International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 04 May 2008 17:23

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 04 May 2008 17:38

Catalogue of safety problems halts work on nuclear weapons

the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), which runs Burghfield, has been forced to cease "live nuclear work" while outstanding safety problems are fixed. The stoppage has been in place since at least December, though it was only admitted by AWE last week.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 04 May 2008 17:41

BBC documentary reveals government reckless in drive for nuclear weapons[quote] Winston Churchill was determined to establish a â€œspecial relationshipâ€

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 04 May 2008 18:31

Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf

The B61-based "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator:" Clever retrofit or headway towards fourth-generation nuclear weapons?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510052.pdf

From the lab to the battlefield? Nanotechnology and fourth generation nuclear weapons.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0509205.pdf

The physics of antimatter induced fusion and thermonuclear explosions.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0507114.pdf

A comparison of delayed radiobiological effects of depleted-uranium munitions versus fourth-generation nuclear weapons.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0210071.pdf

ITER: The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor and the nuclear weapons proliferation implications of thermonuclear-fusion energy systems.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0401110.pdf

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 04 May 2008 21:56

NC Nuclear reactor will be shut down until cause of vibration found

Prasenjit Medhi · Post by **Prasenjit Medhi** » 04 May 2008 22:23

Is there any research going on into next generation nuclear (im)explosive devices? I was fascinated by learning about the process of triggered thermonuclear release in neutron stars present in binary systems.

Apparently, a neutron star, the supernovae remnant, siphons of gas(mainly H1, H2, Helium) from its binary neighbor, and as the neutron star's pulse cycles slow, a massive thermonuclear explosion takes place which releases the equivalent of a sun's week's worth of escaped energy output, something like every 120-125 odd days, in the case of a particular study of a binary system, 20000 light years away.

Given that H1/H2 is compressible into a solid at 2 million PSI, and toiroidal magnets are getting more and more powerful, how far are we from magnetically induced (massive, pulsed) thermonuclear energy production.

I hope it is used for peaceful purposes such as space travel, oil reservoir enhancement by using H3, and other uses, and not weaponized. That would be a terrible day. As long as the P5 and India can keep the loonies under control, things should be fine. But it is, very, very important.

I think that in the next 50-60 years, harnessing the power of the atom will become commonplace. God(if he exists) help us .. Or failing that, may Unkil handle the trouble makers as has been the case so far. If I had anything to with the functioning of the GOI, I would help Unkil, at least in this matter, indirectly.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 05 May 2008 01:38

Iran will not axe nuclear programme

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 05 May 2008 01:51

Prasenjit Medhi wrote:Given that H1/H2 is compressible into a solid at 2 million PSI, and toiroidal magnets are getting more and more powerful, how far are we from magnetically induced (massive, pulsed) thermonuclear energy production.

Prasenjit-saar, you should take a look at the Z-pinch machine from Sandia Labs. Z-pinch Machine

In fusion power research, the Z-pinch, or zeta pinch, is a type of plasma confinement system that uses an electrical current in the plasma to generate a magnetic field that compresses it

The ultra high temperatures reached in 2005 (2.66 to 3.7 billion Kelvin) are greatly higher than those required for the classical hydrogen, deuterium and tritium fusion envisaged hitherto. They could allow in theory, if not in practice, the fusion of light hydrogen atoms with heavier atoms such as lithium or boron. These two possible fusion reactions do not produce neutrons thus no radioactivity nor nuclear waste, so they open for the first time the possibility of a man-made clean aneutronic fusion.

Sandia's roadmap includes another future Z machine version called ZN (Z Neutron) to test higher yields in fusion power and automation systems. ZN is planned to give between 20 and 30 MJ of hydrogen fusion power with a shot per hour thanks to Russian Linear Transformer Driver (LTD) replacing the current Marx generators. After 8 to 10 years of operation, ZN would become a transmutation pilot plant capable of a fusion shot every 100 seconds.

The Z machine at Sandia National Laboratory

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 May 2008 03:09

XPosting from Indian aviation thread:

sanjaychoudhry wrote:
US pressure robs chopper order from Hindustan Aeronautics

SANTIAGO: India's state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) has lost out on an ambitious deal to sell its Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) Dhruv to Chile due to "arm twisting" by the US, Indian officials here allege.

Chile, was keen to purchase the Dhruv, but overrode India's offer despite the best price offered and finalised the deal with Bell, a US-Canada joint venture, said the officials. The Chilean government was apparently under severe pressure from the US to go for Bell, diplomatic sources said.

"It was a political decision. The Chilean authorities admitted it was the result of arm twisting by the US," said a diplomatic official who did not want to be named.

According to several sources, HAL had offered six indigenously developed Dhruv helicopters with spares at $46 million.

"Eurocopter, Russian and Polish companies were also there for the bid. But we were leading with the best pricing," the sources told IANS on condition of anonymity.

The Chilean government finally settled for four heavier class Bell-412 Helicopters for $100 million instead of the Dhruvs, said one source.

"The explanation - which was given at our pursuance - was that they wanted to standardise the fleet of helicopters and other aircraft as they were all from Bell," the official added.

