ue3ycpWCaaQ
WASHINGTON (AFP) — US deals to end North Korea's nuclear weapons drive and to bring India into the loop of global atomic commerce are in a limbo amid doubts they can be wrapped up before President George W. Bush leaves office in a year.
The deal with North Korea under a six-nation agreement had been progressing well last year until Pyongyang failed to meet a December 31 deadline to fully declare its nuclear program and disable its key plutonium reactor.
Washington says it has evidence that Pyongyang has imported material for a suspected uranium enrichment program aside from its plutonium activities.
The elusive North Koreans, on the other hand, have vowed to slow down their nuclear disablement activities.
They claim the United States and the other parties in the deal have failed to meet their commitments, including providing North Korea with energy aid and diplomatic and security guarantees.
The impasse sets back the landmark nuclear accord reached four years after the Bush administration decided to bring a negotiated settlement to the nuclear turmoil in the Korean peninsula with the help of China, Russia, South Korea and Japan.
"The declaration issue really could be a show stopper because how can you proceed with a commitment to eliminate North Korea's nuclear program completely if they haven't been transparent about the whole program," Robert Einhorn, a former US government non-proliferation chief, told AFP.
"In other words, if they are continuing to deny part of it, how can you count on them to eliminate the whole thing? It is something that has to be addressed, you can't work around it, you can't sweep it under the rug," he said.
Even if the North Koreans are able to convince Washington that they have washed their hands of any uranium enrichment program and the deal persists, the hawks within the Bush administration will not take it lying down, said Sharon Squassoni, a former nuclear safeguards expert in the State Department.
The Clinton administration in 2002 scrapped a deal to freeze Pyongyang's nuclear weapons drive after accusing it of pursuing a covert program to produce highly enriched uranium, based on intelligence information.
"The neocons (neo-conservatives) within the administration will now say that we are back to square one, except that North Korea has also now tested a nuclear weapon," Squassoni said.
But chief US nuclear envoy Christopher Hill, who is in the region trying to salvage the deal, called for patience, saying neither the North nor its negotiating partners "want to walk away" from the deal.
The nuclear deal with India is virtually stuck on two fronts -- in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's administration, where communist and other leftist coalition parties are against it, and at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), where New Delhi is struggling to forge critical atomic safeguards.
Bush and Singh agreed more than two years ago that Washington would provide India with nuclear fuel and technology even though the Asian nation has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
But India had to place selected nuclear facilities under international safeguards, including inspections, which has to be agreed upon by the IAEA board of directors.
A third round of talks between Indian and IAEA officials ended last week without resolution on India's demands for a mechanism to create a strategic reserve to meet lifetime fuel supply for its civilian nuclear plants, as well as "corrective measures" in the event of stoppage of fuel to power plants, experts said.
Even if IAEA agreed on the safeguards, the Nuclear Suppliers' Group, another regulatory body which also operates by consensus, has to agree to a US proposal to exempt India from a "full scope safeguards" condition of nuclear supply.
Then, an operational agreement for the nuclear deal that has already been adopted by India and the United States as well as the IAEA safeguards has to be approved by the US Congress before summer for it to be implemented by year end, experts said.
The deadline stems from a tight 2008 legislative calendar ahead of the November US presidential elections.
"There will be a very, very significant push to complete it this year but it is going to be tough. Even if everything works perfectly, it is still going to be tough," Squassoni said.
Although the US Congress has agreed in principle to the Indian nuclear deal, Einhorn said that there could be a delay and some controversial issues associated with it.
"There will be some members of Congress who will say this should be dealt by the next president and the next Congress," he said.
"At the end of the day, the votes are probably there but it's not going to breeze through Congress."
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j04Dfb...9615ue3ycpWCaaQ
U.S. sets new deadline for N. Korea's declaration of nuclear programs
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2...001700315F.HTML
혻혻 By Lee Chi-dong
INCHEON, Jan. 10 (Yonhap) -- The United States wants North Korea to disclose all of its nuclear programs before the launch of South Korea's new government late next month, Washington's chief nuclear envoy said Thursday.
혻혻 Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill presented the fresh deadline for recalcitrant North Korea after his meeting with South Korea's incoming leader Lee Myung-bak.
혻혻 The United States accuses North Korea of failing to meet the year-end deadline to provide a "complete and correct" declaration on the North's nuclear activity, a key part of the second phase of the denuclearization process. But Pyongyang insists that it already explained enough about its nuclear programs. North Korea criticizes the U.S. and other dialogue partners over delays in their provision of further energy aid and political incentives.
혻혻 It is very desirable to complete phase two even before Lee takes office so negotiators can focus on the last phase by the time his government begins its term, Hill told reporters at Incheon International Airport before heading to Beijing.
혻혻 The envoy said he had a "very good discussion" with Lee about the need to work closely together for denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
혻혻 Hill cited North Korea's lack of transparency as a reason for its failure to meet the deadline.
혻 혻 "We can't have a situation where we pretend programs didn't exist for we both know that they existed," he said. "We can't have a program, a process that goes forward on the basis of not being honest with each other."
His remarks were understood to refer to the North's alleged uranium enrichment program and nuclear black-market connection with Syria.
혻혻 "It is a tougher issue than maybe it should be. I mean tougher from a psychological point of view," he said. "That is why I think we need to show a little patience with the situation."
Asked about the timing for a new round of six-way talks on the nuclear crisis, Hill said it depends on consultations with host China.
혻혻 He said he will discuss the issue with his Chinese counterpart Wu Dawei later Thursday. The other participants in the talks are Japan, Russia, and the two Koreas.
혻혻 During his hectic three-day schedule in Seoul, he had a series of meetings with President Roh Moo-hyun, Foreign Minister Song Min-soon, and Seoul's top nuclear envoy Chun Yung-woo.
혻혻 Hill and Chun agreed to push for a quick resumption of the six-way talks.
혻혻 lcd@yna.co.kr
(END)
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2...001700315F.HTML
혻혻 By Lee Chi-dong
INCHEON, Jan. 10 (Yonhap) -- The United States wants North Korea to disclose all of its nuclear programs before the launch of South Korea's new government late next month, Washington's chief nuclear envoy said Thursday.
혻혻 Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill presented the fresh deadline for recalcitrant North Korea after his meeting with South Korea's incoming leader Lee Myung-bak.
혻혻 The United States accuses North Korea of failing to meet the year-end deadline to provide a "complete and correct" declaration on the North's nuclear activity, a key part of the second phase of the denuclearization process. But Pyongyang insists that it already explained enough about its nuclear programs. North Korea criticizes the U.S. and other dialogue partners over delays in their provision of further energy aid and political incentives.
혻혻 It is very desirable to complete phase two even before Lee takes office so negotiators can focus on the last phase by the time his government begins its term, Hill told reporters at Incheon International Airport before heading to Beijing.
혻혻 The envoy said he had a "very good discussion" with Lee about the need to work closely together for denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
혻혻 Hill cited North Korea's lack of transparency as a reason for its failure to meet the deadline.
혻 혻 "We can't have a situation where we pretend programs didn't exist for we both know that they existed," he said. "We can't have a program, a process that goes forward on the basis of not being honest with each other."
His remarks were understood to refer to the North's alleged uranium enrichment program and nuclear black-market connection with Syria.
혻혻 "It is a tougher issue than maybe it should be. I mean tougher from a psychological point of view," he said. "That is why I think we need to show a little patience with the situation."
Asked about the timing for a new round of six-way talks on the nuclear crisis, Hill said it depends on consultations with host China.
혻혻 He said he will discuss the issue with his Chinese counterpart Wu Dawei later Thursday. The other participants in the talks are Japan, Russia, and the two Koreas.
혻혻 During his hectic three-day schedule in Seoul, he had a series of meetings with President Roh Moo-hyun, Foreign Minister Song Min-soon, and Seoul's top nuclear envoy Chun Yung-woo.
혻혻 Hill and Chun agreed to push for a quick resumption of the six-way talks.
혻혻 lcd@yna.co.kr
(END)
ElBaradei’s remarks irresponsible, says FO
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=12207
By Mariana Baabar
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has rejected Tuesday’s statement of ElBaradei, Director General International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), saying as head of the UN nuclear watchdog he should be more careful about his statements, which ought to remain within the parameters of his mandate.
ElBaradei, taking cue from Washington, had said in an interview that there was possibility of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling in the hands of extremists.
As Islamabad sent its Charge d’Affaires to speak with the Chief of Staff of ElBaradei in Vienna, the spokesman at the Foreign Office here told the weekly press briefing: “ElBaradei has hinted at the possibility of its nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extremists. As head of the IAEA, which is a UN body, he has to be careful about his statements, which ought to remain within the parameters of his mandate. His remarks also ignore the fact that the strategic assets of Pakistan are fully secure and under multi-layered safeguards and controls exercised by the National Command Authority.”
The spokesman said that IAEA’s main concern was with safeguarding civilian nuclear facilities.
To a query, the spokesman said he was unable to comment on what goes on in ElBaradei’s mind. “We, however, noticed that he also said that if there is a new war in the Middle East, it would affect Pakistan more than the war-stricken country itself. I fail to comprehend his logic. I don’t know what prompted him to make such statement,” he said.
The spokesman said that Pakistan had on several briefed the IAEA chief about the structure and control mechanisms put in place to ensure complete safety of Pakistan’s nuclear assets.
“Pakistan is a responsible nuclear weapon state. Our nuclear weapons are as secure as that of any other nuclear weapon state. We, therefore, believe statements expressing concern about their safety and security are unwarranted and irresponsible”, he added.
The spokesman said that Pakistan attaches great importance to IAEA and has extended cooperation and assistance to the Agency on many important issues towards the fulfilment of its mandate.
“Our civilian nuclear programme is under IAEA safeguards and we have always fully complied with the IAEA obligations,” he said while reading from a prepared statement.
To a query about other similar statements this time coming from US presidential hopefuls, the spokesman said that in the case of Senator Hillary Clinton, Islamabad was of the view that her statement was rather vague.
“Regardless of the meaning of her remarks it must be clearly understood that our leadership at the highest level has repeatedly said that our strategic assets are completely safe and secure under fully indigenous, multi-layered institutionalised security, and command and control structure”, he said.
To another query the spokesman blamed the foreign media for initiating a campaign against Pakistan’s nuclear assets. “We reject all such baseless, ridiculous and sinister insinuations that reek of animus against Pakistan. These statements intend to see Pakistan destabilized. This campaign is further upsetting the people of Pakistan who are still in a state of shock”, he stated.
The spokesman disagreed with a questioner and said that Pakistan was never the darling of the western media even after 9/11.
“You can check the record. I think a section of the western media has always attacked Pakistan and sought to find something, which would project a negative image of Pakistan. This was true even during the Afghan struggle against the Soviet occupation. The recent issue of ‘Economist’ has a sensational title on the cover describing Pakistan as ‘the most dangerous country in the world’, but the article inside talks about some of the challenges faced by Pakistan which we will overcome”, he said.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=12207
By Mariana Baabar
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has rejected Tuesday’s statement of ElBaradei, Director General International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), saying as head of the UN nuclear watchdog he should be more careful about his statements, which ought to remain within the parameters of his mandate.
ElBaradei, taking cue from Washington, had said in an interview that there was possibility of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling in the hands of extremists.
As Islamabad sent its Charge d’Affaires to speak with the Chief of Staff of ElBaradei in Vienna, the spokesman at the Foreign Office here told the weekly press briefing: “ElBaradei has hinted at the possibility of its nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extremists. As head of the IAEA, which is a UN body, he has to be careful about his statements, which ought to remain within the parameters of his mandate. His remarks also ignore the fact that the strategic assets of Pakistan are fully secure and under multi-layered safeguards and controls exercised by the National Command Authority.”
The spokesman said that IAEA’s main concern was with safeguarding civilian nuclear facilities.
To a query, the spokesman said he was unable to comment on what goes on in ElBaradei’s mind. “We, however, noticed that he also said that if there is a new war in the Middle East, it would affect Pakistan more than the war-stricken country itself. I fail to comprehend his logic. I don’t know what prompted him to make such statement,” he said.
The spokesman said that Pakistan had on several briefed the IAEA chief about the structure and control mechanisms put in place to ensure complete safety of Pakistan’s nuclear assets.
“Pakistan is a responsible nuclear weapon state. Our nuclear weapons are as secure as that of any other nuclear weapon state. We, therefore, believe statements expressing concern about their safety and security are unwarranted and irresponsible”, he added.
The spokesman said that Pakistan attaches great importance to IAEA and has extended cooperation and assistance to the Agency on many important issues towards the fulfilment of its mandate.
“Our civilian nuclear programme is under IAEA safeguards and we have always fully complied with the IAEA obligations,” he said while reading from a prepared statement.
To a query about other similar statements this time coming from US presidential hopefuls, the spokesman said that in the case of Senator Hillary Clinton, Islamabad was of the view that her statement was rather vague.
“Regardless of the meaning of her remarks it must be clearly understood that our leadership at the highest level has repeatedly said that our strategic assets are completely safe and secure under fully indigenous, multi-layered institutionalised security, and command and control structure”, he said.
To another query the spokesman blamed the foreign media for initiating a campaign against Pakistan’s nuclear assets. “We reject all such baseless, ridiculous and sinister insinuations that reek of animus against Pakistan. These statements intend to see Pakistan destabilized. This campaign is further upsetting the people of Pakistan who are still in a state of shock”, he stated.
The spokesman disagreed with a questioner and said that Pakistan was never the darling of the western media even after 9/11.
“You can check the record. I think a section of the western media has always attacked Pakistan and sought to find something, which would project a negative image of Pakistan. This was true even during the Afghan struggle against the Soviet occupation. The recent issue of ‘Economist’ has a sensational title on the cover describing Pakistan as ‘the most dangerous country in the world’, but the article inside talks about some of the challenges faced by Pakistan which we will overcome”, he said.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2700
PolicyWatch #1324
Raising the Costs for Tehran
By Michael Jacobson
January 3, 2008
In the wake of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, questions are being raised as to whether sanctions and financial pressure remain a viable approach to changing Tehran's decisionmaking on its nuclear program. As evidence of this strategy's demise, critics point to the foundering attempts to negotiate a third round of UN sanctions against Iran -- sanctions that appeared imminent before the NIE's publication. While additional punitive measures by the UN are important and necessary, better enforcement of the various sanctions regimes already in place could have an equally significant impact.
Multiple Sanctions Regimes
There are three separate, but often overlapping, sets of sanctions in place against Iran. The UN Security Council has passed two resolutions against Iran -- Resolutions 1737 and 1747 -- that blacklisted a number of Iranian officials and entities. Of these, the most significant designations were of Bank Sepah, a large state-owned bank, and a number of entities tied to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The UN also designated the IRGC's then head, Maj. Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi.
The European Union (EU) has followed the UN with two rounds of its own sanctions, in many areas going well beyond what was required by the UN. For example, in addition to freezing the assets of the fifty individuals and entities listed in the two Security Council resolutions, the EU has added more than twenty others to its own blacklist. The EU has also enacted a more comprehensive arms embargo and travel ban against Iran and its officials than required by the UN.
The United States has its own list of designated Iranian officials and entities, some of whom have been named by the UN and EU as well. For example, Washington designated Bank Sepah unilaterally for its proliferation-related activity before it was blacklisted by the UN. On the other hand, the UN and the EU have yet to follow Washington's lead in designating the Iranian financial institutions Bank Melli, Bank Saderat and Bank Mellat, and the entire IRGC -- unilateral actions the United States took in October based on these organizations' involvement in Tehran's terrorism and proliferation-related activities. In addition to these targeted sanctions, the United States also has in place more comprehensive trade sanctions against Iran as a whole, dating from the mid-1990s. Notably, however, while the United States maintains the most robust sanctions against Iran, it has not yet designated all of the individuals listed by the UN.
Too Little Focus on Implementation
To date, most of the focus on the Iran sanctions regime has been on which entities were added to these various blacklists and which were left off. There has been far too little attention paid to how effectively the measures are being implemented. Far more could be done on this front.
The UN sanctions are a particularly glaring example of implementation is falling short of intentions. Each member state is responsible for assessing its own compliance with the two UN resolutions -- and then providing this analysis to the UN. Not surprisingly, these reports are often less than thorough, and many countries missed the UN's submission deadline with no apparent consequence. This arrangement is far less robust than the UN has used for many of its other sanctions programs, where it has established independent monitoring teams to ensure compliance. These teams were created to track compliance with sanctions targeting Sudan, Somalia, Liberia, and al-Qaeda and the Taliban, among others.
For example, the monitoring group for the sanctions regime against al-Qaeda and the Taliban -- comprised of terrorist financing experts operating with considerable autonomy -- released detailed reports outlining where countries were falling short. In 2003, the group criticized Italy, Switzerland, and Lichtenstein for allowing designated individuals to run large-scale businesses in their countries. This type of "naming and shaming" -- used frequently by the group -- was often an effective tool in pressuring countries to act.
While the EU itself has gone further than the UN required, its member states' implementation has been uneven, for a number of reasons. First, the EU's ability to monitor sanctions compliance is limited, as it only has oversight jurisdiction over its member states and not individual European companies. The EU also does not have the resources necessary to conduct audits or to bring enforcement actions. As a result, the EU will generally only take action in this area when an obvious violation by a member state is brought to its attention.
Resource constraints and a lack of political will also affect individual European countries' efforts to crack down on illicit trade with Iran. For example, Italy has less than fifteen people working in its export-control office; of these, only eight are investigators. Given Italy's status as one of Iran's most important European trading partners, this represents a glaring deficiency -- one that could easily be remedied.
While Germany devotes far more resources to investigating these types of violations, one of its public prosecutors recently stated that Berlin has only uncovered "the tip of the iceberg" of black market activity involving Iran's nuclear program. The Germans have also been critical of how others have implemented the sanctions. According to press reports, Germany's foreign minister charged that French companies had not scaled down their Iranian business and that a number of American companies illegally continued to do business with Iran as well.
Increased Authority for the United States
Whether or not the German foreign minister's contention regarding U.S. business is accurate, until recently Washington's ability to crack down on sanctions violators was limited by the severity of the penalties it could impose. Congress recently changed the law in this area, dramatically increasing the possible fines for violations of U.S. sanctions regulations. In October 2007, Congress passed a measure enhancing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which raised the possible civil fines for violating this statute from $50,000 to $250,000 or twice the value of the transaction (whichever figure is higher), and the criminal penalties from $50,000 to $1 million. IEEPA remains the primary statutory basis for the U.S. sanctions regimes, including those targeting Iran. (Though Washington also has the power to take enforcement action against inadequate compliance under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970.)
If Washington steps up its enforcement efforts, it would be more risky for companies to treat the prospect of fines as the "cost of doing business." In recent testimony to the Senate Banking Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Office of Foreign Asset Control director Adam Szubin seemed to indicate that the United States plans to take more aggressive action with its new authorities. Szubin testified that "the passage of [the IEEPA enhancement measure] will provide a strong tool to make our sanctions effective," noting that the U.S. government had faced "impediments to obtaining meaningful enforcement of our sanctions against Sudan." While Szubin's comments were in the context of Sudan sanctions, they are equally applicable to the Iran sanctions regime, and presumably indicate that Washington intends to ramp up enforcement across the board.
The Potential Promise of Financial Pressure
The recent NIE concluded that Iran makes its nuclear-related decisions using a "cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs." In fact, according to the estimate, Iran's decision to halt its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003 was in response to "increasing international scrutiny," which suggested that "Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue that we judged previously." Blacklisting Iranian entities and officials involved in illicit activity is an important part of the effort to ratchet up the pressure, but ensuring that those designated are actually cut off from the international economy is equally critical. As the NIE suggests, if the international community is able to make Iran pay a high enough cost for its activities, persuading the regime to abandon all of its nuclear ambitions is a goal within reach.
Michael Jacobson, a senior fellow in The Washington Institute's Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, previously served as a senior advisor in the Treasury Department's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. He is the author of The West at War: U.S. and European Counterterrorism Efforts, Post-September 11.
PolicyWatch #1324
Raising the Costs for Tehran
By Michael Jacobson
January 3, 2008
In the wake of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran, questions are being raised as to whether sanctions and financial pressure remain a viable approach to changing Tehran's decisionmaking on its nuclear program. As evidence of this strategy's demise, critics point to the foundering attempts to negotiate a third round of UN sanctions against Iran -- sanctions that appeared imminent before the NIE's publication. While additional punitive measures by the UN are important and necessary, better enforcement of the various sanctions regimes already in place could have an equally significant impact.
Multiple Sanctions Regimes
There are three separate, but often overlapping, sets of sanctions in place against Iran. The UN Security Council has passed two resolutions against Iran -- Resolutions 1737 and 1747 -- that blacklisted a number of Iranian officials and entities. Of these, the most significant designations were of Bank Sepah, a large state-owned bank, and a number of entities tied to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The UN also designated the IRGC's then head, Maj. Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi.
The European Union (EU) has followed the UN with two rounds of its own sanctions, in many areas going well beyond what was required by the UN. For example, in addition to freezing the assets of the fifty individuals and entities listed in the two Security Council resolutions, the EU has added more than twenty others to its own blacklist. The EU has also enacted a more comprehensive arms embargo and travel ban against Iran and its officials than required by the UN.
The United States has its own list of designated Iranian officials and entities, some of whom have been named by the UN and EU as well. For example, Washington designated Bank Sepah unilaterally for its proliferation-related activity before it was blacklisted by the UN. On the other hand, the UN and the EU have yet to follow Washington's lead in designating the Iranian financial institutions Bank Melli, Bank Saderat and Bank Mellat, and the entire IRGC -- unilateral actions the United States took in October based on these organizations' involvement in Tehran's terrorism and proliferation-related activities. In addition to these targeted sanctions, the United States also has in place more comprehensive trade sanctions against Iran as a whole, dating from the mid-1990s. Notably, however, while the United States maintains the most robust sanctions against Iran, it has not yet designated all of the individuals listed by the UN.
Too Little Focus on Implementation
To date, most of the focus on the Iran sanctions regime has been on which entities were added to these various blacklists and which were left off. There has been far too little attention paid to how effectively the measures are being implemented. Far more could be done on this front.
The UN sanctions are a particularly glaring example of implementation is falling short of intentions. Each member state is responsible for assessing its own compliance with the two UN resolutions -- and then providing this analysis to the UN. Not surprisingly, these reports are often less than thorough, and many countries missed the UN's submission deadline with no apparent consequence. This arrangement is far less robust than the UN has used for many of its other sanctions programs, where it has established independent monitoring teams to ensure compliance. These teams were created to track compliance with sanctions targeting Sudan, Somalia, Liberia, and al-Qaeda and the Taliban, among others.
For example, the monitoring group for the sanctions regime against al-Qaeda and the Taliban -- comprised of terrorist financing experts operating with considerable autonomy -- released detailed reports outlining where countries were falling short. In 2003, the group criticized Italy, Switzerland, and Lichtenstein for allowing designated individuals to run large-scale businesses in their countries. This type of "naming and shaming" -- used frequently by the group -- was often an effective tool in pressuring countries to act.
While the EU itself has gone further than the UN required, its member states' implementation has been uneven, for a number of reasons. First, the EU's ability to monitor sanctions compliance is limited, as it only has oversight jurisdiction over its member states and not individual European companies. The EU also does not have the resources necessary to conduct audits or to bring enforcement actions. As a result, the EU will generally only take action in this area when an obvious violation by a member state is brought to its attention.
Resource constraints and a lack of political will also affect individual European countries' efforts to crack down on illicit trade with Iran. For example, Italy has less than fifteen people working in its export-control office; of these, only eight are investigators. Given Italy's status as one of Iran's most important European trading partners, this represents a glaring deficiency -- one that could easily be remedied.
While Germany devotes far more resources to investigating these types of violations, one of its public prosecutors recently stated that Berlin has only uncovered "the tip of the iceberg" of black market activity involving Iran's nuclear program. The Germans have also been critical of how others have implemented the sanctions. According to press reports, Germany's foreign minister charged that French companies had not scaled down their Iranian business and that a number of American companies illegally continued to do business with Iran as well.
Increased Authority for the United States
Whether or not the German foreign minister's contention regarding U.S. business is accurate, until recently Washington's ability to crack down on sanctions violators was limited by the severity of the penalties it could impose. Congress recently changed the law in this area, dramatically increasing the possible fines for violations of U.S. sanctions regulations. In October 2007, Congress passed a measure enhancing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which raised the possible civil fines for violating this statute from $50,000 to $250,000 or twice the value of the transaction (whichever figure is higher), and the criminal penalties from $50,000 to $1 million. IEEPA remains the primary statutory basis for the U.S. sanctions regimes, including those targeting Iran. (Though Washington also has the power to take enforcement action against inadequate compliance under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970.)
If Washington steps up its enforcement efforts, it would be more risky for companies to treat the prospect of fines as the "cost of doing business." In recent testimony to the Senate Banking Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Office of Foreign Asset Control director Adam Szubin seemed to indicate that the United States plans to take more aggressive action with its new authorities. Szubin testified that "the passage of [the IEEPA enhancement measure] will provide a strong tool to make our sanctions effective," noting that the U.S. government had faced "impediments to obtaining meaningful enforcement of our sanctions against Sudan." While Szubin's comments were in the context of Sudan sanctions, they are equally applicable to the Iran sanctions regime, and presumably indicate that Washington intends to ramp up enforcement across the board.
The Potential Promise of Financial Pressure
The recent NIE concluded that Iran makes its nuclear-related decisions using a "cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military costs." In fact, according to the estimate, Iran's decision to halt its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003 was in response to "increasing international scrutiny," which suggested that "Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue that we judged previously." Blacklisting Iranian entities and officials involved in illicit activity is an important part of the effort to ratchet up the pressure, but ensuring that those designated are actually cut off from the international economy is equally critical. As the NIE suggests, if the international community is able to make Iran pay a high enough cost for its activities, persuading the regime to abandon all of its nuclear ambitions is a goal within reach.
Michael Jacobson, a senior fellow in The Washington Institute's Stein Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, previously served as a senior advisor in the Treasury Department's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. He is the author of The West at War: U.S. and European Counterterrorism Efforts, Post-September 11.
The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Is Still Our Best Hope "The NPT is now at a dangerous tipping point, say experts such as Graham Allison, who warn that unless rapid progress is made on non-proliferation issues, there is a real risk of nuclear weapons being used for the first time since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki," writes Declan Butler at Nature News. "The issues will come to a head at an intergovernmental meeting in 2010 in Vienna, Austria, of the NPT's 189 members."
Iran-Nuclear Agency Ties Enter New Phase Associated Press | 11 January 2008
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog has entered a 'new phase,' a top Iranian nuclear official said Friday after the agency's chief began talks on Tehran's disputed nuclear program.
Nuclear power? Yes Please Reuters India | 11 January 2008
Jan. 11 - Governments rush to embrace a new generation of nuclear power stations amid bitter oppositon. Green campaigners dispute claims that nuclear energy is vital to the fight against climate change and the creation of low carbon economies.
Search for somewhere to bury nuclear waste Financial Times | 11 January 2008
One key question remains unanswered despite the go-ahead for further nuclear power plants: what to do with the waste they will generate.
U.N. chief seeks answers on Iranian nuclear issues ABC News | 11 January 2008
TEHRAN (Reuters) - U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei sought clarity from Iran on Friday about an atomic program the West fears may ultimately yield warheads.
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog has entered a 'new phase,' a top Iranian nuclear official said Friday after the agency's chief began talks on Tehran's disputed nuclear program.
Nuclear power? Yes Please Reuters India | 11 January 2008
Jan. 11 - Governments rush to embrace a new generation of nuclear power stations amid bitter oppositon. Green campaigners dispute claims that nuclear energy is vital to the fight against climate change and the creation of low carbon economies.
Search for somewhere to bury nuclear waste Financial Times | 11 January 2008
One key question remains unanswered despite the go-ahead for further nuclear power plants: what to do with the waste they will generate.
U.N. chief seeks answers on Iranian nuclear issues ABC News | 11 January 2008
TEHRAN (Reuters) - U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei sought clarity from Iran on Friday about an atomic program the West fears may ultimately yield warheads.
CIA Reveals:
We Said In 1974 That Israel Had Nuclear Weapons
By Amir Oren
Israel was also suspected of providing nuclear materials, equipment or technology to Iran, South Africa and other then-friendly countries. Continue
By Amir Oren
Israel was also suspected of providing nuclear materials, equipment or technology to Iran, South Africa and other then-friendly countries. Continue
+ US nuclear deals with North Korea, India in limbo
Washington (AFP) Jan 9, 2008 - US deals to end North Korea's nuclear weapons drive and to bring India into the loop of global atomic commerce are in a limbo amid doubts they can be wrapped up before President George W. Bush leaves office in a year. The deal with North Korea under a six-nation agreement has been progressing well over the last year until Pyongyang failed to meet a December 31 deadline to fully declare its n ... morenaval
+ Iran Airs Video Of Ship Incident As US Fleet Unsure Threat Was Iranian
Tehran (AFP) Jan 10, 2008 - Iran on Thursday aired its own video of an incident in the Strait of Hormuz with US warships, as the US Fifth Fleet raised doubts whether a radioed threat came from Iranian speedboats. The United States, meanwhile, made a formal protest over the weekend incident in which Iranian speedboats swarmed around US warships in the Strait of Hormuz entrance to the Gulf. In a bid to counter earlie ... moremilplex
+ Russian Arms Biz Woes In 2008 Part One
Moscow (UPI) Jan 10, 2007 - The Russian defense industry, which scored some major achievements last year, still faces major problems. It is unclear whether the 2007-2015 Russian state rearmament program will be implemented because some of its provisions are not being fulfilled completely. Speaking of achievements, the Teikovo division of the national Strategic Missi