By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration will weigh the prospect of completing reductions in its deployed nuclear arsenal up to two years earlier than required by a 2002 U.S.-Russian agreement, according to U.S. officials (see GSN, June 22).
“We’re probably now looking at whether we should accelerate” nuclear weapons reductions, Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Global Security Newswire in an exclusive Oct. 18 interview. Cartwright, who was promoted to the senior leadership post in August following three years as head of U.S. Strategic Command, said a decision on the matter awaits “discussions that have to occur at the senior level.” Top security officials, he said, would address “what the value [is] of setting a leadership position in the world of accelerating these reductions rather than stringing them out to 2012,” he said. If reductions continue at their current pace, the U.S. nuclear arsenal would reach levels mandated by the Moscow Treaty in 2010, according to Navy Lt. Denver Applehans, a U.S. Strategic Command spokesman in Omaha, Neb. Under the agreement, signed more than five years ago by U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the two nations agreed to reduce the number of operationally deployed warheads to less than 2,200 each (see GSN, May 24, 2002). The treaty includes no verification measures of its own and its stockpile limits would expire on Jan. 1, 2013 (see GSN, July 24, 2003; and GSN, May 30, 2002). Details about the management of nuclear weapons and a precise accounting of the stockpile are cloaked in secrecy, leaving it largely unclear to outsiders why the reductions have been made so swiftly to date and exactly how many weapons are left. In December 2006, the State Department issued an arms control declaration showing the United States had approximately 3,700 deployed warheads. The figure indicated to some independent experts that reductions were proceeding at a pace “several hundred warheads faster than the plan entailed,” Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists said last week. This year constituted the chronological midpoint in the reductions plan — five years after the treaty was signed in the Russian capital and five years to go before stockpile objectives must be met, Cartwright noted. The current tempo for reductions might dovetail well with Bush administration plans for introducing a new weapon — the Reliable Replacement Warhead — into the force, Cartwright said. The concept calls for a new warhead that is safer, more maintainable and more affordable than the aging weapons in today’s stockpile, potentially allowing for an even smaller nuclear arsenal. Its top-level advocates have said the new warhead would prompt further reductions in the U.S. nuclear force. The thinking is that with greater confidence in the stockpile, it would be possible to eliminate a number of warheads currently maintained as a hedge against the potential discovery of defects or malfunctions (see GSN, July 25). “Over time, RRW will enable the United States to transition to a smaller, more responsive nuclear infrastructure that will enable future administrations to adjust the U.S. nuclear stockpile as geo-political conditions warrant,” according to a four-page policy statement issued in July by the secretaries of energy, defense and state. Completing the arms reductions faster and building a smaller force of new warheads also might allow the Energy Department to spend more of its resources on dismantling thousands of additional warheads in storage, Cartwright said. “If we can reduce the number of weapons [the Energy Department must] produce and deliver, that frees up resources — both people and dollars — to then do dismantlement of weapons that are in their stockpile, beyond just the ones that are operationally deployed,” he said. First, though, U.S. leaders must weigh “the risk-benefit trade and the timing” of forthcoming reductions, the general said. Defense officials are aiming “not to get too out of sync here” relative to other significant nuclear powers, he said. Overly swift U.S. reductions might lead a potential nuclear-armed adversary to “erroneously or otherwise believe that they have some advantage,” he said. Asked which possible adversaries he had in mind, the career naval aviator noted that while Russia remains the only nuclear power on a comparable level with the United States, defense leaders also must account for the “aspirations” of China, North Korea and Iran. That said, “certainly the perception is that if our relationship with Russia is moving on a positive vector and the trend is downward in stockpiles, we could both probably be more aggressive [about reductions] and still remain comfortable,” Cartwright said. Last week, U.S. Strategic Command was unable to provide cost figures documenting how much might be saved if the current rate of reductions is maintained, compared to extending the process through 2012. Independent experts said maintaining a faster pace at this point could not be expected to offer the government much of a financial windfall. “Probably the savings aren’t particularly great,” Steven Kosiak, vice president for budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, told GSN last week. “What costs really is [operating and maintaining] the [delivery] systems, not the warheads,” said Kristensen, who directs the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project. The Bush administration did not specify how it would make the reductions from the roughly 6,000 deployed warheads it had when the president signed the Moscow Treaty. However, some force structure changes the Defense Department is carrying out might account for at least some of the reductions, according to a Congressional Research Service report. For example, the Pentagon has retired its 50 Peacekeeper ICBMs (see GSN, Sept. 20, 2005); plans to convert four Trident submarines to carry only conventional weapons (see related GSN story, today); and has begun to decommission 400 Advanced Cruise Missiles carried by strategic bombers (see GSN, Oct. 25). Once the treaty is implemented, the United States might be left with a nuclear force of 450 to 600 warheads on ICBMs; slightly more than 1,000 on Trident D-5 submarine-launched missiles; 300 to 550 on B-52H bombers; and 200 to 350 on B-2 bombers, according to the May 2007 congressional report. Some pundits have argued that important decisions about downsizing should await a fundamental reassessment of the U.S. nuclear posture, in light of current and future threats. “A lot of the attention to reductions seems to be conducted in kind of a vacuum,” David Trachtenberg, a former Bush administration policy official at the Pentagon, said in an interview last week. “I don’t think anyone has done any kind of robust analysis on the effect an increased pace of reductions has on reassuring allies or deterring adversaries.” Trachtenberg noted the Bush administration has developed the concept of a “new triad” — comprising nuclear and conventional offenses, missile defenses and a responsive military infrastructure — only since conducting the last Nuclear Posture Review in 2002. A new review should be carried out that identifies the best mix of nuclear weapons, given the growing roles of strategic conventional weapons, missile shields and adaptive targeting plans, he suggested. Citing a similar interest in a broad reassessment that takes such changes into account, all four key congressional defense committees this year directed the creation of a bipartisan panel to carry out a new review in the coming year on the role of U.S. nuclear weapons (see GSN, June 29). Kristensen applauded the idea of an end-to-end analysis, which he believes should make clear the current arsenal is excessive in size and capability for the threats facing the United States today and into the future. “One has to be careful not to fall back into these ‘deterrence’ slogans,” he said. “We have to look carefully at what [are] the actual functions of the weapons. What are the actual scenarios in which we would have to use these weapons?”
Negotiators today agreed on a strategy for providing North Korea with energy aid as a reward for denuclearization, Reuters reported (see GSN, Oct. 29). Nations participating in the six-party talks pledged earlier this year to supply 1 million tons of fuel oil or equivalent assistance to Pyongyang. Two days of working-level talks this week resulted in a deal to ship 500,000 tons of oil to North Korea, with the rest of the assistance coming in the form of materials for rebuilding power plants and other sites. Pyongyang must disable the key facilities at its Yongbyon nuclear complex in order to receive the assistance. That process is expected to begin this week, a North Korean official said. “We are implementing the deal under the terms of action for action,” said South Korean negotiator Lim Sung-nam. The United States wants North Korea by the end of 2007 to disable and declare its nuclear complex. The ultimate hope is to see Pyongyang’s nuclear holdings dismantled (Jon Herskovitz, Reuters I/Yahoo!News, Oct. 30). Washington intends this week to send a team of experts to oversee the disablement process, the Associated Press reported. “Things are going ahead,” said chief U.S. envoy Christopher Hill. “We have a lot to do before Dec. 31, and we thought it would be valuable to be in consultations as we begin the last two months of the year.” Hill was speaking in Beijing, where he was expected to meet with North Korean negotiator Kim Kye Gwan and envoys from some of the other six-party nations — China, Japan, Russia and South Korea. The declaration process is likely to begin within the next two to three weeks, Hill said. “It’s very important that we do it soon rather than wait until the end of the year because probably it will be going back and forth. There’ll be a lot of discussion about it,” he said (Associated Press/International Herald Tribune, Oct. 30). Hill expressed optimism about the outcome of North Korea’s nuclear disablement, Reuters reported. “There are some issues that need to be finalized, but we’re beyond the issue that I described a month ago where we wanted to do more and they wanted to do less,” he said (Reuters/Straits Times, Oct. 30).
Iranian and International Atomic Energy Agency officials planned to meet today for the second of three days of talks attempting to clarify Iran’s progress in installing and developing centrifuges for its controversial uranium enrichment program, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Oct. 29). “In this new round of talks, we hope we'll be able to conclude our negotiations,” said Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, according to state media. Saeedi said Iran was ready to “close the file” on questions about its centrifuges by addressing unanswered questions, adding that Tehran’s two previous rounds of discussions with the U.N. nuclear watchdog were “comprehensive” as well as “frank and explicit.” IAEA safeguards head Olli Heinonen said the U.N. delegation he has led has received “good cooperation” from Iran in answering remaining questions about P-1 centrifuges being installed and its newer P-2 centrifuges under development. The outcome of this week’s discussions in Tehran is expected to influence a progress report on Iranian nuclear negotiations that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei plans to deliver in mid-November (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press I/Google News, Oct. 29). ElBaradei told the U.N. General Assembly yesterday that “Iran’s cooperation and transparency are key” to the report, AP reported. “These verification issues have been at the core of the lack of confidence about the nature of Iran's program,” ElBaradei said. Iran has consistently refused to comply with Security Council demands that it halt its uranium enrichment program, which could produce a key nuclear weapon ingredient. Iran has also refused to stop building a nuclear reactor that could produce plutonium that could be used in nuclear weapons. “This is regrettable,” ElBaradei said (Edith Lederer, Associated Press II/International Herald Tribune, Oct. 29). The United States yesterday dismissed ElBaradei’s recent statements that no evidence exists to support an Iranian nuclear weapons drive, Agence France-Presse reported. “He will say what he will. He is the head of a technical agency,” said U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. “I think we can handle diplomacy on this one.” “We appreciate the work that the IAEA is performing but it is the member states of the international community that are going to be responsible of the diplomacy with respect to Iran and its nuclear program,” he said. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Iran is undoubtedly developing nuclear weapons: "This is a country that is enriching and reprocessing uranium and the reason that one does that is to lead towards a nuclear weapon” (Agence France-Presse/Google News, Oct. 29). Meanwhile, China said today that Western powers should not rely on sanctions to pressure Iran to abandon its controversial nuclear activities, AP reported. Beijing believes “the unbridled use of sanctions should not be encouraged,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao. The U.N. Security Council next month could begin considering a third round of sanctions against Iran, but veto-holding members China and Russia have already objected to additional penalties. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni yesterday in Beijing urged China to support additional sanctions on Iran (Associated Press III/PR-Inside.com, Oct. 30). Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is expected to address the Iranian nuclear standoff during a trip to Moscow to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin early next month, AFP reported. “We believe resolving the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic negotiations is the best way,” Assistant Chinese Foreign Minister Li Hui said yesterday regarding the message Wen would deliver in Russia on Nov. 5 and 6 (Agence France-Presse II/Spacewar.com, Oct. 29). Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is expected to meet today in Tehran with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Reuters reported. Less than a week ago, Russia criticized a new round of unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran over its nuclear activities. “A number of issues connected to the situation around Iran's nuclear program, and a number of questions of bilateral cooperation, will be discussed,” said Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin (Reuters, Oct. 30).
Top U.N. nuclear official Mohamed ElBaradei yesterday reaffirmed his goal of creating internationally controlled supplies of nuclear fuel. Such a system would aid the International Atomic Energy Agency’s twin missions of enabling nuclear power while limiting nuclear weapon proliferation, he said (see GSN, Sept. 21). In his annual address to the U.N. General Assembly in New York, ElBaradei said he expected growing interest in nuclear power to boost demand for nuclear fuel production. “This could also increase the potential proliferation risks created by the spread of sensitive nuclear technology, particularly if more countries decide to create independent uranium enrichment and plutonium separation facilities,” he said. “These trends point clearly to the urgent need for the development of a new, multilateral framework for the nuclear fuel cycle.” “Some have proposed the creation of an actual or virtual reserve fuel bank of last resort, under IAEA auspices, for the assurance of supply of nuclear fuel,” ElBaradei added. “This bank would operate on the basis of apolitical and nondiscriminatory nonproliferation criteria. Others are proposing to convert a national facility into an international enrichment center. Still others are proposing the construction of a new, multinational enrichment facility under IAEA control.” ElBaradei said his agency is studying the various proposals and he recommended some initial steps. “An incremental approach is the way to move forward, beginning with the establishment of an equitable system for assurance of supply. The next step would seek to bring any new operations for uranium enrichment and plutonium separation under multinational control,” he said (International Atomic Energy Agency release, Oct. 29). Meanwhile, Russian officials promoted their efforts to establish an international uranium enrichment facility in eastern Siberia, RIA Novosti reported today (see GSN, Oct. 10). The Russian effort calls for adding partners to participate in an enrichment plant at Angarsk. So far Kazakhstan has agreed to the joint effort. “The center … will be open to third countries without any political preconditions,” Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin said yesterday (RIA Novosti, Oct. 30).
Taiwan does not have a nuclear weapons development program, President Chen Shui-bian said yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 23). Chen was responding to media reports and statements from political opponents indicating that Taiwan is seeking a nuclear weapons capability, DefenseNews.com reported. “A lot of people are concerned that Taiwan will start to develop nuclear weapons,” he said. “Some legislators tend to exaggerate and tell untruths. It is deeply regrettable. So I think it is necessary again on behalf of the government of Taiwan and the people of Taiwan that I have to reassure you all and also pledge that Taiwan will definitely not develop nuclear weapons, we will definitely not bring in nuclear weapons, and we will definitely not use nuclear weapons.” Taiwan had a nuclear weapons effort that ended in the 1980s after being discovered during a CIA operation, DefenseNews.com reported. Chen at a press conference also discussed his government’s missile programs, which are intended to provide a defense against China should the mainland power use military force to enforce its territorial claim on Taiwan. One new weapon, the Hsiung Feng-2E (Brave Wind) land-attack cruise missile, is reportedly capable of carrying a 400-kilogram payload and has a range of 600 to 1,000 kilometers. “What we believe is that there should be effective deterrence and solid defense,” Chen said. “That is what we will constantly uphold.” China has nearly 1,000 short-range ballistic missiles pointed at Taiwan, Chen said. “China has not given up the intention of violating Taiwan, and eight years ago there were only 200 missiles, but now the number has reached 988 and is still growing at a rate of 140 to 150 missiles (a year),” he said (Wendell Minnick, DefenseNews.com, Oct. 29).
A senior Syrian official has again denied that Israel bombed a nuclear facility in his country and said recent remarks by the top U.N. nuclear official confirmed that assertion, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 29). The Sept. 6 Israeli strike targeted a site that U.S. intelligence officials said was an incomplete nuclear reactor. Private analyses of satellite images have backed that assessment by noting the similarities of the bombed building to a North Korean plutonium-production reactor (see GSN, Oct. 24). However, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said yesterday that the site had no nuclear role and pointed to a Sunday television interview in which International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei complained of not receiving any information about the suspect site from U.S. or Israeli intelligence agencies. Al-Moallem criticized the published justifications for the attack and the quiet international response. “They began by saying the raid targeted a convoy carrying weapons for Hezbollah. Then they said it was a long-range missile base, then a military position, then a nuclear facility,” he said in a Damascus press conference. “They have become confused about justifying this raid. But when this condemnation comes from Mr. ElBaradei it confirms that all such rumors were lies” (Albert Aji, Associated Press, Oct. 29).
Current and former U.S. officials met yesterday with Indian opposition leaders to promote the nuclear trade agreement that has stalled in New Delhi, the Hindustan Times reported (see GSN, Oct. 25). U.S. Ambassador to India David Mulford met with Rajnath Singh, head of the Bharatiya Janata Party, the right-wing opposition party that has criticized the bilateral deal for allowing too much U.S. influence over Indian affairs. The trade pact would enable India to purchase U.S. nuclear technology and material in exchange for opening its civilian nuclear activities to international monitoring. BJP leaders have joined leftist parties in opposing the deal, and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has stopped pushing for the agreement’s implementation, fearing that his government would fall. Also pushing the deal in India yesterday was former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who met senior BJP official Lal Krishna Advani, the Times reported (Hindustan Times, Oct. 29). Meanwhile, current U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke by phone yesterday with Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee to encourage India’s government to press forward with the nuclear agreement, Agence France-Presse reported. Rice did not, however, offer to alter any terms of the deal to assuage Indian opponents. “I don’t believe that there’s any consideration of that or any discussion of that on either side at this point,” said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. “At this point, I believe it’s really a matter for the Indian political system to resolve their questions about it” (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, Oct. 29).
Russia yesterday conducted a test launch of a nuclear-capable RS-18 Stiletto ICBM, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Oct. 29). The Russian Strategic Missile Forces fired the 80-foot missile from a Kazakhstan cosmodrome toward a test ground on the Kamchatka Peninsula in eastern Russia, according to a spokesman. The service studied the condition of the missile’s flight systems during the test, said Lt. Col. Vadim Koval. The RS-18, known as the SS-19 Stiletto in the West, is designed to penetrate missile defense systems. Russia maintains about 160 RS-18 missiles, which it began manufacturing in the 1970s. The missile weighs about 105 tons at launch. Russia last tested an RS-18 missile in November 2006, AFP said (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, Oct. 29).
The first of four U.S. Trident-class nuclear submarines to be refitted with conventional cruise missiles arrived in Hawaii last week for several weeks of training exercises before its planned deployment to Asia to carry out intelligence work, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 15). For its first 22 years of operation, the USS Ohio carried 24 Trident nuclear missiles. After the end of the Cold War, the Defense Department spent $750 million to modify two missile tubes for exit and re-entry by Navy SEALs. An additional 15 tubes on the Ohio were converted to each carry seven Tomahawk cruise missiles. The modifications were part of an agreement by the United States to limit the number of missile-armed submarines. Capt. Chris Ratliff did not specify regions of Asia where the Ohio would carry out missions. “We’re going to take this boat into shallow, congested, littoral waters close to the beach, ready to put SEALs ashore, ready to strike, ready to collect intelligence,” he said (Associated Press, Oct. 29).
| 
Back to top
