March, 2010

FISSILE MATERIAL

By Chris Jones

Murmurings that have been made in off the record meetings for some time now have been aired publicly in a big way: there are serious disagreements about how the unclassified summary of the 2009 JASON report is being interpreted when compared to the classified version of the report. Responding to a request from Michael Turner, ranking member on the Strategic Forces subcommittee, the three laboratory directors have submitted letters to turner giving their take on the study. I cannot yet find copies of the letter but according to Politico :

In letters responding to Turner, the lab directors said the unclassified version failed to spell out all the risks involved in modernizing weapons over the long term. “The JASON report states that the lifetimes of today’s nuclear weapons could be extended for decades, with no anticipated loss of confidence, by using approaches similar to those employed in [Life-Extension Programs] to date. I do not agree with this assertion,” Los Alamos Director Michael Anastasio wrote. “The available mitigation actions…are reaching their limits.” Lawrence Livermore Director George Miller said the JASON report’s executive summary “understates the risks and challenges” of modernizing the arsenal and warned of “increasing risk in our ability to certify the safety and reliability of our Cold War stockpile into the indefinite future.”

NNSA Spokesman Damien LaVera also followed up on the administration’s November statement indicating possible disconnect between the two document last Thursday:

The November 2009 JASON report confirmed key challenges associated with adding performance margin and incorporating modern safety and security features into aging nuclear weapons systems. It also supported the emerging bipartisan consensus on the need to preserve our workforce, build a modern nuclear security infrastructure, and enhance the science, technology and engineering at our laboratories and plants

What does this all mean? A few things.

FISSILE MATERIAL

Questions Abound as "New START" Agreement is Completed
GSN by Elaine M. Grossman

Pakistan nuclear ambitions give US leverage
AFP Google by Shaun Tandon

Nuclear Labs Raise Doubts Over Viability of Arsenals
NY Times by William J. Broad

Foreign secretary urges more nuclear weapons cuts
BBC News

Agencies Suspect Iran Is Planning Atomic Sites
NY Times by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad

By Chris Jones

FISSILE MATERIAL
China joins Iran sanctions talks
Turtle Bay (Foreign Policy) by Colum Lynch

U.S. Softens Sanction Plan Against Iran
WSJ by David Crawford, Richard Boudreaux, Joe Lauria and Jay Solomon

United States and Russia reach nuclear-arms deal
WP by Mary Beth Sheridan and Philip P. Pan

Pakistan judge delays ruling on nuclear scientist
AP

U.S. must get its nuclear house in order before April Security Summit
The Hill by Peter Stockton and Ingrid Drake

FISSILE MATERIAL
Breakthrough Is Reported in U.S. Arms Pact With Russia
NYT by Peter Baker and Ellen Barry

Russia, China urged Iran to change nuclear stance
Reuters by Louis Charbonneau

US noncommittal on Pakistan's nuclear desires
WP by Matthew Lee (AP)

Australia, Japan Submit Disarmament Proposals For NPT Review Conference
GSN

Fixing Missile Defense
NYT Editorial

PONI is happy to announce the second event of the 2010 "PONI Debates the Issues" series.   Departing from the traditional debate format used to this point, the event will feature a panel discussion on the forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that will likely generate debate within the panelists.  The panelists include: 

Douglas Feith, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute

Clark Murdock, Senior Adviser, CSIS

Ivan Oelrich, Vice President, Strategic Security Programs, Federation of American Scientists

The logistical details for the event are as follows:

Date: Thursday, April 22, 2010

Time: 5:30 - 7:45 pm

Location: CSIS B1 Conference Center (1800 K St NW)

To RSVP for the event, please contact Chris Jones here or by phone at (202) 775-3234.

FISSILE MATERIAL
Jimmy Carter calls on U.S., S. Korea to talk directly with N. Korea
Yonhap News by Byun Duk-kun

Senators pressure Obama on Iran sanctions
The Cable (Foreign Policy) by Josh Rogin

Pakistan pushes US for nuclear technology deal
The Guardian by Saeed Shah

Officials Outline Missile Defense Goals
GSN by Otto Kreisher (CongressDaily)

There's still nothing new on Iran
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Op-ed by Ivan Oelrich and Ivanka Barzashka

FISSILE MATERIAL
Obama to Iranians: We want brighter future for you
Yahoo! News by Philip Elliott (AP)

Pakistan seeks to probe nuclear secrets scientist
Reuters by Kamran Haider

India to examine its NPT options ahead of nuclear summit
Hindustan Times by Indo-Asian News Service

Debate Heats Up Over Conventional, Nuclear Deterrence Tradeoffs
GSN by Elaine M. Grossman

US trains nuclear detectives to trace 'loose' nukes
CSM by Peter N. Spotts

By Andrew St. Denis

Tuesday on the Hill, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held its hearing on the nomination of Robert Ford as U.S. Ambassador to the Syrian Arab Republic, the first in five years.

FISSILE MATERIAL
Hillary Clinton, Russians clash publicly over Iran reactor
LA Times by Megan K. Stack

France offers to join forces with UK's nuclear submarine fleet
The Guardian by Julian Borger and Richard Norton-Taylor

Safety Issues Linger as Nuclear Reactors Shrink in Size
NY Times Analysis by Andrew E. Kramer

U.S., Russian negotiators 'at the finish line' on new START nuclear pact
WP by Mary Beth Sheridan

Seoul, Beijing Want Early Resumption of Nuclear Talks
Korea Times by Jung Sung-ki

FISSILE MATERIAL
U.S., Japan begin debate on security issues including nuclear umbrella
Mainichi Daily News by Kyodo News

China urges Iran to accept nuclear swap deal
PressTV

Clinton in Moscow for Mideast, nuclear arms talks
AP by Robert Burns

Obama official: Iran medical isotopes claim a "transparent ploy"
Foreign Policy by Josh Rogin

State Department Looks to Revamp Arms Control Bureaus
GSN by Martin Matishak

FISSILE MATERIAL

Woes could spark N.Korea regime collapse: think-tank
AFP

China 'more concerned' over Iran nuclear crisis
Yahoo!News by Dan Martin (AFP)

Pakistan, Iran sign deal on natural gas pipeline
WP by Zeeshan Haider (Reuters)

Russian parliament could block US nuclear treaty
Daily Times (AFP)

Extended deterrence and the tactical nuclear mirage
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists by Joshua Pollack

By John K. Warden

In conjunction with the release of its report, “Nuclear Security and Nuclear Counterterrorism: Streamlining and Updating the Legal Framework,” the Center for International Trade and Security (CITS) hosted a panel discussion about the upcoming international summit on nuclear security.

The panel featured short presentations by Igor Khripunov, CITS Interim Director, Charles Ferguson, President of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Ken Luongo, President of the Partnership for Global Security, Mary Beth Nikitin, Senior Researcher at the Congressional Research Service (CRS), and Sharon Squassoni, Senior Fellow and Director of the Proliferation Prevention Program at CSIS.

Luongo began, providing details on the summit’s agenda.  The summit will span three days.  The main meeting of forty-four heads of state on April 13th will be sandwiched between a non-governmental summit on the 12th and a nuclear industry summit on the 14th, both of which should have a lot of international participation.

FISSILE MATERIAL
US cautious on removing nuclear arms from Europe
AP by Robert Burns

Debate Grows on Nuclear Containment of Iran
NYT by David E. Sanger

Pakistani scientist Khan describes Iranian efforts to buy nuclear bombs
WP by R. Jeffrey Smith and Joby Warrick

Miliband says Security Council on same page on Iran
AFP by Susan Stumme

FISSILE MATERIAL
Facing the nuclear terrorism threat
The Hill by Alexandra Toma and Kenneth Luongo

Gates: Gulf allies understand Iran sanctions next
AP by Anne Gearan

Mideast feels 'tricked' by nuclear arms treaty: diplomat
AFP

NATO Commander Supports Partnering With Russia on Missile Shield
GSN

By Chris Jones

As the Review Conference fever starts to heat up with six weeks before proceedings begin, there’s optimism running high that 2010 can do big things. For example, ISIS’ piece from 4 March argues:

The Review Conference has a historic opportunity to adopt in the Conference document additional measures to strengthen the nonproliferation pillar of the treaty, including securing commitments from all states to implement the Additional Protocol, making withdrawal from the treaty more difficult in cases where countries have been found recently in noncompliance with safeguards obligations, and taking steps to prevent illicit nuclear trade.

Not so fast. Egypt's ambassador to the UN in Geneva and the CD, Hisham Badr, made clear where Egypt, current chair of the NAM, and other Middle East countries stand on the Review Conference and the NPT:

Middle Eastern countries feel tricked by the 40-year-old nuclear non proliferation treaty. . . Egypt's ambassador to the UN in Geneva and the conference on disarmament, Hisham Badr, said there was widespread resentment towards the NPT, which forms the cornerstone of efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. . .Badr suggested the nuclear powers had failed to hold their side of the bargain, while attempts to secure a nuclear weapons free Middle East at the NPT have constantly been postponed. . . ."We in the Middle East feel we have, short of better word, been tricked into giving concessions for promises that never materialised," Badr said at an event in the Swiss city to mark the 40th anniversary of the NPT. He warned that a Middle East resolution would be "pivotal" to the success of the review conference and the future of the arms control treaty. "There is widespread resentment in the region towards the NPT and what it seeks to achieve, its double standards and lack of political will." . . . Badr said it was "puzzling" that in the runup to the New York conference efforts were focused on strengthening the obligations on non-nuclear weapons states

By Andrew St. Denis

Recently, PONI held the second seminar of its 2010 Nuclear Scholars Initiative. The event sought to discuss the history, prospects, and international perspectives of the global nonproliferation regime.

FISSILE MATERIAL
Gates to Discuss Iran With Emirates Leaders
NYT by Elisabeth Bumiller

Can Iran’s Accelerating Nuclear Program Be Stopped?
Global Arab Network by Leonard S. Spector

Testing the No-New-Nuclear-Weapons Pledge
FAS Strategic Security Blog by Hans Kristensen

Israeli-Arab joint nuclear program? Not yet
Xinhua by David Harris

FISSILE MATERIAL
Pentagon Eyes More Than $800 Million for New Nuclear Cruise Missile
GSN by Elaine M. Grossman

Mach 6 Cruise Missile, Ready for Prime Time?
Wired by Nathan Hodge

Delay on Arms Pact Slows Reset of U.S.- Russia Ties
NYT by Peter Baker and Mark Landler

U.S. changing focus of Iran policy
LA Times by Paul Richter

By John K. Warden

RIA Novosti reports that Russia plans to have the first international fuel bank up and running by the end of 2010:

Russia will provide by the end of 2010 the first batch of low-enriched uranium for an international nuclear fuel reserve bank under control of the UN nuclear watchdog, the head of Russia's state-run nuclear power corporation Rosatom said.
Russia has earlier proposed to establish international reserves of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to ensure stable fuel supplies to IAEA member countries in case of emergency, including "insurmountable political difficulties."
"I believe that the first part of these reserves could be formed by the end of this year," Sergei Kiriyenko said at an international conference on nuclear energy in Paris on Monday.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors approved the fuel bank last November hoping that it would help reduce proliferation risks as more countries develop civilian nuclear energy programs.

The fuel bank is designed to provide guaranteed, though limited, supplies of low-enriched uranium to states in compliance with the NPT.  Therefore, a country that relied on imported enriched uranium for its civilian nuclear program would not have to worry about the supply being cut off for political reasons.

Proponents hope that this guarantee will persuade countries to develop nuclear energy programs without enriching uranium on their soil, substantially reducing proliferation risks.

However, many countries are unlikely to accept the bargain.  While a country like Iran will cite guaranteed access as a reason it needs to enrich uranium on its soil, its motivation goes beyond access.

By Chris Jones

The Iran issue is one likely to get worse before it gets better. As the thugocracy in Tehran plugs away on uranium enrichment efforts while refusing to agree to a fuel swap deal, pressure is rising in Washington and elsewhere to do something and do something fast. Internationally, the U.S. is drafting a new round of UNSC sanctions although there has been no indication from Beijing or Brasilia that it will support such measures. Domestically, there’s strong momentum from both sides of the aisle to pass sanctions that would likely target the petroleum sector. The combination of these will provide a safety valve for some of the rising pressure to take action on Iran but as Douglas Paal quipped in David Ignatius’ article yesterday:

Sanctions always accomplish their principal objective, which is to make those who impose them feel good.

Therein lies part of the problem. As the administration tries to strike the difficult, if not impossible, balance of sanctions that pressures hardliners and the IRCG without harming the general population, there is good reason to question how much sanctions can do in the grand theme of things. That does not mean sanctions should not be pursued, particularly in light of recent Iranian intransigence, if they can be deployed in a relatively “smart” way but they are just one piece of a much larger Iran puzzle. Trita Parsi recently compared Iran to “the 21st century equivalent of 1930s Russia — a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma” which makes it “hardly surprising that Washington has had such a difficult time formulating a successful Iran policy” The dual-track strategy of engagement and punishment being pursued by the administration begs a more basic question: what is the end game for our Iran strategy? CSIS Counselor and Trustee Zbigniew Brzezinski provided a spot on response to this question in an interview with the Wall Street Journal last week:

In an interview, Mr. Brzezinski lays out his formula. Try to stop Iran's nuclear program, and make Tehran pay a price if it keeps pursuing it, but don't count too much on sanctions; offer a robust American defense umbrella to protect friends in the region if Iran crosses the nuclear threshold; give rhetorical support to Iran's opposition while accepting America's limited ability to help it; eschew thought of a pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities; and keep talking to Tehran.
Above all: Play the long game, because time, demographics and generational change aren't on the side of the current regime.
"This is a country with a growing urban middle class, a country with fairly high access to higher education, a country where women play a great role in the professions," he says. "So it is a country which I think, basically, objectively is capable of moving the way Turkey has moved." That is, it can evolve into a country where Islam and modernity co-exist, even if somewhat uncomfortably.
. . .
Meantime, on changing Iran's character: The U.S. should adopt "a kind of posture of support and endorsement" of the forces inside Iran now openly opposing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr. Brzezinski says, without deluding itself into thinking it has the ability to propel a regime change.
Crucially, Mr. Brzezinski instead thinks forces at work within Iran will undermine the regime over time, so long as the U.S. and the West don't take actions that actually interfere with that process.
Thus, it's important to craft sanctions in a way that "doesn't stimulate more anti-Westernism, or a fusion of Islamic extremism and nationalism." He'd keep talking to Iran too: "Most major issues internationally that have been resolved by negotiation have involved negotiations over a long period of time."

FISSILE MATERIAL
For Iran, Enriching Uranium Only Gets Easier
NYT by William J. Broad

Russia sees new nuclear arms treaty by April
AP

Japan-U.S. secret pacts confirmed, gov't policy shift expected
Mainichi Daily

Russia says ready to establish nuclear fuel bank by yearend
RIA Novosti

FISSILE MATERIAL
Obama must decide degree to which U.S. swears off nuclear weapons
WP by Mary Beth Sheridan and Walter Pincus

A sober approach to sanctioning Iran
WP by David Ignatius

NKorea says ready to 'blow up' SKorea, US
AP by Hyung-Jin Kim

Western sanctions draft targets Iran's banks abroad
Reuters by Louis Charbonneau

By Chris Jones

For some time now, there’s been serious concern that the “nuclear bureaucracy” is slow rolling Obama’s ambitious Prague Agenda, particularly through the NPR. While that might be part of the explanation, there’s another interesting possibility to consider: what if the President agrees with the purportedly terrible options presented in the NPR? Mary Beth Sheridan and Walter Pincus’ report in the WP today:

Does he substantially advance his bold pledge to seek a world free of nuclear weapons by declaring that the "sole purpose" of the U.S. arsenal is to deter other nations from using them? Or does he embrace a more modest option, supported by some senior military officials, that deterrence is the "primary purpose"? . . . The president was briefed on the document this week and requested additional intermediate options, officials say 

By John K. Warden

In an article that focused primarily on the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), New York Times columnists David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker note that the Obama administration is beginning discussions with European allies about withdrawing non-strategic nuclear weapons (NSNW) from Europe:

Other officials, not officially allowed to speak on the issue, say that in back-channel discussions with allies, the administration has also been quietly broaching the question of whether to withdraw American tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, where they provide more political reassurance than actual defense. Those weapons are now believed to be in Germany, Italy, Belgium, Turkey and the Netherlands.

The Obama administration is committed to reducing the role of nuclear weapons on the way to global disarmament.  And as part of the NPR process, the Administration has been consulting key allies, hoping to receive their approval to phase out capabilities that are no longer necessary.  This process seems to be paying dividends.  A couple weeks ago, Kyodo reported that the United States plans to retire its nuclear Tomahawk cruise missiles, which were once considered critical to extended deterrence in East Asia.

In Europe, the push to withdraw nuclear weapons is gaining momentum.  Last month, the foreign ministers of Poland and Sweden wrote an op-ed calling for substantial reductions in nuclear weapons in Europe.  The piece argues that “The focus now must be on deep reductions and their eventual elimination.”  Now, Kent Harris of Stars and Stripes reports that a group of NATO countries will soon make a more forceful push for withdrawal, hoping to reinvigorate debate in Europe:

A group of NATO allies plans to call on the U.S. to take its nuclear arsenal out of Europe.
The countries — Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway — will discuss the issue with the rest of their NATO allies at a November summit in Lisbon, Portugal.
“This does not mean a call for an immediate withdrawal for all these weapons,” Bart Ouvry, spokesman for Belgium’s Foreign Ministry, said by telephone on Thursday.
Ouvry declined to elaborate, saying he would reserve further comments for his partners at the NATO meetings.
[snip]
Media outlets in France and Germany touched on the issue in recent articles. German reports said that a letter signed by the foreign ministers of the five countries was to be sent to NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Der Spiegel magazine reported that German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle also asked for the removal of 20 nuclear weapons from his country.
“Presumably, there will be an initiative from certain foreign ministers in order to put the subject of nuclear weapons on the agenda of the next NATO meeting,” Maike Tribbels, a spokeswoman for the German Foreign Ministry, said in a telephone interview Thursday.

2010 is an important year for those who hope to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in NATO and potentially withdraw nuclear weapons from Europe.  NATO foreign ministers are meeting in Estonia in April, and near the end of 2010, NATO Heads of State and Heads of Government are scheduled to meet in Portugal to determine NATO’s next Strategic Concept.  A couple days ago, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that nuclear weapons policy will be on the agenda at the upcoming meeting in Estonia:

FISSILE MATERIAL

China Looks to North Korea Nuclear Talks Before July

Reuters by Huang Yan and Chris Buckley 

U.S. criticized on Iran sanctions

WP by John Pomfret and Colum Lynch

Pakistani, Indian Leaders Could Meet in Washington

GSN

Iran in Its Intricacy

NY Times by Roger Cohen

How to Read Brazil's Stance on Iran

CFR First Take by Matias Spektor

By Chris Jones

Picking up on a post earlier this week about grading the NPR, Jeffrey Lewis further clarified his statment about the declaratory options in the NPR being the choice between the plague and cholera.  For the most part, I take his point.  The difference between "sole" and "sole goal" is fairly significant in that there is an arguably limitless number of items that can be snuck under the goal umbrella.   Part of it very well may have been my misreading but I will note that Borger's wording of the "sole goal" is rather confusing:

The US goal is to the deterrence of nuclear attack the "sole purpose" of its arsenal

I think that may have intended to read "The US goal is to make the deterrence.." but as currently written could have goal referring more to deterrence than "sole purpose."

Regardless, Lewis' point about the declaratory policy options reportedly being included in the NPR not doing much to reduce the role of nuclear weapons is entirely fair.  That said, the much larger point from Tuesday's post still holds true: the entirety of the NPR needs to be graded in the context of the entirety of the Prague speech.  Declaratory policy appears to be one of the areas where the NPR will come up shortest from the left's view but that does not meant the NPR should therefore be considered all for naught.

FISSILE MATERIAL
NATO allies want U.S. nuclear weapons out of Europe
Stars and Stripes by Kent Harris

Delayed U.S. Nuclear Review Likely To Call For Cuts
NPR by Mike Shuster

The feeling on Iran? Watch NAM
Reuters by Sylvia Westall

Isolated China will need payback for Iran sanctions
AFP by D'Arcy Doran

By Chris Jones

According to Laura Rozen at POLITICO, don’t expect a new START treaty anytime soon. Concerns about whether the treaty has a chance to pass the Senate this year are still up for debate but there is yet another wrench in getting a new START treaty signed: domestic politics fueling Russian intransigence. Rozen explains:

But now sources in and out of the administration are saying Russia may not feel it needs to sign a new agreement soon. And perhaps not in time for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty review conference that the Obama administration is hosting in New York in May. There are a number of issues holding up a new treaty but the primary overarching concern is that Russia may not feel it needs to sign a new agreement, a Washington nonproliferation hand who asked for anonymity said. As the U.S. has its domestic political dimension to START in terms of ratification, so too does Moscow. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir “Putin may not be so eager for [President Dmitry] Medvedev to achieve a foreign policy success,” the foreign policy hand said. “They are haggling, fighting internally, and trying to figure out how to get more water out of a stone,” a former senior U.S. official knowledgeable about Russia told POLITICO. “Also, wondering when the next shoe will drop -- i.e., what country will announce that it is also a site for US missiles/interceptors. Also, thinking that the President is weak and may not be able to get this damn treaty thru Congress, so there is no rush to agree -- especially if it's not likely to get thru before the NPT Review Conference” in May.

FISSILE MATERIAL
U.N. council ready to tackle Iran nuclear issue
Reuters by Louis Charbonneau

India, Pakistan to attend US nuclear summit
AFP

Dead or alive? Top senators weigh in on nuke treaty's chances
The Cable by Josh Rogin

American Envoys in Beijing to Mend Relations
NYT by Michael Wines

By Chris Jones

The NPR received some considerable press attention in the past week, for nuclear issues anyway. Laura Rozen discussed the NPR in the context of Vice President Biden’s speech at NDU while Josh Rogin reported the further delay to late March/early April which appears to be due in large part to figuring out the fundamental role of nuclear weapons. These pieces were followed up by a Sunday NYT article by David Sanger and Thom Shanker that provided some of the most in-depth previews to date about where the NPR will come down on a number of issues. What to make of all this? Depends who you ask. As Plutonium Pages notes, “the pundits, wonks, and national security reporters are all trying to read the tea leaves regarding these delays.” While the final grade for the NPR can’t be given until the document is actually released, criticisms about what a failure the NPR is shaping up to be should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, consider Jeffrey Lewis’ take on the NPR. Despite this skepticism about what a disappointment the NPR will be, there a few things to keep in mind.

FISSILE MATERIAL
New Momentum for Iran Sanctions
WSJ by David Crawford

NKorea vows to bolster nuclear deterrent
AP by Kwang-Tae Kim

Obama Team Might Speed Up Disassembly of Older Nuclear Warheads
GSN by Elaine M. Grossman

India moves on U.S. nuclear deal with new law
Reuters by Krittivas Mukherjee