U.S.-Russia:  Nonproliferation Programs Need 20 More Years, U.S. Official Says

U.S.-Russian nuclear nonproliferation programs should probably continue for at least another 20 years, David Zigelman, a U.S. program manager of the Nuclear Cities Initiative, said in a recent interview with Insight Magazine (see GSN, July 15).

The Nuclear Cities Initiative is a program run jointly by the U.S. Energy Department and the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry and is designed to help find employment for Russian nuclear weapons scientists to prevent them from selling their expertise to rogue states (see GSN, Feb. 8).  The program is important since Russia can no longer pay scientists at the level they earned during the Cold War-era, Zigelman said.

“We must find commercial jobs for them at $50,000 to $100,000 a year or risk their defection,” he said.

Many Russian scientists would prefer to go back to work on weapon-related projects, Zigelman said.  Russian nuclear weapons scientists often miss the benefits and prestige that came with their former work, he said.

“Working in those cities meant working for the protection of the motherland ... Now they must find commercial jobs, some as menials manufacturing plastic dinnerware,” Zigelman said.  “When suddenly one does much less important work, it can seem degrading.  Many yearn for the good old days.”

Zigelman said he has a good relationship with the scientists in the closed cities where they formerly worked to develop Soviet nuclear weapons.

“In the closed cities, they call me ‘The Godfather,’” he said.  “I go to a city and sit down at the end of a table while group after group comes and pitches projects.  I have become their sugar daddy.  It’s like the movies:  ‘Godfather, I need money for this; Godfather, I need money for that.’”

U.S. officials have a more combative relationship with those in the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry, Zigelman said.

“We have a rocky relationship at times and can get tangled up in pissing contests,” he said.  “Luckily one group will recognize the importance of the program when another views us as a threat” (Brandon Spun, Insight Magazine, August 5).

Back to top

United States:  Laboratory Plans to Begin Purifying Plutonium

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory officials said yesterday they plan to revive efforts to purify plutonium for nuclear weapons research.

The laboratory wants to resume using equipment to purify “isotopes for experiments,” said Bruce Goodwin, associate director for defense and nuclear technologies at the laboratory.  Understanding plutonium’s properties is important to properly maintaining the U.S. nuclear stockpile without conducting full nuclear tests, laboratory scientists said.

The laboratory would use the pure isotopes for weapons research, including using some in non-nuclear underground explosions, Goodwin said.

Scientists purify plutonium by using special equipment to heat it until it turns to vapor and then shining lasers through the vapor to separate isotopes.  The laboratory’s equipment was built a decade ago to demonstrate plutonium purification in preparation for constructing a full-scale plutonium production plant in Idaho.

The plant was never built, however, and the laboratory never used the equipment after two groups — the Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment and the Natural Resources Defense Committee — filed a lawsuit claiming that the laboratory had not conducted required environmental studies, according to the San Jose Mercury News.  The equipment is now housed in a guarded building at the laboratory.

Researchers have resumed testing the equipment with alternative materials to plutonium, according to the Mercury News.  Using the equipment to purify plutonium would not harm the surrounding community, laboratory officials said.

Activists Oppose the Project

The Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment and other activists oppose the laboratory’s plan start using the equipment.

“It poses a very serious hazard,” said Marylia Kelley, head of Tri-Valley CARES.  “We’re going to insist on a full environmental study.”

Kelley said that the laboratory’s safety documents say some release of plutonium into the environment is inevitable.  She and others also expressed concern that the laboratory might produce radiological weapons — known as dirty bombs — or manufacture plutonium spheres for nuclear weapons (see GSN, June 3).

The laboratory is only planning to purify isotopes, and the project will not involve dirty bomb designs or plutonium pit production, Goodwin said (Dan Stober, San Jose Mercury News, July 17).

Back to top

Russia:  Demonstrator 2 Launch Was Fourth to Use Submarine Missiles

Russia’s launch Friday of the Demonstrator 2 spacecraft is the fourth Russian launch of a space vehicle using a converted submarine-launched ballistic missile, the Moscow Trud reported Saturday (see GSN, July 12).

Russia first SLBM-launched space vehicle was orbited in 1996, when a German research module was launched a Volna booster rocket — the same rocket used for the Demonstrator 2 launch, the newspaper reported.  In 1998, a Russian Delta IV submarine launched a German satellite into orbit aboard a booster rocket based on the SS-N-23 ballistic missile (Moscow Trud, July 13, in FBIS-SOV, July 13).

Back to top

Russia:  Typhoon Submarine Scrapping Continues

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Russia has nearly finished scrapping one of its six Typhoon-class strategic nuclear missile-launching submarines and is preparing to dismantle a second, U.S. sources said this week.

Armed with 20 ballistic missiles with 10 warheads each, Typhoon submarines — Russia calls them Akulas — are the world’s largest, and they were one of the most feared submarines during the Cold War.  The subject of Tom Clancy’s novel The Hunt for Red October, for example, was based on the Typhoon.

Through the U.S.-funded Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, begun in the early 1990s, officials have been carrying out the destruction at the Sevmash shipyard in the Northern Fleet base of Severodvinsk (see GSN, July 11).  At least 20 strategic missile submarines have been destroyed so far through CTR, including one Russian Delta IV submarine, the most modern of the Russian fleet.

Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) told reporters at a briefing May 17 that he hoped all six Typhoons would eventually be scrapped through the program.  Contracts for dismantlement and destruction, however, are signed one submarine at a time, and work on the first Typhoon is believed to be continuing.  Russian officials previously have said that four or five Typhoons would be destroyed.  Scrapping all six would eliminate the platforms for delivering 1,200 Russian nuclear warheads.

From the Russian point of view, Typhoon elimination is motivated largely by cost, experts said.

“The Typhoons, being very large, are very expensive to maintain,” said naval expert Norman Polmar.  “The larger the ship, generally the more expensive they are,” he said.  “It’s a very sophisticated submarine.  They were certainly the most innovative ballistic missile submarines built during the nuclear era.”

Lugar visited Sevmash last August and witnessed dismantlement work on the first Typhoon.  The destruction is a multi-step process involving defueling, cutting out missile launch tubes for verification, disposing of the nuclear reactor and then cutting up the hull.

Scarce Resources, Declining Forces

The elimination of the Typhoons, first deployed in the early 1980s, reflects a declining trend in Russian strategic submarine force capabilities since the 1980s, attributed in part to scarce funding and facilitated by the CTR program (see GSN, July 9).

Three Typhoons were decommissioned in the mid-1990s, according to analyst Igor Kudrik of the Norwegian environmental organization Bellona, which monitors Russian nuclear weapons activities.  The remaining boats in service have seen little or no activity in recent years, according to Kudrik.

A single Typhoon was overhauled and modernized over the last 12 years, according to Russian wire service reports.  That boat, the Dmitry Donskoy, was launched last month, the reports said (see GSN, June 28).

Russia also has a new fourth-generation submarine program underway, with the first keel laid in November 1996 and service scheduled to begin as soon as 2003-2004.  Skeptics say service could be delayed until 2010 or beyond because of lack of funding.

Along with the reportedly refurbished submarine, Russia may only have about a dozen strategic nuclear submarines left — six Delta IIIs and six Delta IVs — said Stan Norris, an analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington.

“The future does not look bright” for Russia’s strategic submarine force, Norris said, estimating the future force “may not be larger than 10,” down from an estimated Cold War peak of about 62 (see GSN, May 6).

The active Delta submarines also rarely go out to sea, said Norris.

“Not more than one or two here go on patrol at any time.  The whole tempo has been slashed,” he said.

According to the U.S. Navy, there were 31 Russian ballistic missile submarine patrols in 1991.  In 2001, there was only one, Norris said, but “they do have the capability to launch missiles from dockside.”

Reductions Across Russia’s Strategic Force

The Bush administration, reflecting its Nuclear Posture Review (see GSN, Jan. 10), has said it is planning to reduce the U.S. strategic submarine force from 18 to 14, reconfiguring four submarines for nonstrategic missions (see GSN, April 8).

Norris said the United States has traditionally relied more upon submarines in its strategic nuclear triad than has Russia.  While maybe 25 percent of Russia’s warheads have been on submarines, about half of U.S. warheads were, he said, with the remainder in each case on ICBMs and bombers.  Polmar said the United States had a peak of 41 strategic submarines in operation during the Cold War.

Russia’s other strategic nuclear forces have been shrinking and are expected to continue that trend.  As of last August, the CTR program helped pay for the destruction of at least 428 ballistic missiles, 390 ballistic missile launchers, 87 bombers, 483 long-range nuclear air-launched cruise missiles, 352 submarine missile launchers and 225 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, as well as strategic missile submarines.

Altogether, approximately 5,600 warheads that were once on strategic systems aimed at the United States have been deactivated through the program.  The U.S. intelligence community predicted earlier this year that without significant new funding, warhead numbers would drop to below 2,000 warheads by 2015 (see GSN, Jan. 10).

While Russia has been reducing its nuclear launchers, Russian officials have said they will match the United States and not destroy warheads taken out of active service.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Senator Lugar is a board member of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group, Inc.]

For further information, see:

U.S. Defense Department CTR Site

Moscow Treaty Text (U.S. State Department)

U.S. State Department Fact Sheet on Arms Reduction Treaty

Back to top

Ukraine:  DTRA Team Arrives to Verify SS-24 Destruction

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency inspection team arrived in Ukraine yesterday to verify that the destruction of former Soviet SS-24 ICBMs has been carried out as required by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (see GSN, July 8).

The on-site team traveled to Pavlorhad to verify the dismantlement of 54 missiles stored there.  Out of those, 46 silo-based SS-24s had been disassembled by February, DTRA spokesman Lt. Dan Gai said.  The silo-based ICBMs each consist of 16 START-designated components, out of which 13 have been dismantled, Gai said.  The elimination and disposal of these components is expected to be completed by the end of this year, he added.  The three remaining components — loaded motor stage assemblies — are expected to be disposed of between 2005 and 2007, Gai said.

For further information, see:

START I Text

Cooperative Threat Reduction program

Back to top

United States:  Clinton Offered Nuclear Protection to Israel, Adviser Says

By Kerry Boyd
Global Security Newswire

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton agreed in principle two years ago to an Israeli proposal to sign a formal treaty committing the United States to respond in kind to a nuclear attack on Israel, said Bruce Riedel, former adviser to Clinton on the Near East and South Asia.  Further negotiations failed, however, and a new U.S.-Israeli treaty was never completed.

In July 2000, Clinton met with then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat at Camp David, Md., in an effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  In the July 15 issue of Bitterlemons.org, a Web site on the conflict edited jointly by a Palestinian and an Israeli, Riedel described some of the commitments Clinton made to Israel to help the country accept concessions.

At the talks, the Israeli team presented U.S. negotiators with a draft treaty that would have been similar to the NATO agreement and would have mandated a U.S. nuclear response to a nuclear strike against Israel, Riedel wrote.  The treaty would have been subject to approval by the Israeli Knesset and the U.S. Congress.  During negotiations, Israeli and U.S. officials began “detailed discussions” on the ratification process, he wrote.

In practice, Riedel wrote, Israel and the United States have had a close security relationship for years, but formalizing the relationship in a treaty would have been “a transformation.”

“The reshaping of Israeli-American relations they [the Israeli team] suggested would have been fundamental and profound,” he said.

Arafat’s only request for direct U.S. assistance was deployment of U.S. troops as peacekeepers in the Jordan Valley to replace the Israeli forces there, and Clinton agreed to the request, Riedel said.

In addition to documented U.S. nuclear assurances, however, Barak asked Clinton for almost $35 billion in additional aid over several years, according to Riedel. 

Israel also wanted “access to some of America’s most advanced defense technology” in exchange for reaching a settlement with the Palestinians, Riedel wrote.  In particular, Israel asked for Tomahawk cruise missiles and the F-22 fighter.

Clinton agreed to provide F-22s to Israel if Congress approved the transfer, Riedel said.  Transferring cruise missile technology, however, might have violated the Missile Technology Control Regime, according to Riedel (see GSN, July 10).  The United States belongs to a group of countries that voluntarily agrees to restrict transfer of systems intended to deliver weapons of mass destruction and of systems that could carry a 500-kilogram payload 300 kilometers or more.

There was “considerable opposition to some elements of the package” in Washington, “particularly the technology transfers and the new treaty commitments,” Riedel wrote, adding that the details of the Israeli requests were kept secret during and after the Camp David talks.

Clinton felt that if agreeing to the Israeli requests would help Barak “sell a controversial and painful series of compromises to the Israeli public,” then it was worth trying to obtain congressional approval for the treaty and the money, Riedel wrote.  In the end, the Israeli requests never went to Congress.

“Clinton was very clear … that the U.S.-Israel deal was entirely contingent on conclusion of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement,” Riedel wrote.  The two sides failed to reach a resolution during those talks, and the current Palestinian intifada began two months later.

For further information, see:

U.S. State Department MTCR Summary

Back to top

China:  Pentagon Report Predicts Chinese ICBM Growth

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — In the next few years China will significantly upgrade its strategic missile forces to counter development of a U.S. missile defense system, according to a Pentagon report released last week (see GSN, Jan. 10).

Moreover, China may be planning to put multiple nuclear warheads aboard its ICBMs, according to the report.

The number of Chinese missiles capable of striking the United States may triple by the end of this decade, says the report — the Annual Report on the Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, required by Congress and made public by the Pentagon on Friday.

“China currently has around 20 ICBMs capable of targeting the United States.  This number will increase to around 30 by 2005 and may reach 60 by 2010,” the report says.  China is improving all classes of its ballistic missiles both qualitatively and quantitatively, it says.

“This modernization program will improve both China’s nuclear deterrence by increasing the number of warheads that can target the United States as well as improving its operational capabilities for contingencies in East Asia,” it says (see GSN, July 12).

China is replacing its current liquid-fueled CSS-4 ICBMs, also known as the Dongfeng 5, with longer-range versions.  Pentagon officials expect the upgrade to be completed by the middle of this decade, the report says.

According to the report, Chinese officials have also been developing three solid propellant ICBMs — the Dongfeng 31, which could be ready for deployment before mid-decade, and mobile and submarine-launched versions of the same missile, which officials might begin deploying by mid- to late-decade.

The Pentagon and the U.S. intelligence community for years have forecast a dramatic growth of Chinese strategic nuclear capabilities as development programs have come to fruition.

Some critics of the Bush administration’s aggressive national missile defense program have argued it will hasten China’s ICBM development, encouraging the country to build capabilities that can defeat a U.S. missile defense system.  Defenders of the program have argued that China would improve its ICBM capabilities regardless of the whether the United States chose to deploy national missile defenses.  The report lent support to both arguments.

“China’s ballistic missile modernization began before it assessed that the United States would deploy a missile defense, but China likely will take measures to improve its ability to defeat the system in order to preserve its strategic deterrent,” the report says.

Such measures would probably include “improved penetration packages for ICBMs, an increase in the number of deployed ICBMs, and perhaps development of a multiple warhead system for an ICBM, most likely for the CSS-4,” the report says.

Pentagon officials also believe that China might be acquiring a variety of foreign technologies that it could use to develop anti-satellite weapons, including laser weapons, which could be used against U.S. missile defense satellites, the report says.

Richard Fisher, an expert on Chinese military capabilities at the Jamestown Foundation, said China’s plans to upgrade the CSS-4s may suggest its intention to arm the missile with multiple nuclear warheads.

“The question I would have, why are they building a new version of what is the equivalent to the Titan missile.  Do they have [multiple warheads] for this new version?  Or is it a new warhead chock full of decoys and other penetration aids?” he said.

Back to top

United States:  Belgium Divided Over U.S. Request to Convert Plutonium

Belgian officials are debating a U.S. request to convert weapon-grade plutonium into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel, Reuters reported today (see GSN, June 21).

The United States has asked Belgium to convert 80 kilograms of plutonium to MOX fuel as part of a U.S.-Russian arms control agreement, according to Reuters.  U.S. officials plan to build two MOX plants in the southeastern United States, but they first want to ship a small amount of plutonium to a plant in Belgium or France to simulate the conversion process, a U.S. Embassy spokesman said in Brussels (see GSN, May 9).

The Green Party in Belgium’s ruling coalition is against the plutonium shipment, according to Reuters.

Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, however, has said he supports the U.S. request.  While it will probably take the United States several years to build its own MOX plants, Belgium’s assistance could shorten the time by four years, Verhofstadt said.

“Belgium’s agreement in principle would constitute an important signal that our country is prepared to contribute to the international nuclear disarmament program, reducing the current nonproliferation risk and the problems involving the physical protection of nuclear materials,” Verhofstadt wrote in a letter to the Green Party (Bart Crols, Reuters/Nuclear Control Institute, July 12).

Back to top

Iran-Russia:  Spent-Fuel Agreement Nearly Complete

By Kerry Boyd
Global Security Newswire

Russia and Iran are nearing a formal agreement to return spent nuclear fuel from Iranian reactors for reprocessing and storage in Russia, Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev said Friday at a Moscow press conference (see GSN, July 12).

Some work remains and relevant agencies are studying an amendment to the intergovernmental agreement on two nuclear reactors that Russia is helping build at Bushehr in Iran, he said.

Such a provision had not been included in the original contract because at the time there had been “no [Russian] legislative amendment allowing the import of spent nuclear fuel for storage and processing,” he said.

The Moscow Times reported last week that legislation passed in the early 1990s had banned nuclear waste imports, but Russian President Vladimir Putin signed legislation in July 2001 to allow such imports.

“Work to enact the law is drawing to an end.  In order to make this law effective, it was necessary to issue six governmental resolutions and set up a special commission for working out recommendations regarding the import of spent nuclear fuel from abroad,” Rumyantsev said.

Meanwhile, construction on the first nuclear reactor at Bushehr “is drawing to an end,” Rumyantsev said (see GSN, April 5).  “Heavy equipment is being supplied there now.  The casing of the reactor has been supplied, the piping, the pumps.  The turbine will be delivered in August,” he said.

Plans currently include a second nuclear reactor, and might include up to four reactor units in the future, Rumyantsev said.  Beyond the reactors, he said, “there is no more work with Iran.”

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP