Proliferation Press

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

Archive for January 18th, 2008

Congress and America’s Nuclear Weapons: Can Congress Effectively Steer Foreign Policy?

Posted by K.E. White on January 18, 2008

Much has been made of Congressional inability to stop the war in Iraq, or other Bush-backed foreign policy ventures—whether aid for Pakistan or the US-India nuclear deal. 

But Daryl Kimball, writing for Arms Control Today, notes the positive work Congress has done—from his point of view—to stop dangerous Bush administration supported nuclear policies. 

Kimball singles out Congressional rejection of the Reliable Replacement Warhead and a congressionally mandated US nuclear posture review. But Kimball leaves the next President and Congress a steep challenge: pursuing nuclear weapons reductions with the Soviet Union. 

From Kimball’s ACT article:

Effecting change in Washington, and nuclear weapons policy in particular, is exceedingly difficult, requiring strong presidential leadership and a working bipartisan majority. Yet, recent congressional actions and trends will give the next occupant of the White House a rare opportunity to initiate sweeping changes in outdated U.S. nuclear weapons and arms control policies.

Congress in December struck down the Bush administration’s ill-conceived plan for new “replacement” nuclear warheads and an additional plutonium pit production facility to help build them. Although President George W. Bush may try to revive these projects and insist that the nuclear arsenal is as small as possible, there is growing support and a strong security rationale for fewer, not newer, nuclear weapons.

 …

Reflecting bipartisan frustration with Bush’s nuclear policies, Congress also mandated a top-to-bottom review of the role and size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal by the end of 2009. This represents an opportunity that the next president must not squander.

Previous Bush and Clinton administration nuclear posture reviews fell woefully short. Each version only slightly modified previous Cold War targeting plans and policies. As a result, the number of deployed nuclear weapons were trimmed, but the force is still enormous. The 1994 nuclear posture review endorsed a force reduction from 3,500 deployed strategic warheads to 2,500. Bush’s 2001 review called for a force of 1,700-2,200 such warheads by 2012.

Posted in Congress, Nuclear | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

America Pulls out of the International Nuclear Fusion Project

Posted by K.E. White on January 18, 2008

American participation in the global fusion project—the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor—will be sidelined for the next fiscal year, thanks to congressionally pushed shifts to Department of Energy spending. 

From World Nuclear News:

In its omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal 2008, announced in December, Congress included only $10.7 million for US work on the project. The US financial commitment for Iter is $1.1 billion, and the Bush administration had proposed spending $160 million in 2008 to start purchasing components for the project.

Although the Department of Energy’s Office of Science’s total science budget increased 4.6% to $4 billion, most of those increases were for supercomputers and biological research. Congress withheld money for DoE’s $160 million commitment to Iter, the international fusion reactor in France, and slashed funding for the International Linear Collider (ILC), the next-generation particle accelerator, from $60 million to $15 million.

…

Iter will be a crucial step in the development of nuclear fusion power stations. The 500 MWt device will be the proving ground for technologies and operational procedures leading to the eventual exploitation of nuclear fusion as a source of abundant clean energy. Parties involved in the project are: China, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, the USA and the European Union. The resulting technology will be available for use by all participants.

The Iter program is projected to last for 30 years, with ten years of construction followed by 20 years of operation, although this may be extended. In total the project is expected to cost just under $15 billion.

John Borland at Wired News calls this episode “embarrassing” to the United States, and notes the three domestic fusion projects still received funding:

The cuts – about $149 million over the next year – won’t kill the project. The other partners, including Europe, Japan, China, India, Russia and South Korea, are still ponying up. But it will hurt, and it will certainly hurt the United States‘ role in this field.

Maybe there was concern about sharing this kind of technology with so many other nations. I hope that wasn’t the case, although Congress did allow funding for fusion research on three homegrown projects to continue. Maybe there was the sense that the payoff for fusion research is so far off that it’s expendable today.

Whatever the case, it’s embarrassing. The U.S. and the Soviet Union started the effort leading to this project all the way back in 1985. The U.S. dropped out once before, in 1998, before rejoining in 2003.

It’s still not impossible (although technically banned by Congress) that the Department of Energy will somehow find funds to fulfill at least part of the U.S. commitment. It’s laudable that Congress is funding renewable energy sources well, but this kind of international cooperation on research should not be overlooked.

Posted in International Nuclear Fusion Project, United States | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

US-India Nuclear Deal: Will Time Run Out?

Posted by K.E. White on January 18, 2008

While groups may be coalescing against the US-India nuclear deal, its passage is still an open question in the twilight days of the Bush administration. But will it meet its summer 2008 deadline?

This AFP article skillfully dissects the difficulties of the US-India nuclear deal:

The nuclear deal with India is virtually stuck on two fronts — in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s administration, where communist and other leftist coalition parties are against it, and at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), where New Delhi is struggling to forge critical atomic safeguards.

Bush and Singh agreed more than two years ago that Washington would provide India with nuclear fuel and technology even though the Asian nation has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But India had to place selected nuclear facilities under international safeguards, including inspections, which has to be agreed upon by the IAEA board of directors.

A third round of talks between Indian and IAEA officials ended last week without resolution on India’s demands for a mechanism to create a strategic reserve to meet lifetime fuel supply for its civilian nuclear plants, as well as “corrective measures” in the event of stoppage of fuel to power plants, experts said.

Even if IAEA agreed on the safeguards, the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group, another regulatory body which also operates by consensus, has to agree to a US proposal to exempt India from a “full scope safeguards” condition of nuclear supply.

Then, an operational agreement for the nuclear deal that has already been adopted by India and the United States as well as the IAEA safeguards has to be approved by the US Congress before summer for it to be implemented by year end, experts said.

The deadline stems from a tight 2008 legislative calendar ahead of the November US presidential elections.

Some might see the quick exit of Nicolas Burns—an architect of the deal—from the White as a symbolic sign of defeat, support for the deal still exists. The White House still has seemingly locked up key members of the NSG, making that roadblock less likely.

And while domestic opposition to the deal in both America and especially India has grown, the deal has still continued to inch along forward.

Below are clips showing the deal’s continued support from the governments of Britain, Australia and China.

Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown continues to support of the US-India nuclear deal, but notes any UK-India nuclear cooperation would require some extra work:

Ahead of Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s visit here, Britain on Friday voiced interest in having civil nuclear cooperation with India but said any such collaboration will have to await changes in the international rules.

The nuclear issue is expected to figure in the talks that Brown will have with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh here on Monday. The Summit talks will also cover the subjects of terrorism, climate change and business cooperation besides regional issues.

”Civil Nuclear cooperation (between India and the UK) is dependent on international status (of rules of trade),” British High Commissioner Sir Richard Stagg said while briefing journalists on Brown’s two-day maiden visit here.

Noting that Britain supports the Indo-US nuclear deal, he said the agreement will ”open opportunities for collaboration which do not exist at present”.

However, Stagg said the ”real opportunity for major India-UK collaboration will require changes” in the status of international rules which New Delhi ”is trying to do” with the IAEA and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

China also supports—or rather will not derail—the nuclear deal. From a Hindu report discussing India Prime Minister Singh’s recent Beijing trip:

He said China had offered support for civil nuclear cooperation in power generation.

China is an important and influential member of the 45-member NSG.

“I cannot say I have got a firm, definite answer but my own feeling is that the relationship of trust and confidence is now establishing, and we are succeeding in that. When the issue comes before relevant agencies, I do not think China will be an obstacle. I can’t say I have an assurance today,” Dr. Singh said when he was asked whether China would support India’s case at the NSG.

And while Australia’s new Labour government has soured on selling uranium to India, it also seems not willing to block the US-India nuclear deal:

AUSTRALIA has left open the option of supporting international uranium sales to India, even though the Rudd Government has ruled out Australian yellowcake exports to the energy-hungry South Asian giant.

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith announced earlier this week that Australia would not sell uranium to India unless it signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But a spokesman for Mr Smith said yesterday that the Government has not yet made a decision on whether to block uranium sales to India by other countries — an option open to Australia and members of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which sets global export controls for nuclear materials.

Posted in India, Nicolas Burns, Nuclear Deal, United States | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.