North Korea:  Pyongyang Admits Existence of Weapons Program

After being confronted by a U.S. delegation during a visit to Pyongyang earlier this month, North Korean officials acknowledged the existence of a nuclear weapons program, a U.S. State Department spokesman said yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 8).  Such a program would be a violation of international nonproliferation accords, including the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the 1994 Agreed Framework between the United States and North Korea and the 1991 denuclearization agreement between North and South Korea, the spokesman said.

During the Oct. 3-5 visit, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly told North Korean officials that the United States had information that North Korea had maintained a uranium enrichment program for nuclear weapons for several years in violation of several international agreements, said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher (see GSN, March 21).   The North Korean officials acknowledged the existence of the program and said they considered the Agreed Framework to be “nullified,” Boucher said (U.S. State Department release, Oct. 16).

The North Korean officials had initially called the U.S. claims “fabrications,” but a day later, North Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Kang Sok-joo confirmed the existence of the nuclear weapons program, U.S. officials said (Slevin/De Young, Washington Post, Oct. 17).

Kang said “something to the effect of, ‘Your president called us a member of the axis of evil. ... Your troops are deployed on the Korean peninsula. ... Of course, we have a nuclear program,’” according to a senior Bush administration source who was briefed on the meeting (Koppel/King, CNN.com, Oct. 17).

Kang said North Korean officials had met through the night before deciding to say that the nuclear weapons program had been underway for several years, U.S. officials said.  Kang also said North Korea had developed other, more powerful weapons.

Far from being apologetic, Kang was “assertive, aggressive about it,” a U.S. official said.

Experts have said they are unsure what Kang meant by saying North Korea had developed more powerful weapons.  The claim could mean other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological weapons, they said (Slevin/De Young, Washington Post).

White House officials would not say whether North Korea indicated it had completed a nuclear weapon through its program, according to the New York Times. 

“We’re not certain that it’s been weaponized yet,” a White House official said, adding that there have been no signs that North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon, an activity the United States would be able to detect.

If North Korea’s claims are accurate, it means Pyongyang began its uranium enrichment program in the mid-to-late 1990s, according to the Times.  While such a program does not require the use of nuclear reactors to produce weapon-grade materials, it is a slow process that the United States probably detected through North Korean attempts to obtain centrifuges, the Times reported.

“We have to assume that they now have the capacity to build many more weapons, and they may have already,” a senior U.S. official said (David Sanger, New York Times, Oct. 17).

U.S. Evidence

U.S. officials declined to detail the information Kelly presented during the visit to Pyongyang.  One official called the information “compelling” and “very detailed.”

“It basically shows they in no way kept their word,” the official said (see GSN, Sept. 12).

The information confirmed previous U.S. suspicions that North Korea had been working on a secret enrichment program, which could only be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons, a senior State official said.  The information only became available this summer and was not available when the Clinton administration attempted negotiations with North Korea in 2000, the official said (Strobel/Zielenziger, Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 17).

Over the past several years, U.S. intelligence agencies have detected signs that North Korea was trying to obtain uranium enrichment technologies, according to the Washington Times.  In 1999, a North Korean trading firm was detected trying to buy such technology from a Japanese company, the Times reported.  The technology could have helped North Korea develop the ability to produce weapon-grade materials within six years, according to an intelligence report.  The sale was blocked at the time, U.S. officials said (David Sands, Washington Times, Oct. 17).

A January CIA report said that during the latter half of 2001, North Korea “continued its attempts (to) procure technology worldwide that could have applications in its nuclear program,” according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Jan. 31).  

“We assess that North Korea has produced enough plutonium for at least one, and possibly two, nuclear weapons,” the CIA report said (CNN.com).

International Agreements

North Korea’s acknowledgement of its nuclear weapons program places it in violation of several international agreements, including the 1994 Agreed Framework, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Joint North-South Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korea Peninsula, Boucher said (U.S. State Department release).

According to the Joint North-South Declaration, “The South and the North will not possess facilities for nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment” (Arms Control Reporter, Dec. 31, 1991).

Under the Agreed Framework, North Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear activities in exchange for two U.S.-built light-water nuclear reactors (see GSN, Sept. 13).  According to one provision in the agreement, “the DPRK [North Korea] will freeze its graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities and will eventually dismantle these reactors and related facilities.” 

The Agreed Framework also obligates North Korea to “consistently take steps to implement the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” and to “remain a party to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons and will allow implementation of its safeguards agreement under the Treaty” (Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization release, Oct. 17).

The North Korean nuclear weapon program is a “very serious material breach” of the Agreed Framework, a senior U.S. official said (Slevin/DeYoung, Washington Post). 

During the meeting with Kelly, North Korean officials said they considered the Agreed Framework to be nullified, Boucher said (U.S. State Department release, Oct. 16).  White House national security officials met Tuesday to discuss the North Korean nuclear weapons program and whether the Agreed Framework could be maintained, a U.S. official said (Sands, Washington Times).

United States Begins Consultations

The Bush administration has begun consultations with key members of Congress on the North Korean nuclear weapons program and will continue to do so, Boucher said.  Kelly and Undersecretary of State John Bolton will travel to Asia “to confer with friends and allies about this important issue,” he said (U.S. State Department release).

Kelly and Bolton left yesterday for Beijing, a previously scheduled trip that was originally planned as preparation for next week’s scheduled meeting between U.S. President George W. Bush and Chinese President Jiang Zemin.  After the meeting in Beijing, Kelly is expected to travel to Tokyo and Seoul (Strobel/Zielenziger, Philadelphia Inquirer).

What If...

The White House’s decision to remain silent on North Korea’s claims for almost two weeks appears to be significant, according to the New York Times.  The Bush administration has attempted to avoid calling the situation a crisis that could require military action while maintaining the situation in Iraq as the main U.S. priority, the Times reported.

“Imagine if [Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] had done this, that he had admitted — or bluffed — that he has the bomb or is about to have one,” a U.S. official said.  “But there’s been a decision made that the system can take only so much at one time.”

Another White House concern could be the vulnerabilities of U.S. allies in Asia, the Times reported.  U.S. officials have long believed that any military conflict with North Korea would result in a second Korean war and the destruction of Seoul, according to the Times.  In addition to its suspected WMD programs, North Korea has a large arsenal of conventional weapons and military forces numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

“The United States and our allies call on North Korea to comply with its commitments under the Nonproliferation Treaty, and to eliminate its nuclear weapons program in a verifiable manner,” Boucher said.  “We seek a peaceful resolution of this situation.  Everyone in the region has a stake in this issue and no peaceful nation wants to see a nuclear-armed North Korea.  This is an opportunity for peace loving nations in the region to deal, effectively, with this challenge” (U.S. State Department release).

 For further information, see:

Agreed Framework Text

KEDO

NPT Text

States Parties to the NPT (U.N.)

U.N. Background on NPT

Back to top

United States:  Eliminating Nuclear Delivery Platforms Could Save Billions

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration’s goal for reducing the deployed strategic nuclear warhead force, as required by a U.S.-Russian treaty signed in May, could potentially save the country $5 billion over the next nine years, according to a congressional study (see GSN, Oct. 11).

The savings could be realized if the administration chose to remove from service most delivery platforms — missiles and submarines — from which many of the nuclear warheads would be downloaded, according to a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Alternatively, the Pentagon might spend about $105 million to retain those delivery platforms for possible reintroduction into the strategic force, said the report, sent to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) on Sept. 24.

Baker Spring, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said the second scenario would be the most likely course of action, keeping the weaponry on hand would preserve U.S. flexibility to quickly reintroduce it into the force if needed.

“Maintaining an effective strategic posture is far more important that whatever marginal amount of money you might spend or save by adopting a certain route to meeting those target numbers,” he said.

The administration already alluded to that course in its Nuclear Posture Review announced last January, Spring said (see GSN, Jan. 9).

“I think the Nuclear Posture Review is clear that downloading the warheads is a better approach because of the flexibility it allows, over withdrawing platforms,” he said.

The CBO analysis did not address the strategic implications of the various scenarios.

Full Plans Not Specified Yet

President George W. Bush and his Russian counterpart in May signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, which administration officials say commits the United States to having at most 2,200 warheads on strategic platforms on Dec. 31, 2012.

The CBO report estimated the currently number of operationally deployed strategic warheads at about 5,910, using a traditional arms control formula that considers the number of warheads that could be deployed on various available strategic platforms.

The new treaty text did not specify how its goal for 2012 should be met, allowing each country to decide whether to retain downloaded warheads and their platforms or to dismantle or destroy some of them.

Bush administration officials have not yet specified what they intend to do with the downloaded warheads and many of their respective platforms, though they say they intend to keep many in reserve in case they are unexpectedly needed.

The Bush administration did give some indication of its plans, however, with the Nuclear Posture Review.  The review set an interim goal of having just 3,800 warheads operationally deployed by 2007. 

It said the reductions in operationally deployed warheads would be made, in part, with the planned retirement of all 50 Peacekeeper ICBMS, conversion of four Trident submarines to a non-nuclear role, and conversion of all 81 B-1 bombers to a conventional role.  That would take about 1,000 warheads off of operationally deployed status, bringing the total down to about 4,800, still short of the 2007 goal, according to the congressional report.

Achieving Numerical Goals

The administration has not specified how it might further bring the number down to 3,800, the report said.

The remaining strategic forces in 2007, it said, would be: 1,200 warheads on 500 Minuteman 3 missiles, 2,304 warheads on 14 Trident submarines, 256 warheads on 21 B-2 bombers, and 1,056 warheads on 76 B-52 bombers.

The report said the administration could cut an additional 1,000 deployed warheads by counting fewer warheads per Trident and per Minuteman.

CBO listed two possible alternatives for achieving the 2012 goal.  The administration could further reduce the force structure by removing or retiring some warheads and delivery platforms, such as 150 Minuteman missiles and two additional Tridents, while converting the B-2 bombers to conventional roles. That would save $5 billion from reduced operations costs and from forgoing the costs of “development and procurement of new systems to upgrade the two Trident submarines and 150 Minutemen missile retired under this option,” it said.

Alternatively, the United States could retain the 2007 force structure but reduce the number of warheads deployed per all platform types, which it said would cost $105 million over the next nine years.

The CBO said it was unable to assess the cost of a third option, to convert strategic bombers and submarines for non-nuclear roles, while retaining the option for nuclear capability.  The cost would depend on the details.

The CBO cost estimates assume that the downloaded warheads are stored and not destroyed.  Dismantling the warheads could have substantial costs, the report said. 

Citing Energy Department information, it said current capacity for dismantlement at the Pantex nuclear weapons assembly facility in Amarillo, Texas would be insufficient for dismantling all downloaded warheads by 2012, but could possibly complete the job by 2020-2025.

Back to top

United States II:  Laboratories Full, Nuclear Material Might Be Moved

Two U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories are running out of plutonium storage space and might have to move materials to other sites, Energy Daily reported today.

Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico is “virtually full” and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California is confronting a “storage limit issue,” according to a National Nuclear Security Administration document released in September.

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, in charge of safety at Energy Department sites, has criticized the NNSA for the lack of storage, Energy Daily reported.  In a letter to the defense board, the administration said, “many of the NNSA facilities are at or near their capacity.”

The NNSA letter announced the establishment of the Inactive Actinides Working Group to develop policies for dealing with and disposing of inactive materials. 

The lack of space could affect operations at the laboratories this fiscal year, but current guidelines require the material be stored until 2010, the document says.

In the short term, both laboratories plan to send about 100 plutonium canisters to the Energy Department’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina, which also faces storage issues.

“Other sites should be considered for long-term storage of NNSA legacy materials prior to shipment to the ultimate disposition site,” the document says.  The agency is looking at the Hanford site in Washington, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, the Nevada Test Site (see GSN, Aug. 12) and the Y-12 site at Oak Ridge, Tennessee for additional storage (George Lobsenz, Energy Daily, Oct. 17).

Back to top

Russia:  Topol-M ICBM Tests Successfully

Russia successfully test-launched an SS-27 Topol-M ICBM last week (see GSN, June 7).  The ICBM traveled about 4,200 miles to hit a target at the Kura test range on the Kamchatka Peninsula after being launched from the Plesetsk cosmodrome.  Russia’s Strategic Rocket Force and Spaces Forces conducted the test in accordance with a military training schedule, Russian officials said (Space & Missile, Oct. 17).

Back to top

South Asia:  Nuclear-Armed Rivals Pull Back From Border

India announced yesterday it would pull troops back from its Pakistani border and Pakistan followed suit today (see GSN, June 11).

The nuclear-armed rivals, who have been in a tense standoff for almost a year, did not say how many troops would be withdrawn (see GSN, May 22).

India has stationed 700,000 troops on the border since December 2001, while Pakistan has 300,000 troops deployed to counter India.

India’s decision was made Wednesday night and announced by Defense Minister George Fernandes.  Indian troops would not be withdrawn from the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir, he said (John Lancaster, Washington Post, Oct. 17).

Pakistan’s pullback to “peace-time locations” will begin soon, according to a Foreign Ministry statement.

The statement described India’s action as “a step in the right direction.”

The decision to withdraw forces was made after a meeting with President Musharraf and senior officials, BBC reported (BBC Online, Oct. 17).

Back to top

Russia:  Strategic Bombers Successfully Launch Cruise Missiles

Two Russian long-range nuclear-capable Tu-95 Bear-H bombers successfully launched cruise missiles at targets located at a training ground in Siberia, Interfax reported last week.  The test was held during the course of final examinations for summer training in the Russian Air Force (see GSN, Oct. 11; Interfax, Oct. 10 in FBIS-SOV, Oct. 10).

Back to top

United States:  Air Force Expands B-1B Bomber Capabilities

The U.S. Air Force has refitted its nuclear-capable B-1B long-range bomber to drop three types of conventional weapons on the same sortie, and officials are two months away from finishing testing to certify that capability, Defense News reported this week (see GSN, June 24).

Upgrades to the aircraft’s computer systems have enabled the bomber to handle the different payloads.  The capability would make the B-1B unique in the U.S. Air Force and one of a few planes in the world that can accommodate three different munitions.

“The new computers and software allow us to integrate new weapons on the platform more effectively than in the past,” said Scott White, general manager of the B-1B program for U.S. defense contractor Boeing.

In one June flight a B-1B dropped a Joint Direct Attack Munition, a Wind Corrected Munition Dispenser Bomb and an unguided bomb, according to Air Force Lt. Col. Gordie Neff.  The upgrades are part of the $3 billion Conventional Munition Upgrade Program (Gail Kaufman, Defense News, Oct. 14-20).

Back to top

Iran:  United States to Offer New Proposal to End Russian Assistance

The United States plans to offer Russia a deal in which Moscow would end assistance to Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for contracts to reprocess spent nuclear fuel that originated in the United States, Nuclear Fuel reported (see GSN, Sept. 20).

Under former U.S. President Bill Clinton, negotiations with Russia on the issue of nuclear assistance to Iran were apparently progressing enough that Iran focused all its resources on building its primary Bushehr nuclear site — at the expense of the Bushehr 2 site — fearing that Moscow’s cooperation might end at any time, according to Nuclear Fuel.  U.S.-Russian progress halted, however, under current U.S. President George W. Bush, and Iran and Russia’s Ministry of Atomic Energy, known as Minatom, have discussed furthering their nuclear relationship, Nuclear Fuel reported.

Russian diplomats have recently said that the possibility of receiving and reprocessing spent fuel and supplying mixed-oxide fuel to foreign reactors has Moscow talking to Washington again.  Under Clinton, the United States “never understood that unless Minatom is offered an alternative way to make money” it would not stop doing business with Iran, a Russian diplomatic source said.

If Minatom were to overcome opposition within Russia to accepting more radioactive materials, it could store or possibly reprocess spent nuclear fuel from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and western European countries, according to Nuclear Fuel (Mark Hibbs, Nuclear Fuel, Sept. 30).

Back to top

Ukraine:  Research Institute Clings to Uranium Stocks

The Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology in Ukraine refuses to give up its stocks of highly enriched uranium reactor fuel, even for security reasons, institute Director General Volodymyr Lapshin said Wednesday (see GSN, Oct. 10).

As the United States has expanded efforts to secure at-risk nuclear material around the world, it has offered to purchase the institute’s 75 kilograms of 90 percent enriched uranium to prevent rogue states such as Iraq from obtaining it, according to reports.  The institute, however, needs the material for research, Lapshin said, and institute officials could not sell it without clearance from higher offices.

“Nuclear materials stored in the institute are state-owned and controlled by the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], so we cannot move them to another country without clearance at every level.”

When asked whether Iraq has contacted the institute about the uranium, Lapshin said that “there were no direct contacts with Iraq on this issue” (Interfax, Oct. 9 in FBIS-SOV, Oct. 9).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Senate, Duma Hope to Pass Moscow Treaty This Year

By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire

The U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty might make it through the U.S. Senate and the Russian Duma by the end of the year, officials said this week (see GSN, Oct. 1).

U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) said Wednesday that the treaty will probably move easily whether the Senate deals with it before or after a planned recess this month (see GSN, July 9).

“I just want the message to go out that there is no delay related to opposition to this treaty,” he said.

The committee expects to receive reports on the treaty today from the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, according to Lynne Weil, Biden’s press secretary.  If those reports arrive as promised and contain no information that would cause concern, the treaty could move out of committee by next week.

“Theoretically, if we get the reports [Friday], staff could have a chance to look at them over the weekend,” Weil told Global Security Newswire.

If Congress remains in session next week as anticipated, “it is entirely possible” that the committee could move the treaty along, Weil said.

The full Senate might address the treaty after the November elections, Biden said.

“We may have a lame-duck session.  It would be my intention to bring it up in the lame-duck section to get it finished,” Biden said.  “Whether I am the ranking member or assisting the chairman or the chairman, I think we could both say we’d be prepared to move it immediately.”

Russia Promises Progress

Meanwhile, the treaty will be adopted soon in Russia, the Russian ambassador to the United Nations said Wednesday.

“Russia is going to ratify the new treaty by the end of the year,” Andrey Granovsky told the U.N. General Assembly’s First Committee on Disarmament and International Security.

Russian lawmakers have been meeting recently to discuss the treaty but budget problems have slowed its progress, said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov, according to Russian reports (see GSN, Sept. 25).

For further information, see:

U.S.-Russia Nuclear Reduction Treaty Text (U.S. State Department)

Bush Announces Moscow Treaty

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Moscow Treaty

Back to top

Russia:  Siberian-Based Bombers Scheduled to Approach Alaska

Russian military exercises scheduled to take place next week could test the capabilities of U.S. air defenses in Alaska, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, Oct. 1).

Russian officials plan to deploy long-range nuclear-capable Tu-95 Bear-H bombers from bases in Siberia near the Bering Sea and the Laptev Sea.  The bombers have flown close to Alaska in previous exercises — 37 miles off the coast earlier this year — prompting the scrambling of U.S. F-16 fighter jets and concerns among some defense officials.  Other Pentagon officials, however, have portrayed the exercises as routine (Gertz/Scarborough, Washington Times, Oct. 11).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP