Satellite imagery has indicated that construction is under way at Pakistan’s Khushab nuclear site on a new heavy-water reactor potentially capable of producing plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons per year, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, July 21).
The reactor — with a potential capacity of 1,000-plus megawatts, according to experts at the Institute for Science and International Security — would dwarf Islamabad’s existing 50-megawatt heavy-water plant. “Such a reactor could produce over 200 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium per year, assuming it operates at full power a modest 220 days per year,” David Albright and Paul Brannan wrote in their technical assessment. “At 4 to 5 kilograms of plutonium per weapon, this stock would allow the production of over 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year.” “South Asia may be heading for a nuclear arms race that could lead to arsenals growing into the hundreds of nuclear weapons, or at minimum, vastly expanded stockpiles of military fissile material,” the report states. Islamabad refused to comment on the report, but one senior Pakistani official told the Post that the country’s nuclear program was undergoing an expansion. “Pakistan’s nuclear program has matured. We’re now consolidating the program with further expansions,” including “some civilian nuclear power and some military components,” the official said. Pakistan now uses a uranium-based nuclear warhead design. A heavy-water plant could facilitate modernization of its arsenal to technology similar to that used by nuclear rival India, weapons experts said. “With plutonium bombs, Pakistan can fully join the nuclear club,” said a Europe-based diplomat and nuclear expert. However, he disputed parts of the institute’s assessment, saying that the new reactor could yield “up to [a] tenfold” increase in weapon-grade plutonium for Pakistan. A U.S.-based expert, meanwhile, backed the report’s estimate of a 20-fold increase in fissile material production. Construction apparently started in 2000, according to satellite images. Pictures from spring 2005 show what appears to be a reactor enclosed by the frame of a building. The roof remained unfinished in April 2006, allowing an unobstructed view of the nascent reactor. “The fact that the roof is still off strikes me as a sign that Pakistan is neither rushing nor attempting to conceal,” Albright said. The institute’s report says completion of the reactor probably remains “a few years” away. Albright said this development increases the urgency to approve a treaty prohibiting production of weapon-grade fissile material. “The United States needs to push more aggressively for a fissile material cutoff treaty, and so far it has not,” he said (Joby Warrick, Washington Post, July 24).
By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday eliminated funding for a Bush administration plan to modify submarines carrying nuclear Trident ballistic missiles to deploy conventionally armed Tridents, judging it a potentially “provocative” capability (see GSN, May 12). The committee cut all but $5 million of $127 million in initial funding requested for fiscal 2007 by the administration for the Navy’s Conventional Trident Modification Program. It directed that the remaining $5 million fund a National Academy Sciences study of the concept. Supporters have touted the proposed capability as a potential tool for rapidly striking with conventional weapons targets anywhere on the planet, such as a gathering of terrorists in a remote location. “These missiles are intended to give the president a real option for a responsive, global strike capability in the short-term,” said Senator Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) at a National Defense University Foundation event last month. Critics have argued such a weapon could cause Russia, China or some other country to mistakenly perceive they are facing a nuclear missile attack by the United States. “If there was a crisis somewhere and this thing started flying, the Russians or the Chinese couldn’t be certain this wasn’t a nuclear missile under way or America’s conventional ballistic missile. … It could trigger their own retaliation,” said Hans Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists. The committee wrote in a report accompanying the defense appropriations bill that it “believes that fundamental issues about the use of this weapon must be addressed prior to investing in this effort. Furthermore, it is not clear that other potentially less provocative alternatives, such as land and air-based options, have been considered.” Much of the requested money sought was intended to fund an assessment of the feasibility of converting Trident 2 missiles with conventional warheads for use as a “global strike” weapon. However, the administration also requested $50 million for initial procurement, indicating its interest in moving forward quickly. Allard, who sits on the Appropriations Committee, said last month he supported the concept, but also expressed concern the missiles could be mistaken by other nuclear powers as an attack. “This is still a very new concept, and the Department of Defense has yet to work out all the details,” he said. “Of particular concern is the fact that the department is still developing a variety of transparency, confidence-building, and operational measures to ensure there is no confusion about our intentions. The last thing we want is for Russia or China to think we are launching a nuclear strike when we use one of these submarine-launched conventional missiles,” he said. Allard said he supported a requirement in the Senate’s version of the fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill that prohibits funding the program until the secretaries of defense and state submit a joint report considering potential alternatives, evaluate the potential for other nations to misinterpret the system, and state how the United States might work with other nations to prevent an inadvertent nuclear strike. The Appropriations Committee directed that a National Academies’ study, due March 15, 2007, analyze the military’s need for such a system, and “where appropriate,” recommend alternatives that meet the prompt global strike mission in the near-, mid-, and long-terms. “The study should include analyses of the military, political and international issues associated with each alternative,” it said. Allard said last month “there may be other less challenging global strike options available, such as land-based conventional ballistic missiles in California or Guam.” The bottom line, according to Kristensen: The committee’s cut “says it ain’t sold yet.”
Russia has seemingly backed away from supporting a proposed U.N. Security Council draft resolution on Iran’s nuclear program, the Associated Press reported Friday (see GSN, July 21). One U.N. diplomat said Moscow now appears to oppose a July 12 declaration by foreign ministers from the world powers and is instead seeking a resolution that is not legally binding. A statement at the time said the powers had agreed to “seek a ... Security Council resolution which would make ... [a uranium enrichment] suspension mandatory.” The diplomat added, however, that other differences over wording were on the verge of resolution. Western countries are seeking an Aug. 31 deadline for Iran to implement a mandatory enrichment suspension, AP reported. Diplomats speculated that Russia might believe that Tehran would refuse to institute an enrichment moratorium, and that violating a mandatory resolution could open the door to use of force, which Moscow opposes (Associated Press I/USA Today, July 22). Iran yesterday indicated that it could consider suspending enrichment, AP reported. “Everything should come out through negotiations. ... Leave everything for negotiations,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi. “The Security Council is not the end of the world. Any extreme action would cause an equivalent reaction,” Asefi said (Associated Press II/Yahoo!News, July 23). “If the other side chooses anything but the path of negotiations, our attitude will change accordingly,” he added (Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, July 23). Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, however, said Friday that the requirement that Iran halt enrichment is “humiliating,” AFP reported. “They have included something in their offer either to humiliate Iran or to make the proposal practically unacceptable,” he said. “They have set a precondition. They say first suspend, and then negotiations,” he said (Agence France-Presse II/Khaleej Times, July 21). Iran has requested that Switzerland organize a global conference to resolve the issue, Reuters reported yesterday. A Swiss newspaper cited “reliable sources” as saying that Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki put the request to a senior Swiss official last week in Tehran (Reuters/IranFocus.com, July 23). Meanwhile, two inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency were scheduled to arrive Friday in Tehran, the Fars News Agency reported. “The two are to inspect [the] Isfahan [uranium conversion] Plant and Natanz Enrichment Facility during their one-week sojourn in Iran,” said a source. Agency inspectors last made similar routine visits to the two installations from June 21-28, according to Fars (Fars News Agency, July 23). Mottaki has denied that Tehran received Pakistani assistance in developing its nuclear program, AP reported yesterday. “Our nuclear technology is local and national. This is produced in Iran by our scientists, most of them young scientists,” he said. Islamabad has said that its former top nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, sold enrichment centrifuges to Iran (Associated Press III/Khaleej Times, July 23).
India’s prime minister has faced confrontations with lawmakers there over his country’s planned civilian nuclear deal with the United States and other issues, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, July 19). Members of Parliament have objected to provisions in U.S. legislation that would enable the agreement to go through. These include: allowing U.S. inspectors access to certain Indian nuclear sites and a prohibition against trade in some nuclear technology, and a nonbinding request that New Delhi back Washington in the standoff over Iran’s nuclear program. Critics have argued that such concessions would undermine India’s strategic protection, the Times reported. “It is for India to decide Indian policy,” said D. Raja, a national secretary of the of the Communist Party of India. “The PM told us that the nuclear deal is based on reciprocity, but to us, this is doubtful and superficial.” Adding to the turmoil is the recently published memoir by former Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh, who wrote that a mole in the previous government led by the Congress Party passed on nuclear secrets to the United States. The mole’s identity has not been disclosed (Somini Sengupta, New York Times, July 24).
China and Japan on Friday called for foreign ministers from the six countries involved in stalled talks on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program to meet this week during the annual meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in Malaysia, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, July 20). “We agreed that since the ministers of related countries will gather at the … meeting, we should utilize the opportunity as much as possible to set the conditions for the resumption of the six-way talks,” said Japanese Deputy Foreign Minister Tsuneo Nishida, who met with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing (Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, July 21). U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday that she would attend such a meeting, the Associated Press reported. Rice said that Pyongyang was intent on transforming the nuclear dispute into a bilateral issue with the United States, “but of course ... this is a problem that North Korea has with the entire international community.” “And we need to keep that as the focal point, but if we could have a six-party meeting in Kuala Lumpur, I would be very happy to attend,” she said (Associated Press I/Khaleej Times, July 23). Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Yoshinori Katori today expressed doubt that the meeting would occur, AP reported. “I don’t think there is any concrete sign or concrete indication whether we can have the six-party talks” in Kuala Lumpur, he said (Associated Press II, July 24). Li also indicated Beijing’s reluctance to hold “five-party talks” on the issue without the presence of a North Korean delegation, Reuters reported Saturday (Reuters/Washington Post, July 22). Meanwhile, a senior U.S. official said Washington was monitoring North Korea for signs of a nuclear test, Kyodo News reported. “I wouldn’t rule it out,” the official said. He added that while a nuclear test “would be quite counterproductive … North Korea does things all the time that are counterproductive.” It “would be yet another very provocative act ... that further isolates them and further brings the international community together in terms of determination to react to this threat,” he said (Kyodo News/Yahoo!News, July 22). Elsewhere, a South Korean lawmaker said the Bank of China has frozen North Korean assets in response to illegal activities, AFP reported today. “I understand North Korea is even more frustrated because it regards the freezing of its accounts in China as virtual sanctions,” Park Jin, an opposition Grand National Party member, told the Munhwa newspaper. Park said Pyongyang was suspected of counterfeiting both Chinese and U.S. currency. “So China cannot but launch separate sanctions on counterfeiting and money laundering by North Korea,” he said. “I understand cooperation is under way between the United States and China to stop North Korea’s illegal activities.” Chinese officials refused to comment on Park’s statement (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, July 24).
China plans to review the new Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism developed by Russia and the United States, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said today (see GSN, July 19). “We welcome all efforts helpful to deepen international cooperation and enhance the coordinated drive to deal with nuclear terror,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao, according to the Xinhua News Agency. The initiative, announced earlier this month in St. Petersburg by U.S. President George W. Bush and Russia President Vladimir, urges nations to improve accounting, control and security of nuclear and radioactive materials. It also calls on countries to enhance nuclear facility security and to thwart nuclear terrorism. “Preventing nuclear terrorism is one of the most serious challenges the international community faces in protecting world peace and security,” Liu said (Xinhua News Agency/People’s Daily, July 24).
The United States and Japan on Friday agreed to enhance their joint nuclear nonproliferation and security efforts, according to the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration (see GSN, April 3). “Japan is an important partner in global nuclear nonproliferation efforts. This agreement reaffirms our commitment to work together and further solidifies our 20-year history of cooperating on nuclear safety and security,” said Jerry Paul, NNSA principal deputy administrator. Paul and Japanese Atomic Energy Agency Executive Director Ryo Kimura signed the document that calls for the two agencies to improve technologies and procedures for nuclear equipment control and accounting. The pact requires Washington and Tokyo to develop advanced nuclear materials containment and surveillance systems and to improve physical security or nuclear materials and facilities. “Under this agreement, we will be able to work together to develop new technologies and safeguards approaches that will help to meet future global energy needs by using a secure and proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel cycle. This agreement is important to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership that President [George W.] Bush announced earlier this year,” Paul said in a release. The United States and Japan have conducted formal safeguards efforts since 1988. The two countries also collaborate on export control and regional security matters, nuclear site security, radiation sensors for border crossings and seaports and reactor conversion research (U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration release, July 21).
The University of California and Bechtel Corp. are joining again to seek the management contract for a U.S. national laboratory — this time the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, the Sacramento Bee reported Saturday (see GSN, July 18). The university and the engineering, construction and management firm last year led the team that won the contract to manage the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Previously, the university had solely operated the Berkeley, Livermore and Los Alamos laboratories. University officials say the laboratories are necessary to maintain its reputation as a prestigious research institution. However, safety and security problems at the sites have troubled the university. Espionage allegations and security leaks at Los Alamos led to congressional hearings in the 1990s, the Bee reported. More recently, university officials were questioned about hundreds of thousands of dollars in missing materials at Los Alamos, including 400 computers. Investigators also blasted Livermore for being six years behind schedule on a superlaser project that is now estimated to cost more than $5 $4 billion — twice the original estimate. In dealing with the problems, the University of California fired and reassigned officials and assigned auditors to monitor the working conditions. The university maintains sole management of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Lawrence Livermore has a $1.7 billion annual budget and employs about 8,500 people. It monitors the health of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and also conducts homeland security and bioterrorism research (Eric Stern, Sacramento Bee, June 22).
| 
Back to top