The Chilean Air Force had made a request for proposal for the 5.5 tonne, twin engine new generation helicopter in May last year.

HAL was also negotiating with Bolivia and Peru for ALHs. HAL had for some years now been demonstrating ALH in the terrains of Chile which were similar to India's.
Link

Just a thought: Indo-US deal to benefit India anyone?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 05 May 2008 04:31

Nuclear reactors will cost twice estimate, says E.ON chief

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 05 May 2008 04:47

With US economy the way it is , this kind of arm twisting is going to increase many fold. The MIC and arms business is very cut throat, ask Adnan Khashoggi etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Khashoggi

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 05 May 2008 06:07

Post-nuclear tea shortage feared

The shortfall of the staple British beverage would be "very serious" if the country were to come under attack with atomic and hydrogen bombs, said according to a memo drafted between 1954 and 1956.

"The tea position would be very serious with a loss of 75 per cent of stocks and substantial delays in imports and with no system of rationing it would be wrong to consider that even one ounce (28g) per head per week could be ensured," it said.

"No satisfactory solution has yet been found."

Prasenjit Medhi · Post by **Prasenjit Medhi** » 05 May 2008 08:01

Gerard wrote:Iran will not axe nuclear programme

We have a problem dont we .. I once called for Saddam Hussein's ousting on NPR, as a guest caller on one of their morning programmes when I was in the States, in 2000, precisely because of that regimes pursuit of WMD's and irresponsible belligerent status.

Regards,
Prasenjit

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 05 May 2008 08:26

The nuclear cat is out of the bag.

It is not simply a question of Iran's nuclear fuel cycyle and technology development program. The same question is applicable and important for other nations that the media chooses to not name those nations, not just Israel that is the pet dog to beat but nations that have signed the NPT, yet flout NPT owning N weapons (aka Kingdom of Arabia) and nations that signed NPT yet are doing clandestine nuclear development. The very fact it is clandestine means those NPT nations are engaged in illegal weapons program. That inquisition applies as robustly on Seriya, as Germany and Japan. Germany & Japan are never mentioned but ... .. .

Prasenjit Medhi · Post by **Prasenjit Medhi** » 05 May 2008 16:20

Arun,

I doubt the US will allow its Saudi satellite, or its near-enemy Iran, to weaponize, without regime change, or preemptive decapitation of nuclear sites. The risks are too great.

As an Indian civilian, we may view Iran as a potential counterweight to Pakistan, and a potential source of energy, but then we have to weigh that against Iran's belligerent posture vis-a-vis the US and Israel, both Indian allies.

Iranian adventurism in its own neighborhood, boosted by hypothetical nuclear sabre rattling, would probably cause more disruption to commodity prices, international trade, and the global financial system, and greater loss to India, than not allowing the country to weaponize. As simple as that.

Then again, India is a peripheral player in the Mid-East. The Americans are there, along with the Marlborough's[respectful reference to 1st duke of Wellington, not the ad]. Its their game. But for India's sake, its better if Iran does not weaponize, ceterus paribus.

Prasenjit Medhi · Post by **Prasenjit Medhi** » 05 May 2008 16:38

Ack, wrong Duke, meant the less famous Churchill. The one who was called a rascal by the King of England after He caught him with His mistress. Good fighter though, trod his way into Central Europe and beat the French Sun King's army, with some Dutch auxillaries, and a lot of British soldiers who didnt run from the line because they could never stand the nagging from their mates if they did.. Impressive. France was the then superpower of Europe.

Second best soldier England has produced, after the Duke of Wellington. The best of the British seem to have turned to rock music or Finance, however, these days. Any statesmen in the pipeline, one should know about?

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 06 May 2008 02:40

Prasenjit Medhi wrote:Arun,

I doubt the US will allow its Saudi satellite, or its near-enemy Iran, to weaponize, without regime change, or preemptive decapitation of nuclear sites. The risks are too great.

There is very high certainity that Arabia (I prefer to call it by by its natural name it held for eternity. I hate to add that filthy Al-Saud family name that US has fathered for Arabia) has many nuclear weapons on its soil under its own control. There is mountain of circumstantial evidence that coherently point to only one thing.

As an Indian civilian, we may view Iran as a potential counterweight to Pakistan, and a potential source of energy, but then we have to weigh that against Iran's belligerent posture vis-a-vis the US and Israel, both Indian allies.

Ahhh, let India first serve Indian interest, before throwing itself to serve its new friends and allies.

What makes you count out Iran as Indian allie? Indian interest in its neighborhood and zone of influence has and will continue to require strategic alliance w/Iran. Choose at your own peril.

Iranian adventurism in its own neighborhood, boosted by hypothetical nuclear sabre rattling, would probably cause more disruption to commodity prices, international trade, and the global financial system, and greater loss to India, than not allowing the country to weaponize. As simple as that.

Why get excited by Iran's titillating of adventureism, when Indian virility or lack there of (I.e. Impotence) does not raise any soft tissue no matter how hard neighbors provoke/enamour India to take a dig!

Then again, India is a peripheral player in the Mid-East. The Americans are there, along with the Marlborough's[respectful reference to 1st duke of Wellington, not the ad]. Its their game. But for India's sake, its better if Iran does not weaponize, ceterus paribus.

You are free to think and act as a dhimmi. Fortunately there are many here and around who are unconstrained and understand modern Indian history and interests.

A man is what he makes of himself in his mind, similarly India is what it it thinks of itself. You change the pschology and change its mind/will, and lo & behold you have changed the country without raising a blade of sword.

How true it is/can be for India?

vina · Post by **vina** » 06 May 2008 13:50

Russia to sign 123 pact with the US! .

Now if Russia can sign the 123 pact, why not India! , espcecially when the weapons part is well taken care of!

Prasenjit Medhi · Post by **Prasenjit Medhi** » 06 May 2008 22:25

Arun_S wrote:
Prasenjit Medhi wrote:Arun,

I doubt the US will allow its Saudi satellite, or its near-enemy Iran, to weaponize, without regime change, or preemptive decapitation of nuclear sites. The risks are too great.
Arun writes:
There is very high certainity that Arabia (I prefer to call it by by its natural name it held for eternity. I hate to add that filthy Al-Saud family name that US has fathered for Arabia) has many nuclear weapons on its soil under its own control. There is mountain of circumstantial evidence that coherently point to only one thing.
Please provide references to this evidence? I have not gotten a whiff about about underground enrichment facilities, testing of delivery systems, etc. Why would Saudi Arabia require nuclear weapons? Ever since the Americans favored the Sauds over the Hashemi's, America has guaranteed Saudi Arabia's security ..

Ahhh, let India first serve Indian interest, before throwing itself to serve its new friends and allies.

What makes you count out Iran as Indian allie? Indian interest in its neighborhood and zone of influence has and will continue to require strategic alliance w/Iran. Choose at your own peril.
India and Iran, at the moment can not be allies for the following reasons, among others:

1. Iran is a religious theocracy, India is a pluralistic democracy.
2. Iran has a skewed world view in which it see's itself as some sort of a great power, despite the fact that it is 1/20th India's size.
3. Iran is a pariah state. It is practically outside the international financial system. As my distant relative, the late Ashok Saikia would have said, its not worth knowing.
4. Iran is strongly influenced by religious hardliners who harbor notions of making Shiite Islam becoming the dominant form of Islam, despite numbering about 10% of Muslims worldwide.
5. Iran has not been a friend of India, since the King of Iran's demise.
6. Iran needs to reconcile modernity, liberal humanism, with Islam. It has the potential to do so. And if it does, then it will truly be a dominant force in Islam.
7. It is not a zero sum game. India has close links with the Anglosphere due to India's shared culture of parliamentary democracy, the English language, and we are a central pillar of the international financial system. Iran is not. So we can trade with Iran, work with it, when it suits our interests. But India will not give up its seat at Bretton Woods, potential Security Council membership, increasing trade and financial clout for a small country like Iran.

Why get excited by Iran's titillating of adventureism, when Indian virility or lack there of (I.e. Impotence) does not raise any soft tissue no matter how hard neighbors provoke/enamour India to take a dig!
Indians do not believe in martyrdom and suicide. We prefer the Dharmachakra and Right Action and the Call of Righteous action of the Gita.

You are free to think and act as a dhimmi. Fortunately there are many here and around who are unconstrained and understand modern Indian history and interests.
They are welcome to their views. India is a democracy, unlike Iran. However, I think most Hindus, and other Indians, will agree with my perspective.

A man is what he makes of himself in his mind, similarly India is what it it thinks of itself. You change the pschology and change its mind/will, and lo & behold you have changed the country without raising a blade of sword.

How true it is/can be for India?

The sword is very useful. It makes for a wonderful plowshare. The plow that tills the earth and makes gods of men on Earth through their virtuous conduct is the most powerful sword. Its use as a weapon, is merely incidental, in Indian culture, not central. But do not doubt that Indians can employ the sword in warfare.

Regards,
Prasenjit

sraj · Post by **sraj** » 06 May 2008 23:27

ramana wrote:It might be best if Democrats come and ratify the CTBT for that will set of its own dynamics.

It won't be easy even for a Democrat President to muster the 67 Senators required for ratification. In any case, it is not clear they will want to tie their hands even further by ratifying........given that the entire non-proliferation regime is falling apart. CTBT's entry into force requires India to sign and ratify......this is unlikely in the foreseeable future, which is why this backdoor CTBT-plus approach through Hyde/123 and IAEA/NSG is so important from the P-5 perspective.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 07 May 2008 00:01

1. Saudi Arabia is a religious theocracy with a sanctioned monarch, US is a pluralistic democracy.
2. Saudi Arabia has a skewed world view (as the custodian of the relics of Islam and the seat of Sunni theology) in which it see's itself as some sort of a great (theological) power, despite the fact that it is 1/40th US' size.
3. Saudi Arabia would be a pariah state (were it not for its oil and US backing). It practices the Islamic financial system. As your distant relative, the late Ashok Saikia would have said, its not worth knowing.
4. Saudi Arabia is strongly influenced by religious hardliners who harbor notions of making Sunni Islam becoming the dominant form of ALL RELIGIONS, and dream of a Khalifa.
5. Saudi Arabia has not been a friend of the US, ever.
6. Saudi Arabia needs to reconcile modernity, liberal humanism, with Islam. It does not have the potential to do so. And if it does, then Islam will be dead.

What's the difference - beyond political will and military might to use a country's resources for what its worth and hell to everything else.

Prasenjit: Your message is valid, but you have to see the other side of the coin and not be taken in by rhetoric.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 07 May 2008 02:56

Prasenjit Medhi wrote:
Arun_S wrote: Please provide references to this evidence? I have not gotten a whiff about about underground enrichment facilities, testing of delivery systems, etc. Why would Saudi Arabia require nuclear weapons? Ever since the Americans favored the Sauds over the Hashemi's, America has guaranteed Saudi Arabia's security ..

Unlike India(ns), Saudi's are not unaware of History and polity, on the contrary they are highly aware of it. Dealing with unkill last 80 years they are also astuste "Chankian" diplomatically. Active spread of Wahabi perspective in US/West and East while under US tutulage is a good proof of their mustering of "Chanakya".

One only have to reasearch/dig below the surface of Saudi bankrolling and project management of Pakistani Nuclear Weapons program and the scintillating worms will rake out.

On Geo-political front what India is up against is not just Bakistan that "Pukistan" is but "Pura-stan" (complete umma biradeeri) that Kingdom of Arabia and Bakistan has unioned into. Studying US policy on KSA and US policy on Pakistan gives valuable insight to the unholy union of the beasts.

Prasenjit Medhi · Post by **Prasenjit Medhi** » 07 May 2008 08:34

What's the difference - beyond political will and military might to use a country's resources for what its worth and hell to everything else.

None. But does one have to admit it?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 07 May 2008 15:52

North Korea destroys nuke tower

North Korea explodes the cooling tower at its Yongbyon nuke facility within a day of the removal from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 May 2008 16:04

Iran offers nuclear deal but refuses to stop enrichment

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 09 May 2008 08:12

Prasenjit Medhi wrote:
What's the difference - beyond political will and military might to use a country's resources for what its worth and hell to everything else.
None. But does one have to admit it?

That is one approach, we have taken in the past, of digging our head in the sand.

Another, in the Iran case is to lend Iran a helping hand, in a manner that would be welcome by even the US. For all the US rhetoric, the American people do not have the appetite for another war and there is a chance for India to insert itself into the mix here.

- Ask Iran to back off its rhetoric against the west and gain Indian investment in its oil/gas infrastructure, economic and military help
- Assure the US, if Iran does develop a bomb, India will fight Iran for the betrayal
- Much better to control Iran from within than all this embargo nonsense

Easy? No. Realm of possibility? Yes. Major change in how India conducts itself, yes.

What does India get?

- Access to major oil/gas resources
- Say in the gulf
- Denies Pakistan, Islamic solidarity

What if Iran back stabs? Then, they look at the combined might of the west and India falling on them.

Why will the west go for it? What are their other least costly choices?

Side benefit? Keeps China out.

What does it take for India to accomplish this? Bold geopolitical vision and an ability to execute on it.

Is this likely? No.

Am I dreaming? Yes. But, Hope, I am not the only one.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 May 2008 20:56

NoKo CRE tamasha continues
US envoy takes nuclear secrets out of North Korea

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 10 May 2008 23:10

Related article on energy footprint and sustainable living.
Brazil, India have 'greenest' consumers, US trails: study

Waste not, want not.

by Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) May 7, 2008
Inhabitants of Brazil and India have the world's most environmentally-sustainable lifestyle and Americans have the least, according to a new study tracking global attitudes towards consumption and the environment.

The survey by the National Geographic Society establishes a "Greendex" -- an index measuring the economic impact of consumer lifestyle choices -- in four key areas: housing, transportation, food and goods.

Overall, the survey determined that inhabitants of developing countries are most concerned about the impacts of their lifestyle choices on the environment, and made consumption choices reflecting these concerns.

Consequently their lifestyles had fewer adverse effects on the environment than people in developed countries.

The highest scores -- denoting the greatest environmental consciousness -- were found in Brazil and India, each tied with 60 points.

They were followed by consumers in China (56.1), Mexico (54.3), Hungary (53.2) and Russia (52.4).

Among consumers in wealthy countries, those in Great Britain, Germany and Australia each had a Greendex score of 50.2, while those in Spain registered a score of 50.0 and Japanese respondents, 49.1.

US consumers had the lowest Greendex rating, at 44.9. People in the United States are by far the least likely to use public transportation, walk or bike to their destinations, or to eat locally grown foods, the report found.

Americans also had among the largest average residence size in the survey, and only 15 percent told the National Geographic Society that they minimize their use of fresh water.

Other low-scoring consumers included Canadians with 48.5 and the French with 48.7.

Researchers found that in general, people in developed countries tend to live in big homes, often with environmentally costly air-conditioning, own more cars, drive alone more often and use public transport only infrequently. They are least likely to buy environmentally-friendly products.

Inhabitants of developing countries, by contrast, were more likely to live in smaller homes, use green products and own relatively few appliances or electronic gadgets. They also were more likely to walk, cycle, use public transportation and live close to their most frequent destinations.

Researchers noted, however, that the index rankings could change as growing economic prosperity allows consumers to spend more.

The survey, conducted by the GlobeScan polling firm, found that consumers in emerging economies often aspire to higher material standards of living, and believe everyone should have the same living standards as those in the wealthiest countries.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 11 May 2008 17:05

NPT prepcom ...

Tackling nuclear proliferation

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 11 May 2008 17:06

French contemplate bid for leading UK nuclear utility

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 11 May 2008 17:10

Welsh capital was an A-bomb target

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 11 May 2008 18:06

Arab countries discuss nuclear cooperation

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 May 2008 17:42

Wash Post :: May 11, 2008 :: Purchases Linked N. Korean to Syria

Purchases Linked N. Korean to Syria
Pyongyang Company Funneled Reactor Parts to Damascus, Intelligence Officials Say

By Robin Wright and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, May 11, 2008; A18

When North Korean businessman Ho Jin Yun first caught the attention of German customs police in 2002, he was on a continental buying spree with a shopping list that seemed as random as it was long.

Yun, police discovered, had been crisscrossing Central Europe, amassing a bafflingly diverse collection of materials and high-tech gadgets: gas masks, electric timers, steel pipes, vacuum pumps, transformers and aluminum tubes cut to precise dimensions.

Most of these wares Yun had shipped to his company's offices in China and North Korea. But some of the goods, U.S. and European officials now say, were evidently intended for a secret project in Syria: a nuclear reactor that would be built with North Korean help, allegedly to produce plutonium for eventual use in nuclear weapons.

According to U.S. officials, European intelligence officials and diplomats, Yun's firm -- Namchongang Trading, known as NCG -- provided the critical link between Pyongyang and Damascus, acquiring key materials from vendors in China and probably from Europe, and secretly transferring them to a desert construction site near the Syrian town of Al Kibar.

It was the company's suspicious buying habits -- and the branch office it opened in Damascus -- that inadvertently contributed to the alleged reactor's discovery and later destruction in a Sept. 6 Israeli bombing raid, U.S. officials say. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen declined in an interview to say whether Washington helped with the raid, but he strongly endorsed it.

"The reactor which was being built was not very far from being operational and needed to be hit," Mullen said.

Alerted to NCG's suspect purchases in Europe, Western spy agencies were able to track the movement of NCG employees and purchases to Syria in 2003, where the outlines of the reactor scheme eventually became apparent. The site was closely scrutinized by Western intelligence officials for months before it was destroyed by Israel. During that period, U.S. officials collected aerial images and acquired interior photos that showed apparent reactor components.

Syria has maintained that the facility was always nonnuclear, but U.S. officials say that as the government cleared the site of debris after the bombing, some telltale reactor components that had been deliberately hidden became visible.

"We judged that these interactions were probably nuclear-related . . . because of who it was we were seeing in those interactions," a senior U.S. intelligence official said at a briefing in Washington last week about the Syrian-North Korean venture. "We assessed the cooperation involved work sites probably within Syria. But again, we didn't know exactly where."

Attempts to contact Yun and other NCG officials by phone and e-mail were unsuccessful.

Syria acknowledges "a working relationship" with North Korea, but Syrian Embassy spokesman Ahmed Salkini said it does not defy any international law. "If this company conducts business with Syria, the terms of transactions would abide by, and would be within, the legal framework of the international community," he said, adding that the embassy has not heard of NCG.

U.S. officials say the Pyongyang-based NCG used an office in Beijing as a base for procuring materials and as a distribution center for items that could not be legally routed through North Korea because of trade sanctions.

A spokesperson at the Chinese Embassy denied any knowledge of the company and its activities.

"I am not aware of anything about the North Korean company mentioned. . . . China is steadfastly opposed to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and its deliveries, and it has been faithfully honoring its international obligations and responsibilities," Wang Baodong said in an e-mailed statement.

Proliferation experts say NCG used many methods to conceal the intended use of the items it was acquiring.

NCG has acted "as a trading agent or middleman, buying items through Chinese trading companies or directly from foreign companies," said David Albright, president of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security and an expert on the international black market for nuclear technology.

Because of its branch office in China, NCG can buy equipment from suppliers throughout the world, even in Europe and possibly in the United States, particularly if the companies have subsidiaries in China, Albright said. Moreover, export controls in China are poorly implemented and simple to evade.

Other North Korean companies with offices outside the country have bought militarily sensitive equipment from commercial vendors, including parts for making ballistic missiles, nuclear bombs and other advanced weapons, U.S. officials say. Over the years, they have bought metals used in uranium enrichment and chemical precursors for highly lethal nerve agents, the officials said.

"North Korea often works through these trading companies, which facilitate business deals and other activities overseas that earn foreign exchange for the government and especially for the top leadership. They have been very active in the past in facilitating missile sales in countries like Syria and Iran," said Larry Niksch, an expert on Asia at the Congressional Research Service.

A U.S. counterproliferation official said in an interview that North Korea typically uses "one, two or more layers" of front companies so it can plausibly deny knowledge of actual intended use. "Sometimes they can fool the supplier by saying the goods are intended for another country altogether. North Korea does this very well," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because U.S. investigations remain classified.

Over the past decade, NCG's activities have been the target of investigations spanning two continents. Its attempt to purchase hundreds of high-strength tubes from European businesses attracted the attention of the German government in 2003. The tubes were made of a highly specialized type of aluminum used in making centrifuges for uranium enrichment, but Yun, the NCG businessman, told German companies that they were destined for an aircraft factory in China, according to court documents.

Eventually, Yun -- who earlier served as the head of North Korea's United Nations delegation in Vienna, the home of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency -- struck a deal with a Bavarian company to obtain 22 tons of British-made tubes. They were placed on an Asia-bound ship in April 2003 and made it as far as the Suez Canal before German authorities ordered the cargo seized.

A subsequent investigation by nuclear weapons experts, including several at the International Atomic Energy Agency, concluded that the tubes were not suited for aircraft. The Chinese company named by NCG as the intended user denied ordering such tubes, U.S. and European investigators said.

In court documents and interviews, German officials alleged that NCG had operated as a front company for years and had sought to buy a wide range of sensitive equipment from European firms, including oscilloscopes and other electronic gear used in making and testing nuclear detonators.

Neither Yun nor NCG was charged with wrongdoing in Germany, but the owner of the company that sold the tubes was sentenced to four years in prison for his role in the sale.

The discovery of a series of attempted purchases prompted the CIA to predict that North Korea could have an operational uranium enrichment facility by 2005. But no such facility has ever been identified, and North Korea insists the tubes were meant for other programs, including missile production. North Korea has allowed U.S. officials to take smelted aluminum it purchased from other countries back to the United States for analysis.

U.N. Resolution 1718 stipulates that all member states must "prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer" to North Korea "through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories" any material or technology that would contribute to a nuclear weapons program.

White House and State Department officials have declined to comment on whether the Bush administration is trying to get China to act against NCG.

"We have nothing to add beyond what has already been said about North Korean nuclear cooperation with Syria," said State Department press officer Gonzalo Gallegos. "As the White House said last week, the United States is . . . committed to ensuring that North Korea does not further engage in proliferation activities."

Staff writer Glenn Kessler contributed to this report.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 May 2008 17:51

Wash Post :: May 12, 2008 :: Spread of Nuclear Capability Is Feared

Spread of Nuclear Capability Is Feared
Global Interest in Energy May Presage A New Arms Race

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 12, 2008; A01

VIENNA -- At least 40 developing countries from the Persian Gulf region to Latin America have recently approached U.N. officials here to signal interest in starting nuclear power programs, a trend that concerned proliferation experts say could provide the building blocks of nuclear arsenals in some of those nations.

At least half a dozen countries have also said in the past four years that they are specifically planning to conduct enrichment or reprocessing of nuclear fuel, a prospect that could dramatically expand the global supply of plutonium and enriched uranium, according to U.S. and international nuclear officials and arms-control experts.

Much of the new interest is driven by economic considerations, particularly the soaring cost of fossil fuels. But for some Middle Eastern states with ready access to huge stocks of oil or natural gas, such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the investment in nuclear power appears to be linked partly to concerns about a future regional arms race stoked in part by Iran's alleged interest in such an arsenal, the officials said.

"We are concerned that some countries are moving down the nuclear [weapons] path in reaction to the Iranians," a senior U.S. government official who tracks the spread of nuclear technology said in an interview. He declined to speak on the record because of diplomatic sensitivities. "The big question is: At what point do you reach the nuclear tipping point, when enough countries go nuclear that others decide they must do so, too?"

Although the United Arab Emirates has a proven oil reserve of 100 billion barrels, the world's sixth-largest, in January it signed a deal with a French company to build two nuclear reactors. Wealthy neighbors Kuwait and Bahrain are also planning nuclear plants, as are Libya, Algeria and Morocco in North Africa and the kingdom of Jordan.

Even Yemen, one of the poorest countries in the Arab world, last year announced plans to purchase a nuclear reactor, which it says is needed to produce electricity; it is one of 11 Middle Eastern states now engaged in starting or expanding nuclear power programs.

Meanwhile, two of Iran's biggest rivals in the region, Turkey and Egypt, are moving forward with ambitious nuclear projects. Both countries abandoned any pursuit of nuclear power decades ago but are now on course to develop seven nuclear power plants -- four in Egypt and three in Turkey -- over the next decade.

Egypt's ambassador to the United States, Nabil Fahmy, told a recent gathering of Middle Eastern and nonproliferation experts that his country's decision was unrelated to Iran's nuclear activities. But he acknowledged that commercial nuclear power "does give you technology and knowledge," and he warned that a nuclear arms race may be inevitable unless the region's leaders agree to ban such weapons.

"We continue to take the high road, but there isn't much oxygen there, and it is very lonely," Fahmy told the gathering in Washington at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. He added a prediction: "Without a comprehensive nuclear accord, you will have a proliferation problem in the Middle East, and it will be even worse in 10 years than it is today."

Many countries involved in nuclear expansion have stressed their peaceful intentions. Some, such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, publicly vowed never to pursue uranium enrichment or fuel reprocessing -- technologies that can be used to create fissile materials for nuclear weapons. But some arms-control experts say the sudden interest cannot be fully explained by rising oil prices.

"This is not primarily about nuclear energy. It's a hedge against Iran," said Ploughshares Fund president Joseph Cirincione, an expert on nuclear policy and author of "Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons." "They're starting their engines. It takes decades to build a nuclear infrastructure, and they're beginning to do it now. They're saying, 'If there's going to be an arms race, we're going to be in it.' "

'90 Percent' Is Deterrence

Although U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Iran halted its research into making nuclear weapons five years ago, the Islamic republic still seeks to make enriched uranium with centrifuges at its vast underground facility at Natanz. It is now operating about 3,000 centrifuges and plans to increase the number to 50,000.

While Iran insists that the uranium will be used only to make electricity, the United States and its European allies have sought to dissuade Tehran from pursuing the technology by pushing ever-tougher sanctions through the U.N. Security Council. Iran's neighbors, convinced that a nuclear-armed Tehran is now likely, are keeping their own options open, nuclear experts say.

Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency and a winner with the IAEA of the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize for his work preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, has likened the pursuit of "latent" nuclear capability to buying an insurance policy.

"You don't really even need to have a nuclear weapon," ElBaradei said at a recent international conference of security officials in Munich. "It's enough to buy yourself an insurance policy by developing the capability, and then sit on it. Let's not kid ourselves: Ninety percent of it is insurance, a deterrence."

The Middle East's renewed interest in nuclear power is part of a global trend that began around 2004, as prices for fossil fuels began to rise. Before that, commercial nuclear development had remained relatively flat since 1986, when a massive fire at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine widely spread radioactive contamination in history's worst commercial nuclear power accident.

But now, with oil supplies tightening and prices soaring, nuclear power is being viewed in a different light, said Alan McDonald, an IAEA official who coordinates the agency's programs on nuclear energy. McDonald said he thinks there is a logical economic argument for developing a domestic nuclear industry, even if a nation's oil reserves are measured by the tanker-load.

"Why would these Gulf states want to go nuclear? Because they know their oil will only become more valuable as global demand increases," McDonald said. "It may be more cost-effective to sell oil to Americans driving SUVs than to burn it domestically."

The IAEA officially encourages commercial nuclear development under policies backed by successive U.S. administrations since the 1950s. It also provides technical and legal assistance to any country that wants a nuclear power plant.

But IAEA officials say they have never previously seen such widespread interest in starting a domestic nuclear power industry. While officials declined to detail their correspondence with specific countries, the list of the newly interested includes several African countries, such as Nigeria and Namibia, and at least half a dozen former Soviet republics that are embracing new Western designs to replace less-reliable Soviet nuclear plants.

Programs Can Be Hidden

Nuclear weapons experts say commercial nuclear power plants, by themselves, pose relatively little proliferation risk, although they are frequently mentioned as possible targets for terrorist attacks. But nuclear power can give a country the technological expertise and infrastructure that could become the foundation for a clandestine weapons program.

Such covert programs can be successfully hidden for years, as was demonstrated in recent months by U.S. and Israeli allegations that Syria was building a secret plutonium production reactor near the desert town of Al Kibar. Plutonium is an efficient fuel for nuclear explosions, as well as for power generation.

Both India and Pakistan built nuclear devices using an industrial infrastructure built ostensibly for nuclear power. Taiwan and South Korea conducted weapons research under cover of civil power programs but halted the work after being confronted by the United States.

A particular concern is rising interest in nuclear enrichment and reprocessing, the commercial enterprise that creates nuclear fuel and then, after its use, separates plutonium from the spent fuel. The business has long been dominated by the United States, Russia and a consortium of European nations.

But since 2004, uranium-producing countries such as Namibia, South Africa, Argentina and Brazil, as well as close U.S. allies such as Canada and Australia, have sought to develop their own enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. All of these nations are seeking to cash in on the future growth in nuclear power generation.

Canada's push for expanded enrichment capacity has already prompted private but intense clashes with the Bush administration, officials said.

"They're all rethinking enrichment, even countries that did it in the past and gave it up," said a senior IAEA official who monitors fuel-cycle development, who agreed to be interviewed on the condition that he not be identified by name. "They already mine uranium and sell it, and now they realize they could make a lot more money if they enrich it."

While no one forecasts a nuclear-armed Canada or Australia, the change could lead to more nuclear materials being transported around the world, among countries in nearly every region with heightened nuclear expertise.

"People stand up and pay attention when you talk about enrichment and the fuel cycle," said the senior U.S. government official who tracks nuclear proliferation. "That's the long pole in the tent" in the acquisition of a nuclear arsenal. He added that, while the extensive system of IAEA inspections and monitoring for such programs is meant to prevent misuse, "that only holds up to the point where the country decides to kick the IAEA out."

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 May 2008 17:53

Wash Post :: May 12, 2008 :: Experience With Syria Exemplifies Challenge That Detection Presents

Experience With Syria Exemplifies Challenge That Detection Presents

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 12, 2008; A16

Syria went to extraordinary lengths to conceal its undeclared construction of a plutonium-producing nuclear reactor from spies in the sky and on the ground in recent years, according to a draft report by independent nuclear experts briefed by Bush administration officials.

The effectiveness of the camouflage effort raises new doubts about the prospects for certain detection of future clandestine nuclear weapons-related activities, the Institute for Science and International Security concluded in its report on the Syrian facility. "This case serves as a sobering reminder of the difficulty of identifying secret nuclear activities," the report said.

U.S. intelligence officials last month released images of the Syrian facility before it was bombed by Israel last September and bulldozed by the Syrian government once the raid became public. U.S. and Israeli officials have said the facility was a nearly completed nuclear reactor built with North Korean help and fitted with a false roof and walls that altered its shape when viewed from above.

According to the ISIS report to be released this week, the fake roof was just the start. Syrian engineers went to "astonishing lengths" to hide cooling and ventilation systems, power lines and other features that normally are telltale signs of a nuclear reactor, authors David Albright and Paul Brannan wrote.

For example, the main building appears small and shallow from the air, but it was evidently built over large underground chambers -- tens of meters in depth -- that were large enough to house the nuclear reactor, as well as a reserve water-storage tank and pools for spent fuel rods, the report said.

An extensive network of electrical lines appears to have been buried in trenches. Traditional water-cooling towers were replaced with an elaborate underground system that discharged into the Euphrates River. And, instead of using smokestack-like ventilation towers prominent at many reactor sites, the ventilation system appears to have been built along the walls of the building, with louver openings not visible from the air, the authors contended.

The ISIS report noted that early skepticism that Syria was building a reactor there was based partly on the observable absence of revealing features. "The current domestic and international capabilities to detect nuclear facilities and activities are not adequate to prevent more surprises in the future," the report warned.

Albright, a former U.N. weapons inspector, said his conclusions were based not only on photographs of the Syrian site but also on interviews with government officials who closely monitored the facility while it was under construction.

Syria has repeatedly denied that the Al Kibar facility was a reactor. Its ambassador, Imad Moustapha, at a April 25 news conference in Washington described the allegations as "absurd, preposterous stories." "This administration has a proven record of falsifying and fabricating stories about weapons of mass destruction," he said.

On Wednesday, International Atomic Energy Agency director general Mohammed Elbaradei said his organization should be able to report in coming weeks whether the facility was an undeclared nuclear reactor.

Staff writer Robin Wright contributed to this report.

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 13 May 2008 17:56

US envoy heads home with North Korean nuclear documents

Tuesday 13 May, 2008

A US diplomat is heading back to Washington with documents detailing North Korea's nuclear activities.

The US Embassy in Seoul says State Department official Sung Kim left Seoul today with documents he received from North Korea during his visit to Pyongyang last week.

Washington plans to scrutinise the documents to find whether the North is telling the truth about its nuclear programs.

If the records are satisfactory, Washington is expected to begin the process of taking North Korea off its terrorism and economic sanctions blacklists a coveted goal of the North's regime.

International disarmament efforts have been stalled due to a dispute over how thoroughly the North should declare its nuclear programs in return for aid.

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 13 May 2008 18:29

World conducted over 700 N-tests in 50 yrs: Russia
Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Moscow: Up to 730 nuclear tests have been conducted in the past 50 years by the US, China, France, India, and Pakistan, a Russian defence ministry official said Tuesday.

Gen. Vladimir Verkhovtsev, head of the defence ministry special monitoring service, which was established 50 years ago, said in an interview with the Krasnaya Zvezda daily that many of the tests registered by his agency had never been reported by the media.

The figures do not include nuclear tests conducted by Russia or the USSR.

"Being a party to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), Russia has access to data recorded by more than 320 stations belonging to the NTBT international monitoring system," Gen. Verkhovtsev said, adding that his service was able to register nuclear explosions with yields of one kiloton and upwards throughout the world.

"One of the service's main goals has been monitoring the implementation of international treaties banning or limiting nuclear tests," he said.

The general said the service's own laboratories were stationed throughout Russia, mainly in upper-north and far-eastern regions.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 13 May 2008 19:11

How is this whole implementation/enforcement of test ban even possible if Countries develop technology that does the following:

have a network of sensors in a radius of X kms from potential nuke testing site, and the sensor network has intelligence (think computer) that does the following:

1) detect earthquake
2) send a wireless signal to the test site with an estimate of the time it will take for the earthquake shock wave to reach the test site (using the fact that speed of light is great than the speed of the shock wave).
3) the test site starts a timer electronically on receipt of this signal and then times the test to coincide with the instant when the shock wave is about to hit the test site.
4) The test ban enforcing network of sensors cannot tell the difference between the shock waves of earthquake from that of the test. Secondly, the interference between the quake and the test's shock waves will screw up all the measurements and analysis of any observer.

All equipment involved is assumed to have battery backups and be independent of local infrasctructure to ensure that the disaster caused by the earthquake cannot affect the system.

This whole "test ban treaty" is a con job if it is not verifiable, and if countries can mask their tests behind earthquakes, what's the value of this CTBT to anyone?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 May 2008 05:38

France: Can't rule out nuclear damage in China

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 May 2008 05:40

Nuclear powers reaffirm commitment to NPT