Proliferation Press

A webpage devoted to tracking and analyzing current events related to the proliferation of WMD/CBRN.

Archive for September 12th, 2007

The New Republic Comes Out Against US-India Nuclear Deal

Posted by K.E. White on September 12, 2007

Not to shocking, given the number of critical pieces TNR has printed on the deal.

A section from TNR editorial:

So, in mid-2005, the president tried to buy India’s friendship. Skipping over less radioactive carrots (like arms sales or G-8 membership), Bush offered India nuclear fuel and technology, in effect signaling acceptance of India’s atomic arsenal. All that remained was to hammer out the terms of a “123 agreement,” named for the section of U.S. code governing nuclear sales. But it took five rounds of negotiations before the agreement was finalized, as diplomats haggled over whether the Indians would allow us to restrict how they might use our technology. Yes, the administration that doesn’t negotiate negotiated the terms of its own gift–and lost.

Now we have even less leverage with which to encourage India (and therefore Pakistan) to join the nonproliferation regime. Burns has claimed that the deal itself ties India to the regime, but the 123 agreement does no such thing. It does not, for example, require India to eschew nuclear testing. It does not forbid India from producing further fissile material for weapons (in fact, it will facilitate the production of plutonium). It does not require India to place all its nuclear facilities under international safeguards. It does not commit India to pursuing eventual nuclear disarmament. What it does is reward bad behavior.

Of course, the Bush administration has never cared much for rules. Robert Blackwill–one of the deal’s architects and now a lobbyist for the Indian government–has dismissed nonproliferation as a concern of “nagging nannies.” The implication is that he, Rice, and Burns have greater geopolitical vision, that they recognize the value of closer relations with a “natural ally” like India. But that argument is backward: It is precisely because India is a natural ally that bribes were unnecessary. Was India ever going to support Islamic terrorism? And now administration policy will have the effect of spurring nuclear development in a politically unstable country that has a horrible proliferation record and is thought to be harboring Osama bin Laden. Perhaps chess just isn’t their game.

Posted in America, India, Nuclear Deal, Robert Blackwill, U.S. India Nuclear Deal, USA | Leave a Comment »

The Russian Big Bang: World’s Largest Non-Nuke Bomb Tested

Posted by K.E. White on September 12, 2007

(Update: Wired questions the significance of the testing)

Russia announced earlier today it had successfully tested a conventional bomb with the same destructive power of a low-yield nuclear weapon:

The bomb was filmed being dropped from a strategic bomber and exploding into a massive fireball. It then showed the after-effects of the bomb’s wrath – debris from apartment buildings and armoured vehicles at the testing range, and a huge burnt spot in the ground.

Russia‘s big bomb is reportedly four times more powerful than the US’s Massive Ordnance Air Blast, which is nicknamed the “mother of all bombs.” Russia’s would be suitable for targeting specific areas more accurately than nuclear bombs, and is considered an immediate threat to “problem” areas such as Chechnya. (Cleveland Leader)

Interestingly the Cleveland Leader article leads out one aspect of the test that The Times of India leads with in their coverage:

The vacuum bomb tested by Russia on Wednesday is said to be less harmful on the environment than a nuclear bomb.

Alexander Rukshin, Russian deputy armed forces chief of staff, said: “I want to stress that the action of this weapon does not contaminate the environment, in contrast to a nuclear one.”

The Times of India also reports that this thermoberic weapon beats out America’s own thermoberic big bomb:

Showing the orange-painted US prototype, the report said the Russian bomb was four times more powerful – 44 metric tons of TNT equivalent – and the temperature at the epicenter of its blast was twice as high.

US forces have used a ‘thermobaric’ bomb, which works on similar principles, in their campaign against Al Qaida and Taliban forces in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan.

GlobalSecurity.org reports on America’s use of thermobaric technology for non-nuclear bunker buster weapons:

Thermobaric munitions have been used by many nations of the world and their proliferation is an indication of how effectively these weapons can be used in urban and complex terrain. The ability of thermobaric weapons to provide massed heat and pressure effects at a single point in time cannot be reproduced by conventional weapons without massive collateral destruction. Thermobaric weapon technologies provide the commander a new choice in protecting the force, and a new offensive weapon that can be used in a mounted or dismounted mode against complex environments.

The Thermobaric [TB] Weapon Demonstration will develop a weapon concept that is based on a new class of solid fuel-air explosive thermobarics. The weapon could be used against a certain type of tunnel targets for a maximum functional kill of the tunnels.

Most of the Hard and/or Deeply Buried Targets (HDBTs), namely tunnels in rock, are so deep that the developmental and current inventory weapons cannot penetrate to sufficient depths to directly destroy critical assets. One of the warfighter’s options is to attack the tunnel portals with weapons that penetrate the thinner layer of rock above the portal, or though the exterior doors, resulting in a detonation within the tunnel system. Penetrations through the door systems have the potential to place the warheads deep within the facility. Detonations within a tunnel, even only in a few diameters, have a significant increase in airblast propagation into the facility compared to external detonations. Tunnel layouts range from long, straight tunnels to various types of intersections, expansions, constrictions, chambers, rooms, alcoves, and multiple levels. All of these configurations affect the propagation of airblast.

Posted in bunker buster, missile test, Russia, thermoberic | 4 Comments »

Two Viewpoints on the Reliable Replacement Warhead

Posted by K.E. White on September 12, 2007

The White House supports a plan to put produce new warheads of America’s aging nuclear weapons. Opponents argue that the warheads are unnecessary and could spur a new arms race. Proponents argue that the new warheads are safer, and will maintain the credibility of America’s nuclear arsenal.

Below are two opposing views on the issue.

Wade Boese, writing for Arms Control Today, argues against the need for the RRW program, voicing support for more discussion over America’s nuclear posture between Congress and the White House:

The Senate has yet to pass its version of the energy and water appropriations bill, but the panel with the lead on the measure cut $22 million of the NNSA request. In a July 9 report explaining its action, the committee noted it was “divided” on the RRW program but thought there needed to be more “vigorous analysis” of how the program fit into long-term U.S. nuclear plans. When the Senate passes a final bill, any differences between it and the House version will need to be worked out by lawmakers from each chamber.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), an RRW opponent, charged that the secretaries’ claims “do not stand up to scrutiny.” In an Aug. 1 speech introducing a bill for new nuclear policy and posture reviews, she noted that existing warheads have been annually certified as safe and reliable and recent studies showed that the core of most nuclear warheads had minimum life spans longer than previously thought—85 years or more. (See ACT, January/February 2007.)

Feinstein criticized the administration as “rushing” to develop RRW systems without a clear picture of future U.S. nuclear needs. She speculated that the report revealed “the administration is clearly getting nervous” about the program’s funding.

But Linton Brooks makes an equally passionate case for the RRW within the Wall Street Journal:

The RRW will also facilitate further reductions in the U.S. nuclear stockpile. U.S. accomplishments in this area have already been substantial, if largely overlooked. Whole classes of nuclear weapons delivery vehicles — short-range and intermediate range nuclear missiles — have been eliminated.

…

Moreover, the RRW will give us greater confidence in the reliability of our weapons. This increased confidence will reduce the need for large numbers of spare warheads and allow us to take the U.S. stockpile to still lower levels, consistent with our international obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty.

Finally, the RRW will allow us to deploy weapons that are safer to make and to store for people and the environment and also less susceptible to theft or misuse by terrorists. For example, the new warhead will not use beryllium, a poisonous metal used in the current weapons. Moreover, anti-theft measures have improved dramatically over the decades and will be implemented in the new warhead, preventing unauthorized use.

In sum, the new warhead will make nuclear testing less likely, facilitate further reductions in our arsenal, and help to ensure that the weapons we do deploy are as safe and secure as possible. The RRW is thus entirely consistent with U.S. nonproliferation objectives. It deserves the support of the nonproliferation community, the national-security community and all Americans.

Posted in Linton Brooks, Nuclear, Reliable Replacement Warhead, Wade Boese | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.