Proliferation Press

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

Archive for October, 2007

US India Nuclear Deal “On Pause”

Posted by K.E. White on October 15, 2007

Apparently a cryogenically frozen nuclear deal is not a dead deal.

From the Indo-Asian News Service:

‘The nuclear deal is not off, but is on a state of pause. It is in suspended animation, like the Karnataka assembly,’ the minister said here, not wanting to be quoted on this sensitive issue without proper authorization.

And from NDTV:

”The Prime Minister explained to President Bush that certain difficulties have arisen with respect to the operationalisation of the India-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement,” a release issued by Prime Minister’s Media Advisor Sanjaya Baru said.

The conversation came in the wake of the statement made by the Prime Minister last week on Friday that it would be a disappointment if the deal does not not (sic) come through and that it was ”not the end of life.”

The Prime Minister, who had staked a lot in clinching the deal and to get it operationalised, made the Friday statement in the backdrop of unrelenting opposition to the deal from the Left parties which had warned of grave consequences, an (sic) euphemism for withdrawing support to the UPA government, if the deal was implemented.

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

Blog-On-Blog: Strategic Security Blog Tackles RRW and More

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

The Strategic Security Blog offers this very insightful entry on the Reliable Replacement Warhead. The post explores the shortfalls of the Bush administration backed proposals for creating a new warhead for America’s nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, the comments—and the speedy answers—are definitely worth the scroll down.

I want to highlight this reply to a comment that 1) that sees the RRW as necessary for WMD deterrence and 2) strike down any notion of an American ‘first strike’ capability:

The argument that nuclear weapons are necessary to deter attack by chemical and biological weapons assumes some equivalence. This is an unfortunate consequence of the wildly overused and misleading term “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” which lumps all all of them together. A contagious disease could have worldwide effect comparable to a nuclear attack but is not a useful battlefield weapon. Other biological and chemical weapons are not in the same class as nuclear weapons. And the assumption that nuclear weapons are needed to deter chemical or other unconventional attack is unsupported. One could make exactly the same argument about any form of attack, whether conventional military or roadside bombs; if the US were attacked by any means it could reply with nuclear weapons, but we don’t. We don’t always need nuclear weapons to deter even nuclear attack. If N. Korea used a nuclear weapon against the US or its allies, I am confident we would destroy and probably occupy the country. We might or might not use nuclear weapons during that process but whether we do or not is hardly relevant to N. Korean deterrence calculations. The commenter rejects a minimal deterrent doctrine. During the Cold War, the US needed to maintain a nuclear arsenal to (among other things) deter conventional attack against NATO. Today, with conventional superiority, any use of nuclear weapons works against US interests so the only use of nuclear weapons that contributes to US security is to try to deter their use.

Concerning first strike capabilities: The commenter lists the weapons we have retired, which is not the right measure. We have to look at what US weapons remain compared to the targets. Remaining US weapons are formidable and are on constant alert. I know of no other mission that could justify US nuclear force posture. The commenter may wish to consult a recent paper in International Security. It is true that Russia still has the huge SS-18s but these are considered beyond their life span and are being steadily replaced but, again, even if the Russians had a disarming first strike capability (which they do not) does not mean that the US does not have such a capability. The comment on damage limitation seems to suggest a distinction between a first strike capability and a disarming first strike capability.

Posted in Federation of American Scientists, Ivan Oelrich, Reliable Replacement Warhead, RRW, Strategic Security Blog | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Belarus To Build A Nuclear Plant

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

 

One of the world’s most repressive regimes wants nuclear energy. How will the world community respond?

Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko has announced plans to build a nuclear plant:

Map of BelarusThe creation of a domestic nuclear energy source was essential to guarantee “national security”, Interfax news quoted Mr Lukashenko as saying.

Work on the reactor would start in 2008, he said. It is expected to be ready in four to eight years.

Belarus relies heavily on Russian gas for its energy, and rows over payments have prompted threats of supply cuts.

The small eastern European nation—boasting a population just under 10 million—has strong ties with Russia, China and Syria.

The nation has also garnered attention as one of the world’s most repressive regimes. From the Freedom House 2005 Report on Belarus:

The prospects for democratization faded in Belarus with the election of the country’s first president, Alexander Lukashenka, in 1994. Amendments to the Constitution, adopted in a highly controversial referendum in 1996, fully institutionalized the system of unlimited presidential authority. International criticism of Lukashenka’s antidemocratic policies was ignored. The Belarusian economy remains unreformed and extensively bureaucratized. However, the economy recently recorded sound growth owing to the economic upturn in neighboring countries, most of all Russia, and a large-scale economic crisis does not seem imminent. The government preserves social stability through welfare and industrial policies that provide the population with minimally acceptable standards of living and full employment.

Posted in Belarus, Nuclear, Nuclear power | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

News Alert: US-India Nuclear Deal Slipping Away?

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

Manmohan Singh

India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has—for the first time—publicly discussed the possible failure of the US-India nuclear deal.

From AFP:

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday ruled out early elections amid a political uproar over a controversial Indo-US nuclear deal, but admitted the accord may never gain approval.

The communists have repeatedly threatened to withdraw their support for the minority Congress-led coalition government if it proceeds with the landmark pact, which would allow energy-hungry India to buy civilian nuclear technology.

Singh said he hoped that “reason and common sense” would ultimately prevail on the Indo-US agreement, which he described as “an honourable deal that is good for India and good for the world.”

But “if the deal does not come through, that is not the end of life,” Singh added.

“It will be a disappointment. In life, one has to live with some disappointments.”

It was the first time that Singh, who had staked his political credibility on the nuclear agreement seen as a cornerstone of warmer Indo-US ties, had publicly evoked the possibility that the deal might not go ahead.

It marked a sharp change in stance from two months ago, when Singh dared the communists to withdraw their support for the coalition if they were unhappy with the deal.

Voice of America explores the roots of Indian opposition to the US India nuclear deal:

London-based journalist Vijay Rana says some of the opposition to the deal in India stems from doubts about the United States dating back to the Cold War period when India was allied with the former Soviet Union.“The Indian opinion can be divided into two broad sections, says Dr. Rana.” One is the young India, the educated India, the high-tech India, rising and shining India. These younger people have no reservations as far as America is concerned, and they increasingly look forward to strengthening this relationship, which is based on economic ties largely. But then there is an older India, India of the cold war years, and these communists, in fact, largely survive on that part of public opinion.”

India’s opposition Bhartiya Janata Party, or B-J-P, also opposes the deal, even though the previous government, which was led by the B-J-P, laid the groundwork for cooperation between India and the United States. Experts say the B-J-P’s opposition is largely due to internal party politics, as well as to shortsightedness on the part of some B-J-P leaders. These politicians aspire to fresh elections that might result if the communists withdraw support from the Congress-led government over the nuclear deal.

Posted in India, U.S. India Nuclear Deal, United States | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Blog-On-Blog: Nukes of Hazard on Missile Shield

Posted by K.E. White on October 9, 2007

Good stuff from Nukes of Hazard.

Nukes of Hazard brings attention to a new rationale for missile defense (aka BMS/’Star Wars’): satellite protection:

(Senator) Kyl’s case for funding the project was that it was a step towards the development of active defenses for American satellites against anti-satellite weapons, and that it was not necessarily a missile defense project. However, an examination of the budget request for the test bed casts serious doubt on Kyl’s argument, indicating that the test bed is quite simply a missile defense program.

Nukes of Hazard also bring attention to a Ivo Daalder and John Holum’s Boston Globe op-ed that defends the goal of eventual nuclear abolition.

Posted in missile defense, Nuclear, nuclear abolition, Nukes of Hazard | 1 Comment »

ElBaradei goes to India…But To Talk About What?

Posted by K.E. White on October 9, 2007

ElBaradei is in India on a three day tour. His itinerary: inaugurating new cancer treatment technology (the Bhabhatron-II) and the Bhadha Atomic Research Centre in Mumbai. ElBaradei will also be meeting with political leaders, but not in reference to IAEA safeguards for the US India nuclear deal.

The IAEA must approve the US India nuclear deal, and must come to an understanding with India about inspections over nuclear sites. (Note: The current nuclear deal exempts ‘military’ facilities from IAEA inspections. What determines ‘civilian’ vs. ‘military’ nuclear facilities is just one issue that remains to be ironed out.)

The visit may inflame already tense negotiations over the deal within the ruling coalition government. India’s political left, an ally of the majority Congress Party, are not happy over the deal:

“Those who advocate the deal should know that India is capable of developing nuclear energy primarily on a self-reliant basis,” the four communist parties said in a joint release in New Delhi yesterday. “We need not surrender our vital interests to America on this plea.”

Prakash KaratThe New York Times provides an interesting article exploring the leader of the Indian Communist Party Prakash Karat and his party’s spoiler role in Indian politics.

From the Associated Press:

India’s government on Tuesday played down a visit by the chief of the U.N. atomic watchdog, denying he was there to negotiate a landmark nuclear deal between India and the United States that threatens to bring down the government.

Mohamed ElBaradei, whose International Atomic Energy Agency must approve the pact, said he was ready to discuss the agreement whenever Indian officials wished.

Speaking to reporters after a planned meeting with top Indian scientists, he said the “IAEA is ready for talks whenever India approaches me for the talks.”

And from The Hindu News Update:

“IAEA is ready for talks whenever the India approaches me for the talks,” Elbaradei, on a three-day visit to India, said after inaugurating the indigenously developed advanced computerised telecobalt machine `Bhabhatron-II’ for treatment of cancer here.

“The Indian government will have to take a decision,” he said adding, “I will wait for them to come to Vienna to make a formal request (in this regard).”

Posted in ElBaradei, IAEA, India, Prakash Karat, U.S. India Nuclear Deal | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

North Korea Marks Nuclear Anniversary and Kim Jong Il is published…in Syria

Posted by K.E. White on October 9, 2007

From the Associated Press:

“Never forgettable are acclamations of October, 2006, when we shouted hurrah again and again at the top of our voices in admiration of General Kim Jong Il who unfolded an eternally clear sky of peace, prosperity and hope above the heads of the 70 million people,” the state-controlled paper said, referring to both North and South Koreans.

The nuclear test was a “truly great miracle,” the paper said, sending the North “soaring as a powerful and great nation” at a time of hardship.

The country is believed to have conducted the underground test explosion at an unknown location in its northeast. The size of the blast was relatively small, with the U.S. government estimating its yield at less than a kiloton. Each kiloton is equal to the force produced by 1,000 tons of TNT.

And, just in case you were interested, Kim Jong Il is now an internationally published author:

Kim Jong Il’s famous work “The Workers’ Party of Korea Organizes and Guides All the Victories of Our People” was brought out in booklet by the Dar Damascus Publishing House of Syria on October 1.

This work, published on October 3, Juche 79 (1990), expounds the idea that the leadership of the Workers’ Party of Korea is the decisive guarantee for the victory of the cause of socialism and the issue of developing the WPK into the Juche-type revolutionary party and fundamental ways to carry out the mission and duty of the party as the leading political organization.

Posted in Kim Jong Il, North Korea, nuclear test, The Workers' Party of Korea Organizes and Guides All th | Leave a Comment »

Pakistan: Two Quick Viewpoints

Posted by K.E. White on October 8, 2007

“All politicians are the same,” said Ali Ahmad, a 28-year-old teacher in the eastern city of Quetta. “They are the enemy of poor people. They gave us nothing but suicide attacks, terrorism and violence.”

A local’s reflection on the recent Pakistani presidential election*. (Source: Associated Press)

“The Pakistan People’s Party (Ms Bhutto’s party) played games with us and we played our game, which we won.”

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Chaudhry Shujaat on the National Reconciliation Ordinance. The release of the ordinance’s terms sealed Musharraf’s landslide victory in last weekend’s presidential election—and has fostered profound cynicism among the Pakistani pubic. (Source: The Australian)

*Presidential elections in Pakistan are not democratic. Instead the parliament, now ruled by Musharraf’s party, selected the President.

Posted in Bhutto, election, Musharraf, Pakistan | 1 Comment »

Musharraf Snags An Impressive Victory, But At What Cost?

Posted by K.E. White on October 8, 2007

Pakistan’s turbulent political scene continues, but President Musharraf is showing off his staying power.

But at what cost?

There’s the maneuvering over the Musharraf-Bhutto deal, referred to as the National Reconciliation Ordinance. Today’s update: Musharraf’s ruling party, the Pakistan Muslim League has successfully exploited the deal to seal Musharraf’s landslide victory in last weekend’s presidential election.

The ordinance had been hoped to restore stability to Pakistan, with two rivals—Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto—coming to agreements about Musharraf’s role in the military, his third race for President, and bringing parliamentary elections that include Musharraf rivals.

The landslide victory came easily after the Pakistan Muslim League successfully brewed infighting between their competitors by releasing terms of the National Reconciliation Ordinance. The ordinance was meant to return Benazir Bhutto—leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP)—to Pakistani politics, and perhaps form a caretaker regime that would restore democratic rule to Pakistan.

The result was never in doubt, as Pakistan’s parliament selections the President and is now controlled by Musharraf’s political party. But the inevitable victory was made more impressive: with parliamentary opponents arguing with each other–instead creating a unified voice against Musharraf’s rule–over the terms of the controversial deal between Bhutto and Musharraf.

The Australian explores Musharraf’s successful manipulation of the negotiations over the deal:

“The Pakistan People’s Party (Ms Bhutto’s party) played games with us and we played our game, which we won,” said Chaudhry Shujaat of the National Reconciliation Ordinance, signed by General Musharraf hours before the start of polling, which granted indemnity to Ms Bhutto, her husband Asif Zardari, and their immediate allies over corruption charges.

The deal had the effect of stopping the PPP from ordering its MPs to resign their seats along with other opposition groups.

The PPP’s parliamentarians limited their protest again General Musharraf to abstaining from voting.

According to Mr Aziz and Mr Chaudhry Shujaat, that was the real purpose behind the deal, and a remarkably candid PML boss added: “If the higher judiciary strikes off the NRO, we have no obligation to renew it or bring any other law in its place.”

But Musharraf isn’t out of the woods. While on the ballot during last weekend’s presidential election, the Pakistani Supreme Court is ruling on the constitutionality of this third run for President.

From ABC News coverage of Musharraf’s court challenge and fading legitimacy:

A vast majority of people in Pakistan view Musharraf’s bid to secure another five-year term as illegal and unconstitutional. They say Musharraf is part of the problem that the country faces today.

Last week, Musharraf signed a national reconciliation ordinance, thereby absolving Pakistan’s former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, and other favorable politicians, of all corruption charges — a move that has been criticized by many national and international forums.

Bhutto, a one-time rival, termed as a “security risk” and a “plunderer of national wealth,” by none other that Musharraf, himself, is now seen as a major partner in the future government to be formed under Musharra.

The Associated Press brings focus to Pakistan’s democratic corrosion:

But many ordinary Pakistanis feel that power is the preserve of a corrupt elite, too busy securing their own interests to tackle issues such as rising Islamic militancy and the poverty and inflation that feed it.

“All politicians are the same,” said Ali Ahmad, a 28-year-old teacher in the eastern city of Quetta. “They are the enemy of poor people. They gave us nothing but suicide attacks, terrorism and violence.”

Musharraf acknowledged as much when he seized power in a 1999 coup, vowing to install “real democracy” in a country whose ineffectual civilian governments have been regularly swept aside by its generals.

Eight years later, the current wave of disappointment appears focused on the military strongman himself, but it has failed to dissuade him from seeking five more years.

Meanwhile Musharraf survives yet another brush with death: one of the helicopters traveling in a Musharraf caravan crashed–Musharraf’s helicopter was safely ahead of the downed aircraft. And fighting in North Waziristan has claimed the lives of 80 Pakistani soldiers.

The Hindu reports on the helicopter crash, apparently due to mechanical malfunction:

A helicopter carrying officials accompanying President Pervez Musharraf crashed in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on Monday, killing four persons, including three armymen, onboard and injuring his spokesman.

Musharraf, who was in another helicopter flying ahead, reached his destination safely, military spokesman Maj Gen Waheed Arshad said.

Musharraf has survived three assassination attempts.

Posted in Bhutto, crash, election, helicopter, Musharraf, National Reconciliation Ordinance, Pakistan, Waziristan | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Russia Can Roar, But What Does It Mean?

Posted by K.E. White on October 4, 2007

That’s the question Wired asks in an article published today. The article explores the actual significance of Russia’s recent ‘father of all bombs’ missile test. And it even offers reasons not to fret over the return of Russia’s Cold War era nuclear patrols

John Pike, an analyst at Global Security, and Tom Burky, a Battelle research scientist, help assuage fears that this bomb signifies a newly resurgent Russian military prowess:

“It’s actually a niche weapon,” Burky says. “They have their place, in attacking caves. But there are only so many caves you’re going to attack. Not that we should ignore them.”

Indeed, the Father of All Bombs’ actual destructive force and military utility are perhaps less important than its apparent power.

“Some people claim Russia did this because they were upset about our (ballistic) missile-defense proposals for Poland and the Czech Republic,” Coyle says. “Other people say it has more to do with the upcoming presidential elections in Russia. Maybe (Russian President Vladimir) Putin is trying to preserve his legacy.”

And the article downplays concerns over the recent Russian decision to resume nuclear-armed air patrols:

Case in point, the much-hyped bomber patrols. In the past year, Russian long-range bomber types, including the Tu-160 featured in the video, have begun probing Western air defenses, in an echo of Cold War practices.

But according to Hudson Institute fellow Richard Weitz, the bombers themselves are old and poorly maintained — State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack referred to them being taken “out of mothballs.” Henry T. Nash, in his book Nuclear Weapons and International Behavior, describes deterrence as “being closely tied to the ‘politics of appearances.’”

So it doesn’t matter so much if a bomber is well-maintained, as long as it appears on U.S. radars. Nor does it matter if the Father of All Bombs is a fuel-air explosive or a thermobaric device, if it is really the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in the world, or even if it is a new weapon at all. All that matters is that it makes an impressive explosion for the cameras.

The Russian bear may be able to roar, but perhaps we shouldn’t fear its bite—yet.

Posted in David Axe, John Pike, Russia, Tom Burky, Wired | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.