North Korea:  Washington Suspects Nuclear Weapon Push

Washington suspects North Korea is pushing to build a half dozen nuclear weapons, but U.S. President George W. Bush has few options to counter the effort, the Washington Post reported Friday (see GSN, Jan. 31).

The suspicion follows recent reports that Pyongyang is moving spent fuel rods from storage at Yongbyon and could attempt to separate the plutonium in the rods.

“Any movement of the spent fuel rods at Yongbyon would be a very serious development for the international community,” said U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.  “It would be another step in the wrong direction by North Korea,” he added.

In closed congressional intelligence hearings, administration officials have said Pyongyang is making definite moves to develop nuclear capability, according to the Post.  The Bush administration has said it will not enter into talks with North Korea until Pyongyang abandons its nuclear aspirations.

“The ball’s in their court,” a senior administration official said.  “We are looking for a fundamental change in North Korea’s behavior,” the official added.

Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, recently requested aircraft reinforcements to compensate for the potential deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk to the Persian Gulf, the Post reported.  Fargo asked for two dozen long-range bombers to be stationed in Guam as well as eight F-15E fighter-bombers and several reconnaissance planes to be sent to Japan and South Korea.

U.S. defense officials said the request — which is being considered — was not linked to the latest intelligence reports on the spent fuel rods (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, Feb. 1).

2001 Report Revealed Nuclear Work

In November 2001, officials at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California completed a report alleging that North Korea was developing a secret uranium enrichment program, but the Bush administration did not confront Pyongyang with the evidence until October 2002, the Post reported.

“No one focused on it because of 9/11,” said a Livermore official.

The Livermore findings were confirmed in a June 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a major report that pools the information of several intelligence agencies, but administration officials did not make the account available until after Congress passed a resolution authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq, the Post reported.

White House officials denied withholding intelligence for political reasons (Walter Pincus, Washington Post, Feb. 1).

Back to top

United States:  System to Help Determine When Nuclear Force Is Needed

The U.S. Defense Department has initiated a program to develop computers that would help determine when nuclear weapons should be used against underground bunkers, the Los Angeles Times reported today (see GSN, Jan. 31).

The program would develop computers that would calculate the structure of an underground target and determine the amount of weaponry needed to destroy it, according to Pentagon documents.  The system, which is also slated to include human experts, would then determine whether a nuclear weapon is needed to destroy the target and how much collateral damage that explosion would cause, the Times reported, citing Pentagon documents.

Defense and White House officials declined to comment on the program, which is slated to cost $1.26 billion (Richard Cooper, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 3).

Back to top

Russia:  Chechen Rebels Continue Quest for Weapons, General Says

Rebels in the breakaway Russian republic of Chechnya are continuing efforts to obtain a Russian nuclear weapon, ITAR-Tass reported Thursday, citing remarks by a senior Russian military officer (see GSN, Nov. 1, 2002).

“Operational reports indicate that Chechen terrorists intend to get hold of an important military facility or a nuclear warhead in order to threaten not just our country but the whole world,” Col. Gen. Igor Volynkin, head of the Russian Defense Ministry’s 12th Directorate, said during a reception for a U.S. Defense Department delegation held at a Defense Ministry training center in the Moscow region (ITAR-Tass, Jan. 30 in FBIS-SOV, Jan. 30).

Back to top

United States I:  Nuclear Threat Might Deter Iraq But Distance Allies, Experts Say

By David McGlinchey
Global Security Newswire

In the wake of reports this week that the United States is considering — and planning — pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Iraq, experts said a nuclear threat might deter Iraq from using weapons of mass destruction, but could also distance the United States from its allies (see GSN, Jan. 27).

When U.S. officials raise the possibility of a nuclear strike “there are things to be gained and things to be lost,” said Michael Levi, director of the Strategic Security Project at the Federation of American Scientists.  In a report last year, Levi concluded that there is more to be lost from developing or using new nuclear weapons (see GSN, Nov. 14, 2002).

“The collateral damage is physical and political, and there is no reason to incur it given that the mission can be completed with non-nuclear means,” Levi said.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is already well aware that the United States has nuclear weapons, but making the threat public will only estrange U.S. allies, he added.

According to a Los Angeles Times report Sunday, U.S. Defense Department officials are preparing contingency plans to use nuclear strikes in the event of a conflict with Iraq.  White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card refused to rule out the possibility of a nuclear strike during a Sunday television interview.

“I’m not going to put anything on the table or off the table,” Card said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer backed up those comments at a Monday press conference.

“The United States’ long standing policy about use of nuclear weapons is that we don’t rule anything in and we don’t rule anything out,” Fleischer said.

There is very little chance the United States will actually use a nuclear weapon in Iraq, according to Robert Nelson, a Princeton University professor and a senior fellow in science and technology at the Council on Foreign Relations.  When the issue is raised, however, it causes international concern, he said.

Baker Spring, a Heritage Foundation national security expert, described the chances of a pre-emptive U.S. nuclear strike as “very, very low, but not zero.”

The United States is dangling the threat of a nuclear attack to let Hussein know that U.S. leaders are serious about the current conflict, according to Spring.

“I have no doubt that the administration wanted to make sure Iraq understood that the U.S. will do what it takes to win this war,” Spring told Global Security Newswire.

Card and Fleischer were right to not take a nuclear strike off the table, according to Spring.

“I think that the Card comment, the way he described it, is right.  It is not saying that we will necessarily use them, but it’s not saying that we won’t,” he said.

Deterrence

The nuclear option is being threatened to deter Hussein from using his own weapons of mass destruction, analysts said.

“In the first Persian Gulf war, [former U.S.] President [George H.W.] Bush made it clear that the U.S. would not take anything off the table.  There are indications from the Iraqi side that it had its intended effect,” Spring said.

An actual U.S. nuclear strike might come in response to an Iraqi attack using weapons of mass destruction, he added.

White House officials indicated that Hussein should consider a possible U.S. nuclear strike before launching such an attack.

“Should Saddam Hussein have any thought that he would use a weapon of mass destruction, he should anticipate that the United States will use whatever means necessary to protect us and the world from a holocaust,” Card said.

These threats, however, are causing unnecessary international damage and provide no real benefit, according to some experts.  There is no difference between putting the nuclear threat on the table or taking it off because the United States retains its nuclear capability in either situation, analysts said.

Hussein understands that the United States has nuclear weapons, no matter what U.S. officials say, according to Levi.

“It’s there.  How you talk about it matters.  Saddam Hussein is going to be deterred by our capability, not what we say,” he said.

Levi acknowledged that there was an argument for deterring Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction, but he asked, “Isn’t this entire war based on the assumption that Saddam Hussein can’t be deterred?”

Collateral Damage

The collateral damage caused by a nuclear strike — and the political damage caused by a nuclear threat — is too great and does not bring any significant advantage to Washington, analysts said.

“It strikes me that our best option is to say nothing,” according to Levi.

The possibility of a pre-emptive nuclear strike is causing intense debate and concern internationally, Nelson said.

“It really starts to chip away at the taboo that nuclear weapons are only supposed to be used to counter nuclear weapons,” he said.  Nelson said the United States has always been ambiguous about its nuclear use policy, but “there still has been this sense that they are a weapon of last resort.”

In a Los Angeles Times commentary today, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) agreed that the political fallout would be disastrous.

“By raising the possibility that nuclear weapons could be part of a first strike against Iraq, the administration is only enhancing its reputation as a reckless unilateralist,” Kennedy wrote.  “The nuclear threat will further alienate our allies, most of whom remain unconvinced of the need for war with Iraq,” he added.

Experts, including a prominent Republican military adviser, doubted the military benefit of a nuclear strike.

Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board and assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration, said that nuclear weapons are not necessary in Iraq.

“I can’t think of a target of interest in a conflict with Iraq that could not be dealt with effectively by conventional weapons, non-nuclear weapons,” Perle said this week on Fox News Sunday.

Current U.S. precision military technology is extremely effective and reduces unintended collateral damage to civilians, according to Perle.

“So I can’t see why we would wish to use a nuclear weapon,” he said.

If there are reinforced bunkers buried so deeply that the U.S. forces cannot destroy them, nuclear weapons will still not be necessary, according to Levi.

The United States will not be “prevented from winning the war because there will be a few people hiding in a few tunnels that we can’t reach,” he said.

While experts doubt the military benefit gained by using nuclear weapons in Iraq, there could be a clear political benefit in not using them, according to Nelson.

“I think if we came under attack [with chemical or biological weapons] we could gain some political points by only responding conventionally,” he said.

Back to top

Japan:  IAEA Says Missing Japanese Plutonium Is Safe

A day after a Japanese nuclear plant reported missing Plutonium sufficient to make 25 nuclear weapons, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said there appeared to be no foul play (see GSN, Jan. 28).

“The agency remains confident in its conclusion that no nuclear material has been diverted from the facility,” IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said.

Officials at the Tokaimura reprocessing plant are using new measurement techniques and to correct the amounts of plutonium they declared, the IAEA said (IAEA release, Jan. 28).

Back to top

North Korea:  South Korean Delegation Does Not Meet Kim Jong Il

South Korea’s delegation to Pyongyang is to return home today after being spurned by North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Jan. 28).

The delegation achieved “some degree of success” by clearly presenting Seoul’s stance against nuclear weapons on the peninsula, South Korean officials said (Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Jan. 29).

Lim Dong-won, the chief South Korean envoy, carried a letter to the North Korean leader from South Korean President Kim Dae-jung.

“In a verbal message (conveyed through a party secretary), Chairman Kim expressed thanks to President Kim for sending a special envoy with a letter which contained warm-hearted advice,” Lim said.  “(The letter) urged the North to come clean about its uranium enrichment program and if it has such a program, it must start the process of resolving the issue by dismantling the program,” he added.

North Korea’s Kim reportedly said he would seriously consider the letter’s advice (Park Chan-kyong, Agence France-Presse, Jan. 29).

Bush Views

In his State of the Union speech last night, U.S. President George W. Bush said Pyongyang is “using its nuclear program to incite fear and seek concessions.”

“America and the world will not be blackmailed,” he said.

The United States is working with South Korea, Japan, China and Russia to solve the nuclear standoff, Bush said.  North Korea will only solve its political and humanitarian problems by abandoning its nuclear efforts, he added.

Bush also said that the world must learn from the North Korean situation.

“Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula, and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq,” Bush said (New York Times, Jan. 29).

Russian Offer Rebuffed

North Korea has rejected a Russian attempt to mediate the crisis, United Press International reported today.  Moscow had attempted to work toward a solution with the United Kingdom, France, China, the United States, South Korea, Australia, Japan, the European Union and Pyongyang, according to UPI.

“We categorically oppose all attempts to internationalize the nuclear question,” a North Korean statement said yesterday.  “The only means for a peaceful and fair resolution of the nuclear question … is direct negotiations at an equal level between North Korea and the United States, face to face at the negotiating table.  There cannot be any other way,” the statement said (United Press International, Jan. 28).

European Union foreign ministers agreed Monday to send a top-level diplomatic delegation to Pyongyang to work toward a solution to the nuclear standoff (Europe Information Service, Jan. 29).

Back to top

United States II:  Lockheed Martin Wins Trident Missile Contract

U.S. defense contractor Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $595 million contract to produce Trident 2 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, the U.S. Navy announced yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 28).  The contract, a modification of a previous one, involves both the production of new missiles and support for those already deployed, the Navy said.  The missiles are scheduled to be completed by 2007 (Reuters/Forbes.com, Jan. 28).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Russian Experts Complete Inspection of U.S. Submarine Base

Russian military experts have completed a four-day inspection of the U.S. Naval Submarine Base in Bangor, Washington, a Russian Defense Ministry spokesman said Monday.  The purpose of the inspection, conducted under the auspices of START, was to confirm information provided at the beginning of the year and compliance with the treaty (Vladislav Kuznetsov, ITAR-Tass, Jan. 27 in FBIS-SOV, Jan. 27).

Back to top

United States I:  Audit Finds Incomplete Safety Studies at U.S. Warhead Plant

A U.S. Energy Department audit has found that the deparment failed to complete a number of safety studies at the Pantex Plant in Texas, where U.S. nuclear warheads are assembled and dismantled, Morris News Service reported today (see GSN, Aug. 1, 2002).

“The studies were overdue because required safety initiatives had not been fully implemented and safety basis documents, integral to the Nuclear Explosive Safety process, had not been completed,” according to the audit, completed this month by the Energy Department’s Office of Inspector General.

The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, responsible for the U.S. nuclear warhead stockpile, is required to conduct safety studies every five years, but some stockpiled weapons may wait up to 16 years for an inspection.  The tardy studies could delay some weapons work and potentially threaten plant safety, the news service reported.

However, a top plant official said the studies were only one component of a multilayered process, and NNSA officials defended Pantex’s safety record.

“The safety record at Pantex has been exemplary; our strategy is reducing the safety risks even further,” said Anthony Lane, NNSA associate administrator for management and administration, in a November memo.  “Safety improvements are, and always will be, a major goal,” he added (Jim McBride, Morris News Service/Augusta Chronicle, Jan. 28).

Back to top

Japan:  Reprocessing Plant Is Short by 25 Bombs-Worth of Plutonium

A Japanese nuclear fuel reprocessing plant cannot account for a quantity of plutonium sufficient to make 25 nuclear weapons, Agence France-Presse reported today.

The Tokaimura reprocessing plant, about 100 kilometers north of Tokyo, is estimated to have extracted 6,890 kilograms of plutonium from spent nuclear fuel since 1977, but a recent record check could not account for 206 kilograms.  Five to eight kilograms of plutonium are needed to produce a nuclear weapon, AFP reported.

Officials have notified the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Japanese Atomic Energy Commission.

Japanese officials attributed the shortfall mostly to miscalculations.

Much of the plutonium most likely dissolved in wastewater and some of decayed into other elements, said an official at the Japanese education and science ministry’s nuclear safeguard office.

The ministry said the plutonium was not illegally taken from the plant.

“In other cases, plutonium may have been stuck to fuel tubes or mixed with wastewater being processed to be solidified in glass and disposed of,” the official said.  There could also be “errors in the estimate of plutonium extracted in the process,” according to the official (Shigemi Sato, Agence France-Presse, Jan. 28).

Back to top

United States II:  Defense Experts Criticize Trident Submarine Conversion Program

Several defense experts have criticized the U.S. Navy’s plan to convert four Trident ballistic missile submarines, the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot reported today (see GSN, Jan. 27).

Retired Rear Adm. Eugene Carroll, vice president emeritus of the Center for Defense Information, criticized the high cost of equipping the converted submarines with Tomahawk cruise missiles — about $750,000 each.

“You go bankrupt before you win,” Carroll said.

The Tomahawk’s long range negates the need for firing them close to shore, which would be a mission for a submarine, said Carlton Meyer, editor of g2mil, an online military magazine. Launching missiles could also give away the submarine’s stealth ability — one of its main assets, he added.

Navy Capt. Bill Toti, assistant chief of staff for warfare requirements for the commander of the submarine forces, defended the Tomahawk’s price tag.  “That’s a lot for a missile, until you get a $50 million plane shot down,” he said (Matthew Jones, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, Jan. 28).

Back to top

North Korea:  Seoul’s Envoy Hopes To Meet With Kim Jong Il

A South Korean envoy in Pyongyang for talks on North Korea’s resumption of its nuclear arms program hoped to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il today, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Jan. 27).

Leading an eight-member delegation, South Korean presidential envoy Lim Dong-won, who has met with top North Korean officials since arriving yesterday, brought a letter from South Korean President Kim Dae-jung to his counterpart in an effort to defuse tensions over a three-month nuclear crisis.

Officials said that any meeting between North Korea’s leader and the South Korean envoy would probably take place this afternoon (Agence France-Presse, Jan. 28).

North Korea had previously indicated it would only hold talks with the United States, from which Pyongyang has demanded a nonaggression treaty.

Former U.S. president Bill Clinton said Monday Washington should agree to the pact “because we’d never attack them unless they did something that violated that pact anyway.”

Interviewed by Reuters during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Clinton said the United States must reach an agreement with North Korea before Pyongyang sells a nuclear weapon.

“North Korea has greater capacity to produce atomic weapons than Iraq does, and less capacity to feed itself than Iraq does.  So for the North Koreans, their ‘cash crops,’ if you will, are missiles and bombs,” Clinton said.

“So I think it is urgent that before they, out of economic necessity, get more irresponsible, we do what we can with the South Koreans, the Japanese, the Chinese and the Russians to make a big deal with them, a verifiable deal to end all nuclear programs and their long-range missile sales,” he said.

Clinton added that a “comprehensive agreement” should be struck because North Korea “can make big bombs, and do it well” (Mark Trevelyan, Reuters, Jan. 27).

Back to top

South Asia:  U.S.-Indian Military Exercises Worry Pakistan

In a sign of thawing military relations, U.S. and Indian fighter aircraft will take part in joint exercises later this year or in early 2004, the Washington Post reported today.

Pakistani officials said the planned exercises could help Indian defense forces better defend against aircraft-launched Pakistani nuclear weapons, the Post said.

“We would not be happy at all” if the joint exercises take place, Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri said yesterday in Washington. 

“I don’t think it is politically advisable at all for the military and the United States government to do anything which would further complicate matters for the government of Pakistan,” he said, adding that he planned discuss the situation with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld when they met today (Thomas Ricks, Washington Post, Jan. 28).

Indian Threats

Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes, meanwhile, said that Pakistan would be “erased from the world map” if it uses nuclear weapons to strike India (see GSN, Jan. 8).

“We have been saying all through that the person who heads Pakistan today, who is also the whole and sole in-charge of that country, has been talking about using dangerous weapons, including the nukes.  Well I would reply by saying that if Pakistan has decided that it wants to get itself destroyed and erased from the world map, then it may take this step of madness, but if wants to survive then it would not do so,” Fernandes said.

Fernandes’ comments were “absolutely absurd,” said Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesman, Aziz Ahmed Khan (The Hindu, Jan. 28).

Analysts played down the defense minister’s statement.

“Mr. Fernandes was simply stating India’s doctrine of massive retaliation albeit in rather populist language,” said Raja Mohan, an Indian analyst.  “It is hoped that over time both countries will learn to speak in much more guarded terms about their nuclear arsenals,” Mohan added (Edward Luce, Financial Times, Jan. 27).

Back to top

North Korea:  South Korea Asks IAEA to Delay Meeting

South Korean officials Saturday asked the International Atomic Energy Agency to postpone a meeting — previously scheduled for Feb. 3 — that could have brought the North Korean nuclear crisis to the U.N. Security Council (see GSN, Jan. 24).

The United States indicated it had no objection to the delay.

“There’s not quite the sense of urgency I would have liked to have seen,” said U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.  But “it’s not a major problem for us,” he added.

Seoul said Friday it also wanted the United Nations to delay a scheduled Security Council meeting next month on the crisis (Michael Zielensiger, Knight Ridder/Boston Globe, Jan. 27).

North Korea said it welcomed “national cooperation” with Seoul as two South Korean envoys arrived today.

The United States wants to see North Korea abide by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Powell said from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

“The United States is willing to talk to North Korea about how it will meet its obligations to completely dismantle its nuclear weapons program,” Powell said.  “Pyongyang’s behavior affects the stability of both the immediate region and the world,” he added (Jae-suk Yoo, Associated Press/Washington Times, Jan. 27).

Seoul’s envoy, Lim Dong-won, arrived in Pyongyang today carrying an appeal from South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, the Voice of America News said.  Kim reportedly asked North Korea to immediately abandon its nuclear program.

Lim traveled to Pyongyang to open a dialogue, but he warned a solution would not come quickly (Amy Bickers, VOANews.com, Jan. 27).

Meanwhile, a U.S. Air Force U-2 spy plane crashed yesterday in South Korea, injuring the pilot and four South Koreans on the ground, The New York Times reported.

The United States did not explain the plane’s mission and officials said only that it was conducting “surveillance and reconnaissance” (Don Kirk, The New York Times, Jan. 27).

Back to top

United States:  Trident Submarine Tries Out New Post-Conversion Roles

A U.S. Trident submarine recently test launched cruise missiles from one of its ballistic missile tubes, Navy News Week reported today (see GSN, Dec. 18, 2002).

The USS Florida, one of four Tridents to be converted to a nonstrategic role, launched two Tomahawk cruise missiles off the west coast of Florida to demonstrate the validity of the launch system, slated to pack up to seven cruise missiles in a single Trident missile tube.  Each Trident submarine has 24 missile tubes.

“This was a test of the MAC more than anything else,” said program manger Capt. Brian Wegner, referring to the missile canister used in the tests.  “We wanted to make sure that in the design of the MAC we mitigated risks associated with a missile firing in close proximity to others,” he said (Navy News Week, Jan. 27).  

The U.S. Navy plans to return the USS Florida to service in 2007, after its conversion and refueling (Sonia Barisic, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Jan. 27).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP