North Korea:  Bush Promises Diplomatic Approach

U.S. President George W. Bush said yesterday he would work with other countries to help persuade North Korea to abandon its newly revealed uranium enrichment program.  The United States was not considering using military force to accomplish that goal, Bush said (see GSN, Oct. 21).

“This is a chance for people who love freedom and peace to work together to deal with an emerging threat,” Bush said.  “I believe we can deal with this threat peacefully, particularly if we work together.”

Bush said he would use meetings scheduled during the next week with the leaders of China, Japan and Russia to discuss how to persuade North Korea to end its nuclear weapons program.  While North Korea has extended an offer of discussions, the United States will consult with allies first, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.

“International pressure will come to bear on North Korea to make them realize the dangers that they are pursuing, in terms of the future for them will be increasingly isolated if they go down the road that they have indicated they’re going down,” Fleischer said.

Bush is to meet with Chinese President Jiang Zemin Friday.  North Korea will be a key issue in a discussion on how the United States and China can cooperate to deal with “the true threats of the 21^st century,” Bush said.  North Korea would also be a topic of discussion during a Bush trip to Mexico for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference, he said

Bush also outlined why the United States would attempt a diplomatic approach with North Korea, but has threatened the use of military force against Iraq, which has not acknowledged that it is pursuing weapons of mass destruction.

“[Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein is unique, in this sense:  He has thumbed his nose at the world for 11 years,” Bush said, referring to the U.N. resolutions Hussein has been accused of violating.  “What makes him even more unique is the fact he’s actually gassed his own people.  He has used weapons of mass destruction on neighboring countries, and he’s used weapons of mass destruction on his own citizenry.  He wants to have a nuclear weapon.  He has made it very clear he hates the United States and, as importantly, he hates friends of ours” (Mike Allen, Washington Post, Oct. 22).

Status of 1994 Agreed Framework in Doubt

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly said yesterday the United States has not yet decided whether to withdraw from the 1994 Agreed Framework — the U.S.-North Korean agreement meant to end North Korea’s nuclear weapons efforts, according to the Asahi News Service.  The day before, Secretary of State Colin Powell said the agreement was finished.

Kelly said the United States is still considering how to proceed with the framework, under which North Korea agreed to limit its nuclear activities to two light-water reactors provided by an international consortium.  Kelly, who led the U.S. delegation to Pyongyang in early October, made his comments during a meeting yesterday with Japanese Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi in Tokyo (Asahi News Service, Oct. 22).

No decisions have yet been made to end U.S. fuel oil shipments to North Korea or the construction of the two light-water reactors, both provisions of the framework, while the United States consults with its allies, one official said.

“The whole situation is very complex,” U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said yesterday.  “That’s why we’re taking time to consult with friends and allies and with the Congress before we make or announce any decisions” (David Sands, Washington Times, Oct. 22).

Former Official Praises Framework

The Agreed Framework successfully ended North Korea’s plutonium production program and should not be abandoned, Robert Gallucci, the chief U.S. negotiator of the framework, said yesterday.

“Let’s everyone — everyone — recognize that the Agreed Framework stopped North Korea’s plutonium program,” Gallucci said.  The plutonium came from Soviet-designed nuclear reactors that North Korea agreed to shut down in exchange for the two light-water reactors. 

“We’ve got to end this feeling that we were snookered in 1994,” said Gallucci, dean of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. He described discussions “about whether we were cheated” as “silly.”

In light of North Korea acknowledging its uranium enrichment program, “we’re no worse off now than we were then.  In fact, we’re better off” than before the signing of the framework, Gallucci said.  North Korea has continued to suspend its plutonium program and remains a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, he said.

The United States should not be shocked that North Korea has attempted to enriched uranium, Gallucci said.  “Can we be disappointed?  I think we’re allowed to be so.”

Instead of withdrawing from the framework, however, the United States should push for new requirements, including the end of North Korea’s uranium enrichment program and “the initiation of long-awaited special inspections,” Gallucci said.  In exchange, the Bush administration should be prepared to offer political and economic cooperation, he said.

“The idea that we will not negotiate — that makes you feel good ... because you can’t compromise,” Gallucci said, referring to the White House.  “So if we don’t want to call it that, that’s fine, but I hope the administration will engage in discussions” (Elizabeth Manning, United Press International, Oct. 22).

Inter-Korea Talks

During the third day of a set of inter-Korea talks yesterday, South Korean delegates demanded that North Korea clarify its position on its nuclear weapons program and called on Pyongyang to abide by the Agreed Framework, according to the South Korean Yonhap news agency.

North Korean officials said they agreed in principle that the nuclear weapons issue should be resolved by dialogue, but refused to address the issue in a joint statement to be drafted at the meeting, Yonhap reported (Yonhap/BBC Monitoring, Oct. 22).

KEDO

The Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, which oversees the construction of the two light-water reactors for North Korea, plans to proceed as usual until it is ordered to stop.  It is expected to hold working-level talks today with Pyongyang on the creation of a satellite network as part of the project.

A group of KEDO negotiators traveled to Pyongyang yesterday for a three-day meeting on the creation of a satellite connection between Seoul and the Kumho district in North Korea’s South Hamkyong province, according to the Korea Times.

“So far we have not heard any position on the light-water nuclear reactor construction,” a KEDO official said.  “The working-level talks will proceed as planned” (Sohn Suk-joo, Korea Times, Oct. 22).

Japanese Aid to North Korea at Risk

Japan will stop financing the construction of the light-water reactors and will suspend normalization talks with North Korea if there is no progress made on halting Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program, a Japanese official said yesterday.

“Of course the negotiations would halt,” the official, Katsunari Suzuki, said in response to reporters’ questions.  If Japan were to learn that North Korea “is carrying out nuclear development, then we must suspend at a minimum, and in certain cases, must think about terminating it,” he said.

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, however, called for optimism about talks to normalize relations with North Korea, scheduled to be held in Malaysia starting Oct. 29.  “One must not assume they are doomed from the start,” Koizumi said.

The visit by the State Department’s Kelly to Japan helped persuade Tokyo to take a harder stance toward North Korea, according to U.S. diplomats.

“We are now in sync with the Japanese,” a U.S. diplomat said at the end of Kelly’s five-day trip to Beijing, Tokyo and Seoul.  “They have said they are not going to give any money without resolution of the nuclear issues.”

North Korea has become heavily dependent on international aid to address humanitarian concerns, according to the New York Times.  The threat of an end to Japanese aid could have an effect

“A friend of mine at the Foreign Ministry who met with the North Koreans about 30 times said all they want to talk about is money, money, money,” said Hatsuhisa Takashima, a Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman.  “They are desperate to get another source of money” (James Brooke, New York Times, Oct. 22).

For further information, see:

Agreed Framework Text

KEDO

Back to top

Iran:  Moscow Snubs U.S. Compensation Offer

A U.S. economic offering, intended to help Russia end its nuclear assistance to Iran, has met resistance in Moscow, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, Oct. 11).

The United States offered to lift restrictions on the Russian importation of U.S.-controlled spent nuclear fuel — a move officials believe could mean billions of dollars in potential storage and reprocessing profits — in return for a Russian halt of construction on a nuclear reactor in the Iranian coastal city of Bushehr.

The United States currently controls the disposition of 90 percent of the world’s spent fuel.  Environmentalists and some U.S. lawmakers oppose the lifting of the restriction, saying Russian will poison its environment and will not provide sufficient security.

Russia, however, is hesitant to forgo the $800 million Iranian Bushehr project in favor of U.S. promises that officials say are unreliable.  Specifically, Russian officials are upset that Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions are still in place — the United States was to lift them return for Russian support in the war on terrorism.  Jackson-Vanik language bars normal U.S. trade relations with countries that do not have market economies or open emigration policies.

“It’s better to have a bird in the hand than two in the bush,” Russian Atomic Energy Ministry spokesman Yuri Bespalko said.

John Bolton, U.S. undersecretary of state, is visiting Moscow today and plans to discuss the Iranian issue with Russian officials (Peter Baker, Washington Post, Oct. 22).

Back to top

Uzbekistan:  U.S. Agencies Improve Security at Research Reactor

The U.S. Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration and the State Department have completed a joint program with Uzbekistan to increase security at an Uzbek nuclear research facility located near the capital of Tashkent, the NNSA said today (see GSN, Oct. 10).

The improvements at the Uzbek Institute of Nuclear Physics included an enhanced security perimeter around the institute’s research reactor, containing detection sensors, cameras and lights.  Personnel from the NNSA Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, the State Department’s Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund, Sandia National Laboratory and the institute participated in the security upgrade. 

Security needs at the institute became a greater concern when the threat of terrorism escalated in Central Asia, an NNSA press release said.  U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said the security upgrade at the Uzbek institute was part of an overall nonproliferation effort that is among his highest priorities.

“The efforts of Uzbek officials were crucial in furthering international nonproliferation and counterterrorism efforts,” Abraham said in a press statement.  “By increasing security at this location we have contributed to improving the national security of the United States and others in the international community” (National Nuclear Security Administration release, Oct. 21).

Back to top

United States I:  New U.S. Research Might Require Explosive Testing

New research and development efforts at the U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories, owned by the Energy Department, might lead to a resumption of nuclear testing, the San Francisco Chronicle reported today (see GSN, Aug. 16).

The three U.S. weapons laboratories — Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico — are working on a number of new nuclear weapons research projects, such as smaller “bunker-busting” warheads and new plutonium “pits,” or triggers, for existing warheads (see GSN, Sept. 20).  The U.S. Congress has also approved millions of dollars in funding to reduce the time needed to prepare the Nevada Test Site for additional testing (see GSN, Sept. 17).

While the Bush administration has not yet formally requested permission to conduct an actual nuclear test, the more the U.S. military demands from research, the greater the need for new tests will become, weapons laboratory officials said.

“My view right now is there is no need to go back to testing,” said Michael Anastasio, director of Lawrence Livermore.  “But if the country demands more of us, the need for testing goes up.”

Experts warned against introducing new or modified warheads to the U.S. nuclear arsenal without testing.

“Certainly, you have to test whether it [a bunker-buster warhead] is going to survive after it goes into the ground,” said Harold Agnew, former director of Los Alamos.  “No amount of computer testing can do the job” (see related GSN story, today).

If the new plutonium triggers are deployed, even in old nuclear warheads, “it would be the first weapon put into the stockpile without a test,” which would be extremely risky, said Don McCoy, a senior weapons scientist at Los Alamos.

Increased Morale

The expanded research and development efforts at the U.S. weapons laboratories have led to increases in funding and morale, according to the Chronicle.  Two years ago, the laboratories were criticized for a number of security lapses, including the Wen Ho Lee espionage case (see GSN, Jan. 15), and critics called for reduced funding and staff.

Now, funding for the laboratories has increased to $6 billion this fiscal year, up from $3.2 billion in fiscal 1995, the Chronicle reported.  The laboratories’ funding levels are expected to increase even further if some programs are funded directly by the planned homeland security department, as has been proposed, according to the Chronicle.

“I actually had a fear for the future viability of the lab,” Anastasio said.  “It just feels very different now.  It’s a positive tone as opposed to a going-out-of-business tone” (James Sterngold, San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 22).

Back to top

United States II:  Sandia Agrees to $90 million Supercomputer Contract

The U.S. Sandia National Laboratories yesterday announced it had reached agreement with Seattle computer maker Cray Inc. to build the fastest supercomputer in the laboratories’ history (see GSN, Aug. 6).

The contract is worth $90 million and calls for the “massively parallel processing supercomputer” to be completed by fiscal 2004.

The computer — named Red Storm — will be able to complete 40 trillion calculations per second, which is seven times more powerful than fastest computers currently operated by the laboratories.

Supercomputers are used to simulate nuclear explosions to determine the reliability of the nation’s nuclear stockpile.

“This computer will allow modeling and simulation of complex problems that were only recently thought impractical, if not impossible,” said Tom Hunter, Sandia’s senior vice president for nuclear weapons programs.  “Calculations that would have taken months only a dozen years ago will now be done in a matter of minutes” (Associated Press, Oct. 22)

Back to top

Taiwan:  Nuclear Inspections Begin Tomorrow

International Atomic Energy Agency officials are in Taiwan and will begin an annual three-day inspection of the island’s nuclear research facilities tomorrow (see GSN, Aug. 23).

The five-member delegation will visit the National Tsinghua University, the defense ministry’s Chung-shan Institute of Science and Technology and the Institute of Nuclear Research, according to Chen Yi-ben, director of planning for Taiwan’s Atomic Energy Council.  The IAEA representatives have been in discussions with the council on nuclear safeguards.

“It is our country’s standing policy to abide by the international Nonproliferation Treaty and not to develop nuclear weapons,” Chen said (Agence France-Presse, Oct. 22).

Back to top

North Korea:  United States to Scrap 1994 Agreed Framework

In light of North Korea’s recent admission of its nuclear weapons program, the United States has decided to abandon the 1994 Agreed Framework, senior White House officials said Saturday (see GSN, Oct. 18).  Under the framework, North Korea had agreed to end its nuclear material production activities in exchange for two light-water nuclear power reactors.

“We think the framework as we knew it is dead,” said a senior Bush administration official. “The North Koreans already told us they viewed it as ‘nullified’” (David Sanger, New York Times, Oct. 20).

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell echoed those comments Sunday during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press.

“When you have an agreement between two parties, and one says it’s nullified, then it’s hard to see what you do with such an agreement,” Powell said (William Mann, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Oct. 20).

The U.S. withdrawal from the framework forces North Korea to choose between its nuclear weapons program and almost total isolation, according to the New York Times.  An immediate effect of the U.S. decision will be an end to annual shipments of about 500,000 tons of fuel oil to North Korea (Sanger, New York Times).  There are no plans, however, to cut off humanitarian food assistance, which is necessary to prevent starvation, officials said Sunday (Wright/Magnier, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 21).

To maintain a unified front with its allies, the Bush administration does not plan to publicly announce the U.S. withdrawal from the framework, officials said.

Internal Debate at the White House

A lengthy debate preceded the administration’s decision to end participation in the accord.  “There are some who fear that it could tempt the North Koreans into a rapid breakout, to produce weapons as fast as they can,” an official involved in the debate said.

U.S. President George W. Bush, however, had been previously doubtful of the framework’s effectiveness and viewed North Korea’s admission as proof the agreement was flawed all along, aides said.

To prevent North Korea from using the U.S. withdrawal as an excuse for further nuclear violations, the White House plans to caution Pyongyang of serious consequences if it tries to remove nuclear materials now stored under international supervision at Yongbyon, which was the focus of a U.S.-North Korean conflict in the early 1990s, according to the New York Times.  U.S. State Department officials visiting Beijing last week asked China to convey the warning to North Korea (Sanger, New York Times).

Pyongyang Confirms Program …

A North Korean diplomat last week confirmed the nuclear weapons program, but said North Korea has not yet operated its uranium-enrichment technology, sources said.

The delegate, a member of North Korea’s mission to the United Nations, said the U.S. announcement of Pyongyang’s nuclear program was “mostly true.”

During the recent U.S.-North Korean meeting in Pyongyang, Kang Sok Ju, North Korea’s first vice minister of foreign affairs, said his country had purchased the equipment, but it was not yet in operation, sources said (Asahi Shimbun, Oct. 19).

...Offers Conditions For Its End

North Korea today said it is willing to begin a dialogue with the United States to remove “security concerns” prompted by the revelation of its nuclear weapons program, according to Agence France-Presse.

“North Korea is ready to remove security concerns through dialogue if the United States is willing to scrap its hostile policy towards us,” Kim Young Nam, president of the North’s Presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly, said during talks with South Korean officials (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo.com, Oct. 21).

U.S Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly yesterday said North Korea “did not make any demands” during the U.S. delegation’s visit to Pyongyang in early October.  They “did suggest there were measures that might be taken,” however, to convince them to comply with U.S. demands for an end to their nuclear weapons program, Kelly said.

“They indicated when all these good things were done, we might be able to talk about their covert enrichment program,” Kelly said.  “The North got it upside down” (Sanger, New York Times).

The conditions North Korea offered included a guarantee of no U.S. pre-emptive attack, recognition of the North Korean government and the signing of a U.S.-North Korean peace treaty, Kelly said.

Japanese analyst Toshimitsu Shigemura, a Takushoku University professor, said North Korea might have revealed its nuclear weapons program in an attempt to force the United States into negotiations.

“North Korea admitted to the program because it wants the United States to come to the negotiating table and set a path to improve relations,” he said.  “But I think this is a miscalculation.  Bush will not come” (Doug Struck, Washington Post, Oct. 21).

The White House today appeared to be unreceptive to North Korea’s calls for discussions, according to Reuters.  When asked if Bush was open to the idea, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said, “North Korea has invited upon itself an isolationist course.”

“North Korea has put itself in position where most nations around the world have not wanted much to do with (it) because of North Korea’s actions and history,” Fleischer said.  “We’re going to consult with our allies about what the next step should be ... but let no one misunderstand, North Korea is where it is because of the nature of the North Korean government” (Arshad Mohammed, Reuters/Washington Post, Oct. 21).

 U.S. Diplomatic Efforts

The White House believes that diplomatic efforts should be enough to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Sunday. 

“We’re not going to have a cookie cutter for foreign policy, where we try to apply the same formula to every case.  It would be foolhardy to do that,” Rice said on CNN’s Late Edition, addressing the administration’s apparently different approaches to North Korea and Iraq.  “The president put it very well when he said there may be many modalities, but there’s only one morality.  And the morality is that we are not prepared to allow nuclear powers of this kind to grow up.”

On CBS’s Face the Nation, Rice said, “We’re going to seek a peaceful solution to this.  We think that one is possible” (William Mann, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Oct. 21).

As part of its diplomatic efforts, the United States is expected to ask Japan and South Korea to suspend, if not end outright, plans to construct the two light-water reactors as called for under the framework, according to the New York Times.  South Korea, however, has begun to resist U.S. pressures over North Korea, partly due to fears that Pyongyang will feel trapped by any U.S.-led efforts to enact economic isolation, the Times reported (Sanger, New York Times).

Japan plans to discuss the nuclear issue with North Korea during normalization talks scheduled to be held in Malaysia Oct. 29-30, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi said Friday (Los Angeles Times, Oct. 19).

North Korean Allies

The United States also plans to urge North Korea’s friends, such as Russia, China and Pakistan, to end their ties with North Korea and to urge Pyongyang to end its nuclear weapons program.

The United States is working to develop “an international coalition” among both U.S. allies and North Korean allies to resolve the nuclear issue, said White House press secretary Fleischer.

“Since Sept. 11, we’ve developed a very different relationship with many of the countries on whom North Korea traditionally relies for technology, economic and diplomatic support,” he said.  “These countries want good and improved relations with the United States, and they have no interest in a nuclearized North Korea.  We also have close allies to whom North Korea is turning in desperation for economic health.  These nations also want a good relationship with the Untied States” (Financial Times, Oct. 19).

China’s cooperation is seen as key to U.S. diplomatic efforts, because it has the most influence over North Korea, according to analysts.  U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton and Kelly, who led the U.S. delegation to North Korea during the Pyongyang meeting, arrived in Beijing Thursday for a previously scheduled visit.

“We think the Chinese government shares our concern about the possible introduction of nuclear weapons into the Korean peninsula,” State spokesman Richard Boucher said.  “We hope to proceed on the basis of the concerns, and we will continue our consultations with China.”

Beijing believes that “the nuclear issue in (North Korea) should be solved through peaceful means, through dialogues and consultations,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue.

There were signs last week that China was surprised by North Korea’s admission of its nuclear weapons program, according to the Los Angeles Times.  A Chinese vice foreign minister had told a group of Chinese experts that the admission had taken him by surprise, according to a participant at the meeting.

“The perception of most Chinese people (toward North Korea) has really changed,” said Zhu Feng, an international relations scholar at Beijing University.  “Our neighbor is frequently causing us headaches” (Los Angeles Times).

Pakistan Remains Chief Suspect

There is evidence that North Korea obtained much of the necessary technology for its nuclear weapons program from Pakistan, another of its allies, according to officials familiar with the intelligence (Sanger, New York Times). 

Pakistan’s connection to North Korea’s nuclear weapon program is demonstrated through the type of gas centrifuge program Pyongyang has developed for uranium enrichment, which is “consistent with what the Pakistanis did 15 years ago,” said a U.S. official.

Senior Pakistani officials said they tried to stop their scientists from aiding North Korea, removing Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear weapon, as head of Pakistan’s uranium-enrichment and ballistic missile programs (Robbins/Hussain, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 21).

Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, however, said Friday that a New York Times article outlining the U.S. intelligence on Pakistan’s possible involvement was “absolutely baseless.”

“There is no such thing as collaboration with North Korea in the nuclear arena,” Musharraf said (Sanger, New York Times).

Pakistan has assured the United States that it has not supplied North Korea with nuclear technologies nor will it do so, Powell said Sunday.

After talking with Musharraf on Saturday, “he gave me 400 percent assurance” that Pakistan had not aided North Korea, Powell said on Meet the Press (Masood Haider, Dawn, Oct. 21).

Russian companies also assisted North Korea’s nuclear weapons efforts by supplying important components, a senior U.S. official said.  U.S. intelligence indicates that Russian suppliers provided North Korea with specialty metals, valves, pumps and other components needed to run gas centrifuges, according to the Wall Street Journal.  There is no evidence of Moscow’s role in these transactions, or even if it was aware, but it could not be ruled out, several U.S. officials said.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko, however, denied any Russian involvement in North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

“This has absolutely nothing to do with reality,” Yakovenko said (Robbins/Hussain, Wall Street Journal).

New North Korean Program Details

The United States has indicated that the North Korean Academy of Sciences, near Pyongyang, is suspected of being one of three sites where North Korea conducted uranium-enrichment tests as part of its nuclear program, a diplomatic source said yesterday. 

The other two suspected sites are the Hagap region, located in the Jagang province and the city of Yeongjeo-dong in the Yanggang province, about 20 kilometers from the Chinese border, according to the source.  The United States informed South Korea about the three suspected test sites several days after the U.S.-North Korean meeting in Pyongyang, the source said (Shin Yong-bae, Korea Herald, Oct. 21).

For further information, see:

Agreed Framework Text

KEDO

Back to top

Threat Assessment I:  High-Altitude Nuclear Explosion Would Kill Satellites

A nuclear weapon detonated 60 miles above the Earth’s surface could leave almost all low-flying satellites useless within weeks, Jane’s Defense Weekly reported this week (see GSN, Sept. 17).

The electromagnetic pulse generated by the explosion and the “Christofilos Effect” — the creation of an artificial radiation belt around the Earth — could cripple “low Earth orbit” satellites and with them many of the world’s communications systems, Jane’s reported.

A high-altitude explosion “produces an artificial radiation belt that, within weeks to at most months, delivers a lethal dose of radiation to satellites,” said Dennis Papadopoulos, a scientist at the University of Maryland who worked with Nicholas Christofilos, who predicted the effect.

“If someone were to explode a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon at a high enough altitude over their own territory, 90 percent of the world’s low Earth orbit satellites would be lost within a month,” Papadopoulos said.

The only firsthand knowledge and data on this problem came from six nuclear explosions in space during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, all of which took place before the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty.  All seven satellites then orbiting were damaged or destroyed.  There are now more than 250 satellites in low Earth orbit.

While some military satellites have been hardened and might withstand the explosion, many civilian satellites would be lost, including those used by the military.  Deployed U.S. forces, especially in North Korea or Iraq, could lose contact with headquarters in the United States.  Aircraft within line of sight of the explosion would lose all electronic capabilities as well.

Any state with nuclear capacity and the ability to launch a satellite can detonate a high-altitude nuclear explosion, Jane’s reported.  A militarily cornered country might detonate a weapon in space to demonstrate its nuclear ability.  A high-altitude detonation might also occur if a country fires a nuclear missile and an anti-ballistic missile intercepts it.

North Korea, Iran and Iraq are the most likely to use a high-altitude detonation as a tactical maneuver because they are developing equipment with that capability and they have little to lose in space, Jane’s reported.  Faced with U.S. intelligence, North Korea last week revealed it has a nuclear weapons program (see GSN, Oct. 18).

The military response to a high-altitude nuclear detonation is difficult because a nuclear retaliation against a population is not equivalent to a pre-emptive nuclear strike against satellites, Jane’s reported (Ian Steer, Jane’s Defense Weekly, Oct. 23).

Back to top

Threat Assessment II:  Scientists Lower Estimate of Critical Mass Needed for Neptunium-Based Bomb

A nuclear device using neptunium as its fissile material needs a much smaller amount of material than was previously thought, U.S. scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico have determined, USA Today reported today.

Neptunium, the element found between uranium and plutonium on the periodic table, exists in spent nuclear reactor fuel rods.

“There’s plenty of it out there,” Los Alamos spokesman Kevin Roark said.

A 12-year study revealed that the amount of neptunium needed to reach critical mass is 25 percent less than was previously thought.

The International Atomic Energy Agency instituted a voluntary monitoring system for neptunium in 1999 (Dan Vergano, USA Today, Oct. 21).

Back to top

United States:  Trident Submarine Transferred to West Coast

The United States has transferred the first of two Trident ballistic missile submarines to the West Coast to replace nuclear submarines that are being converted to carry conventional weapons, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported Friday (see GSN, Oct. 2).

The USS Pennsylvania arrived in Bangor, Wash., marking the first transfer of a Trident submarine from the Atlantic to the Pacific fleets.  The USS Kentucky is scheduled to be the second boat transferred, leaving the Kings Bay, Ga., submarine base with eight Tridents.

The conversion of four submarines to conventional roles began two weeks ago, with the USS Ohio, with the next three scheduled to be the USS Michigan, the USS Florida, and the USS Georgia (Mike Barber, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Oct. 18).

Back to top

North Korea:  United States Begins Diplomatic Efforts

The United States today began a diplomatic campaign in Asia to devise solutions to the crisis launched by North Korea’s recent acknowledgement of its uranium enrichment program (see GSN, Oct. 17)

Two senior U.S. State Department officials arrived yesterday in Beijing for talks on North Korea — Undersecretary of State John Bolton and Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly.  Over the next 10 days, Bolton is scheduled to travel to the United Kingdom, France and Russia.  Kelly, who led the U.S. delegation to Pyongyang in early October when North Korea revealed the existence of its weapons program (see GSN, Oct. 7), is scheduled to travel to Japan and South Korea (Wall Street Journal, Oct. 18).

The White House yesterday said that it wanted to use diplomacy to head off any crisis.  “The president believes this is troubling, sobering news,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.  “We are seeking a peaceful resolution.  This is best addressed through diplomatic channels at this point.”

U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said diplomatic efforts could lead to a solution.  “International pressure may have an effect,” Rice said during an interview with ABC’s Nightline (Slevin/Kessler, Washington Post, Oct. 18).

“I think we’re going to see that no one wants to have a nuclear-armed North Korea,” she said (George Gedda, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Oct. 18).

The White House decided more than a week ago to take a diplomatic approach toward North Korea’s claims, a senior official said.  Even though the administration briefed members of Congress on the information over the past week, they did not make it public while Congress debated a resolution authorizing military force against Iraq.

“We were waiting for it to leak,” one official said. “But nobody was paying attention because of Iraq” (Slevin/Kessler, Washington Post).

“The timing of this thing is terrible,” a U.S. official said (Wall Street Journal, Oct. 18).

Members of Congress yesterday urged a re-evaluation of U.S. policies toward North Korea, according to the Washington Post.  While some lawmakers called for condemnation of North Korea, other suggested negotiations, the Post reported.

The United States should end all economic aid to North Korea — except for humanitarian assistance — and attempt to halt international lending institutions from providing aid, Representatives Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) said in a press statement.  Also, the U.N. Security Council should condemn North Korea, they said (Slevin/Kessler, Washington Post).

The World Food Program will probably continue to provide aid to North Korea as many officials oppose using food as a weapon, according to the Associated Press.

Some analysts and several lawmakers urged the White House to end the 1994 Agreed Framework, under which North Korea agreed to end its nuclear program in exchange for two light-water nuclear reactors (see GSN, Sept. 13; Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press, Oct. 18).

If North Korea and the United States cannot resolve the weapons program issue, then the construction of the light-water reactors will probably be stopped, said an official with the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, which oversees the construction project.  The project, which began pouring concrete in August, is currently about 25 percent completed, the Korea Herald reported (see GSN, Aug. 8; Seo Hyun-jin, Korea Herald, Oct. 18). 

“I think certainly that Congress and the taxpayers would want us to stop sending fuel oil to the North Korea military at taxpayers’ expense,” said Fred Ikle of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Jelinek, Associated Press).

“I can guarantee you there won’t be another dime for fuel oil.  Can you imagine taking the Agreed Framework back to Capitol Hill for funding?” a senior official said.  North Korea “lied to us.  They treated us with contempt.  What kind of a deal are you going to cut with a country like that?” (Slevin/Kessler, Washington Post).

North Korean Motivation

Experts have speculated on a wide number of reasons for North Korea choosing to reveal the existence of its nuclear weapons program in the time and manner that it did.  Some experts have said North Korea could have been motivated by fears of the Bush administration choosing to pursue a conflict after it is finished with Iraq (see GSN, Oct. 8).

“Don’t disregard North Korea’s paranoia and its fear of a U.S. attack,” said Gordon Flake, a North Korea expert and head of the Mansfield Center for Pacific Affairs in Washington.  “The more the U.S. displays its capacity to and willingness to extend its reach — and what some people see as violate the sovereignty of other countries — the more frightened North Korea becomes.”

“The message is ... we have powerful weapons, more powerful than Iraq, and if you’re thinking about coming after us for your next target after Iraq, you better think twice, because we can hit back harder than the Iraqis can,” said Larry Niksch, an Asia specialist with the Congressional Research Service.

North Korea might have been trying to inform the United States about its nuclear weapons program in an attempt, albeit a clumsy one, to improve relations, according to other experts.  Some analysts interpreted the North Korean revelation as the first step of a bargaining process.

“At a minimum, he’s trying to put North Korea back on the U.S. radar screen,” said Robert Einhorn, former U.S. assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation.  “The Bush administration has not placed North Korea at the center of its universe, and I think North Korea would like to get (its) attention.”

“It probably signals that the North Koreans are willing to bargain over this program,” Einhorn said. “Whether the Bush administration is prepared to bargain is another story.”

North Korea’s apparent strategy to build up its military might against the United States while at the same time trying to improve relations with other Asian nations, such as Japan, might make more sense than first believed, some experts said.

“If they’re like us, they have a foreign ministry that wants to have better relations and they have a defense ministry that wants to have better weapons,” said Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control in Washington.  “They’re about as rational as we are” (Sonni Efron, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 18).

Selig Harrison, director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy in Washington, indicated North Korea saw the meeting with Kelly as part of a bargaining process.

“Their version of what happened in Pyongyang is they said to Mr. Kelly, look, we are willing to negotiate and end to our nuclear program and we’re willing to let you have the kind of inspections you want to verify that it’s OK, but you have to do two things:  First, you have to pledge that the United States will not use nuclear weapons against North Korea.  And, second, you have to fulfill your commitment to the normalization of relations including economic relations, which means aid,” Harrison said during an interview with PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.

North Korea also does not believe the United States has lived up to its obligations under the Agreed Framework, Harrison said.  Language in the framework calls for the United States to provide formal assurances that it will not use nuclear weapons against North Korea, which has not been done, he said.

“Now comes the Bush administration on Sept. 20 with a new national security doctrine in which we explicitly say that we reserve the right to take pre-emptive military action against countries we consider a potential threat to the peace, which of course to them means North Korea is included,” Harrison said (Ray Suarez, PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Oct. 17).

Sources of Enrichment Technology

The first signs of North Korea’s continued interest in developing nuclear weapons were detected in 1997, U.S. intelligence officials said.  Intelligence agencies discovered the construction of a large underground chamber at Kumchangni, a site north of Pyongyang, which was suspected to be intended to house a plutonium production reactor, according to the Washington Times.

In 1999, the U.S. Energy Department said it had discovered that North Korea had shifted the focus of its weapons program from producing plutonium to enriching uranium, the Times reported (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, Oct. 18). 

One way the United States learned that North Korea was attempting to develop a uranium enrichment program was by the discovery that Pyongyang was attempting to obtain large amounts of high-strength aluminum, which is used in uranium-enrichment equipment, weapons experts and officials said yesterday.

North Korea’s attempts to obtain the aluminum led U.S. analysts to conclude it was building a uranium-enrichment facility.

The aluminum would have been used to construct gas-centrifuge facilities — one method of producing enriched uranium, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, Oct. 7). 

The centrifuge facilities “are not all that large, and conceivably you can build them above ground without being detected,” said Jon Wolfsthal, deputy director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Nonproliferation Project.  “There’s nothing unique about them from the outside.  And unlike nuclear reactors, they don’t have large heat signatures.”

“Centrifuges are hard to build, and North Korea could not have done it without outside help,” said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.

U.S. intelligence officials also received information on significant construction activity believed related to a uranium enrichment facility, sources said. Past speculation on the location of such a facility has focused on three sites, including a suspected underground facility, called Hagap, located in the Changang province, said Daniel Pinkston, a senior researcher at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (Joby Warrick, Washington Post, Oct. 18).

Leading Suspect Is Pakistan

U.S. intelligence officials believe Pakistan was a major supplier of equipment for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, current and former senior U.S. officials said yesterday.

The equipment, which might have included gas centrifuges, was suspected of being part of an arrangement between Pakistan and North Korea that began in the late 1990s, in which North Korea agreed to provide ballistic missiles to Pakistan, the officials said.

“What you have here is a perfect meeting of interests — the North had what the Pakistanis needed, and the Pakistanis had a way for [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Il to restart a nuclear program we had stopped,” said an official familiar with the intelligence.

In 1998, Pakistan tested its version of a North Korean-designed Nodong missile.  Former Clinton administration officials said they did not know how Pakistan could afford to purchase the North Korean missiles, however, since it was destitute at the time.

The CIA suspected that Pakistan had agreed to provide nuclear weapons technology to North Korea in exchange for the missiles, according to the New York Times.  Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program uses highly enriched uranium.  North Korea was interested in such technology because uranium enrichment can be conducted underground, undetected by U.S. satellites, officials said.

A Pakistani Embassy spokesman denied the allegations, saying it was “absolutely incorrect” to accuse Pakistan of aiding North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

“We have never had an accident or leak or any export of fissile material or nuclear technology or knowledge,” the spokesman said (Sanger/Dao, New York Times, Oct. 18).

Asian Reactions

South Korea and Japan today called for continued contacts with North Korea, even after its admission of its nuclear weapons program.

“We regard (the admission) as a sign North Korea is willing to resolve this problem through dialogue,” said Yim Sung-joon, national security adviser to South Korean President Kim Dae-jung. 

Kim is expected to discuss North Korea’s weapons program with Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi at a joint summit scheduled for next week in Mexico, according to the Washington Post.

Japan also said it would continue its contacts with North Korea, which are meant to help establish formal relations between the two countries, according to the Post (see GSN, Sept. 17).  Japan said it would pressure North Korea to abide by the Agreed Framework (Goodman/Pomfret, Washington Post, Oct. 18).

North Korea’s admission, however, could damage its developing relations with Japan, resulting in the loss of billions of dollars of possible aid, according to the New York Times.

“We cannot start giving economic assistance as long as they keep up with this kind of violation,” said Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hatsuhisa Takashima.  “If your neighbor has nuclear weapons, or if your neighbor seriously tries to get nuclear weapons, how can you live with them?  You cannot give any assistance to them.  They have to stop doing that” (James Brooke, New York Times, Oct. 18).

The United States will probably try to force South Korea and Japan to slow down, or even stop, their attempts at building relations with North Korea, South Korean analysts said.

“The Americans can now demonstrate to the South Koreans and the Japanese that these guys are cheating, so there may be a push for a harder line toward Pyongyang,” said Taik Young-hamm, a professor at Kyungnam University's Graduate School of North Korean Studies.

China is likely to be “neutral on the surface,” but will work through informal channels to persuade North Korea to end its nuclear weapons program, said a senior Chinese scholar with close ties to the Chinese government.  “It would be incredible for us to just look on and do nothing,” the scholar said (Goodman/Pomfret, Washington Post).

IAEA Reaction

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, today told North Korea that the IAEA was willing to discuss reports of an undeclared uranium enrichment facility (see GSN, June 25).  The agency also wants to discuss with North Korea the general implementation of IAEA safeguards, ElBaradei said.

“The director general expressed the hope that the DPRK [North Korea] will without delay come back into full compliance with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations,” the IAEA said in a press release (International Atomic Energy Agency release, Oct. 18).

For further information, see:

Agreed Framework Text

KEDO

Back to top

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

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP