International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 Jan 2010 02:03

France needs more nuclear choice to win deals-GDF

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 15 Jan 2010 02:39

U.S. 'Unlikely to Let S.Korea Reprocess Nuclear Fuel'

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Jan 2010 03:35

Pakistan blocks agenda at UN disarmament conference

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Jan 2010 05:54

A delicate issue: Asia's nuclear future

The paper, authored by Rod Lyon, argues that Australia’s own policy options will be profoundly shaped by how Asia’s nuclear future unfolds. It looks at how Australia can assist with redesigning nuclear order in a cooperative Asia but notes a darker, more competitive Asian nuclear future would confront Australian policymakers with difficult choices, of hedging rather than ordering.

http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/pub ... pubtype=-1

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jan 2010 07:35

Folks I need some help. Can anyone get me a serious reference (as in book/paper etc) that Pakistan and NoKo got nuke weapons/knowhow from PRC?

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 21 Jan 2010 07:38

Shivji, I am no expert, but will this article and their book be of help?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/scien ... wanted=all

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Jan 2010 17:32

Stan_Savljevic wrote:Shivji, I am no expert, but will this article and their book be of help?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/scien ... wanted=all

Thx. It helps..

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 Jan 2010 07:57

First a blinding flash

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Jan 2010 02:29

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Russian nuclear forces, 2010

http://thebulletin.metapress.com/conten ... lltext.pdf

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 25 Jan 2010 20:20

Table below is from the article at:
US Energy Information Administration
Independent Statistics and Analysis
2016 Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources from the Annual Energy Outlook 2010
Release Date: January 12, 2010

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 26 Jan 2010 01:39

Radiation leak at Germany's sole uranium enrichment facility

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 27 Jan 2010 00:34

Nuclear fission algorithm is created

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 30 Jan 2010 21:05

Obama to seek major increase in nuclear weapons funding

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 06 Feb 2010 19:17

Vt. nuke plant: Tritium may be leaking from pipe

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 06 Feb 2010 19:17

Russia unveils new nuclear doctrine

“Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction against it and its allies, as well as an aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons jeopardising the very existence of the state,” a military doctrine signed by President Dmitry Medvedev said.

kshirin · Post by **kshirin** » 06 Feb 2010 19:50

Regarding Shiv's query, many books have references on this issue, with the Nuke express putting Chna in the dock most forcefully, but all these pretty much acknowledge this trade, and Corera documents No Korean connetcion ind etail
The Nuclear express Thomas C Reed Danny B Stillman, I got this reference from BRF only.
Deception by Adrian Levy & Catherine scott clark
Gordon Correra: Shopping for bombs

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Feb 2010 06:33

Iran to begin 20% nuclear enrichment Tuesday

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 Feb 2010 05:41

The Obama disarmament paradox

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 12 Feb 2010 02:51

The Australian Peace Movement’s Immoral Nuclear Obsession

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 12 Feb 2010 18:27

Iran claims to be among world's top 15 nuclear states

Should We Stop Worrying and Love the Iranian Bomb?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 12 Feb 2010 18:28

Squadron that handles nuclear warheads at New Mexico base is decertified by Air Force

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 12 Feb 2010 18:35

U.N. vents frustration at stalled arms control forum

Pakistan has refused to join a required consensus at the 65-member forum, insisting that it needs to keep open the fissile option to keep pace with its nuclear-armed rival India.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 13 Feb 2010 03:29

Nuclear test islands might be resettled

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 18 Feb 2010 18:53

Small Reactors Generate Big Hopes

http://online.wsj.com/media/wsj_BABYNUKEa100217.jpg

A new type of nuclear reactor—smaller than a rail car and one tenth the cost of a big plant—is emerging as a contender to reshape the nation's resurgent nuclear power industry.

Three big utilities, Tennessee Valley Authority, First Energy Corp. and Oglethorpe Power Corp., on Wednesday signed an agreement with McDermott International Inc.'s Babcock & Wilcox subsidiary, committing to get the new reactor approved for commercial use in the U.S.

http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/imag ... 190045.gif

The news comes just as President Barack Obama announced more than $8 billion in loan guarantees this week that would pave the way for the first nuclear power plant in the U.S. in almost 30 years. He has proposed accelerating nuclear development by tripling the amount of federal loan guarantees for reactor construction to $54 billion.

The smaller Babcock & Wilcox reactor can generate only 125 to 140 megawatts of power, about a tenth as much as a big one. But the utilities are betting that these smaller, simpler reactors can be manufactured quickly and installed at potentially dozens of existing nuclear sites or replace coal-fired plants that may become obsolete with looming emissions restrictions.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 18 Feb 2010 18:57

Biden to Push Test-Ban Treaty

WASHINGTON—Vice President Joseph Biden will begin the first push for congressional ratification of the United Nations nuclear test-ban treaty since the Clinton presidency, with a speech Thursday saying the Obama administration's large funding request for monitoring will make tests obsolete.

The speech at the National Defense University here will challenge liberal arms-control advocates to embrace a $624 million increase in nuclear-weapons funding, most of which would go to nuclear-weapons scientists to monitor the nation's aging stockpile without testing.

The White House budget seeks a 13.4% increase for the National Nuclear Security Administration, one of the largest increases in the 2011 budget, and $5 billion in additional nuclear-weapons spending over five years.

The 67 votes needed in the Senate to ratify the test-ban treaty, adopted by the U.N. in 1996, are still a ways off, but the administration's challenge to the left is intended to pull key Republican senators on board. At the same time, the vice president will push the case to Republicans that two decades without a nuclear test and a maturing scientific program to keep weapons safe without testing have proven that testing is obsolete...

The Obama administration's carefully choreographed effort to advance nuclear-arms control is already off schedule.

"The focus should be on getting the START treaty signed and ratified, building some arms-control confidence, then perhaps reviewing [the test-ban treaty] at a later date," said Andy Fisher, a senior Lugar adviser. "The safety of our weapons is still in question without testing."

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Feb 2010 08:52

Biden on nuke policy: "We will remain undeniably strong"

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... bly_strong

Capabilities like an adaptive missile defense shield, conventional warheads with worldwide reach, and others that we are developing enable us to reduce the role of nuclear weapons, as other nuclear powers join us in drawing down. With these modern capabilities, even with deep nuclear reductions, we will remain undeniably strong.

A decade ago, we led this effort to negotiate this treaty in order to keep emerging nuclear states from perfecting their arsenals and to prevent our rivals from pursuing ever more advanced weapons. We are confident that all reasonable concerns raised about the treaty back then - concerns about verification and the reliability of our own arsenal - have now been addressed. The test ban treaty is as important as ever.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 20 Feb 2010 03:50

Russia 'very alarmed' by Iran nuclear report

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Feb 2010 18:07

Syria shuns IAEA call for more inspectors' access

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Feb 2010 06:18

National Security Council
July 23rd 1987
Memorandum for Robert B. Oakley
From: Shirin Tahir-Kheli
Subject: Dealing with Pakistan's nuclear program: a US strategy
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/file_dow ... an0021.pdf

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 Feb 2010 09:37

Think Again: Nuclear Weapons

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... ?page=full

"Nuclear Weapons Are the Greatest Threat to Humankind."

No.

"Obama's Plan to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons Is a Good One."

Not necessarily.

"A Nuclear Explosion Would Cripple the U.S. Economy."

Only if Americans let it.

"Terrorists Could Snap Up Russia's Loose Nukes."

That's a myth.

"Al Qaeda Is Searching for a Nuclear Capability."

Prove it.

"Fabricating a Bomb Is 'Child's Play.'"

Hardly.

"Iranian and North Korean Nukes Are Intolerable."

Not unless we overreact.

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 22 Feb 2010 20:14

US to build two new nuclear power stations

President Barack Obama has announced more than $8bn (£5bn) of federal loan guarantees to begin building the first US nuclear power stations for 30 years.
...There have been no new nuclear power plants started in the US since the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island.
...Meanwhile, there are currently 56 new nuclear reactors being built around the world.

Avinash R · Post by **Avinash R** » 22 Feb 2010 20:25

abhishek_sharma wrote:Think Again: Nuclear Weapons

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... ?page=full

"Al Qaeda Is Searching for a Nuclear Capability."

Prove it.

Al Qaeda's Quest for the Bomb

According to an Al Qaeda defector, an attempt was made to buy nuclear material in South Africa in order to build an “improvised nuclear device” for $1.5 million.

In 1996 Zawahiri himself was detained in Russia, but released by the security services. The speculation was that he was trying to buy a bomb. Zawahiri once said that for $30 million it should be possible to buy a suitcase nuke from a disaffected former Soviet scientist. In 1998 he took personal control of Al Qaeda’s nuclear and biological weapons programs.

That same year bin Laden issued a “fatwa” saying that it was a good Muslim’s duty to “kill Americans and their allies, civilians and military ...” It was followed by the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. That December, bin Laden told a Time Magazine reporter that acquiring weapons of mass destruction “for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty.”

Despite its interest in chemical and biological weapons, Al Qaeda seems focused on the nuclear option. Its stated goal is to kill four million Americans. While the world focuses on Iran as the greatest potential source of nuclear proliferation, the clearest danger may be forming somewhere in Pakistan under the direction of Zawahri and bin Laden.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 Feb 2010 05:57

Secret files: Tinners did work for CIA

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 23 Feb 2010 09:05

Facing nuclear reality

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2 ... ar_reality

In the end, however, the administration's budget request is but a partial solution. The United States is the only nuclear power that is not modernizing its arsenal, and neither the administration nor Congress shows any inclination to change that fact. The newest weapons on the U.S. arsenal were designed decades ago, and the expertise to design new ones represents a critical shortfall. Absent modernization, the United States will eventually face the prospect of unilateral nuclear disarmament.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 23 Feb 2010 09:13

U.S. allies pressure Obama over nuke plans

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... nuke_plans

The Japanese aren't the only allies calling for quick action on Obama's pledge to move toward a nuclear free world, as promised in his April speech in Prague. On Feb. 20, Belgian officials announced they would spearhead a call by Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Norway for the U.S. to remove all of its nuclear warheads from Europe.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Feb 2010 06:17

UK Army chiefs question need for Trident nuclear deterrent

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 25 Feb 2010 07:26

No "New START" in 2010, Hill sources predict

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... es_predict

There's a growing realization both inside the administration and on Capitol Hill that Senate ratification of the START follow-on treaty with Russia will probably not happen this year.

So what does this mean for the rest of the administration's arms control agenda? Probably a delay until next year for a push to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as well. That agreement has even less chance than the START follow-on of garnering Republican support.

"In the end, Kyl isn't so much opposed to START, but he is really opposed to CTBT," one Hill aide said.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 25 Feb 2010 08:07

The New Nuclear Age Shifts East

Registration( Free for a 30 day period) required.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 28 Feb 2010 04:15

U.N. urges Iraq to ratify atomic inspection protocol

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 01 Mar 2010 09:51

White House Is Rethinking Nuclear Policy

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/po ... 1nuke.html

As President Obama begins making final decisions on a broad new nuclear strategy for the United States, senior aides say he will permanently reduce America’s arsenal by thousands of weapons. But the administration has rejected proposals that the United States declare it would never be the first to use nuclear weapons, aides said.

As described by those officials, the new strategy commits the United States to developing no new nuclear weapons, including the nuclear bunker-busters advocated by the Bush administration. But Mr. Obama has already announced that he will spend billions of dollars more on updating America’s weapons laboratories to assure the reliability of what he intends to be a much smaller arsenal. Increased confidence in the reliability of American weapons, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said in a speech in February, would make elimination of “redundant” nuclear weapons possible.

Other officials, not officially allowed to speak on the issue, say that in back-channel discussions with allies, the administration has also been quietly broaching the question of whether to withdraw American tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, where they provide more political reassurance than actual defense. Those weapons are now believed to be in Germany, Italy, Belgium, Turkey and the Netherlands.

At the same time, the new document will steer the United States toward more non-nuclear defenses. It relies more heavily on missile defense, much of it arrayed within striking distance of the Persian Gulf, focused on the emerging threat from Iran. Mr. Obama’s recently published Quadrennial Defense Review also includes support for a new class of non-nuclear weapons, called “Prompt Global Strike,” that could be fired from the United States and hit a target anywhere in less than an hour.

The idea, officials say, would be to give the president a non-nuclear option for, say, a large strike on the leadership of Al Qaeda in the mountains of Pakistan, or a pre-emptive attack on an impending missile launch from North Korea. But under Mr. Obama’s strategy, the missiles would be based at new sites around the United States that might even be open to inspection, so that Russia and China would know that a missile launched from those sites was not nuclear — to avoid having them place their own nuclear forces on high alert.

But the big question confronting Mr. Obama is how he will describe the purpose of America’s nuclear arsenal. It is far more than just an academic debate.

Some leading Democrats, led by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have asked Mr. Obama to declare that the “sole purpose” of the country’s nuclear arsenal is to deter nuclear attack. “We’re under considerable pressure on this one within our own party,” one of Mr. Obama’s national security advisers said recently.

But inside the Pentagon and among many officials in the White House, Mr. Obama has been urged to retain more ambiguous wording — declaring that deterring nuclear attack is the primary purpose of the American arsenal, not the only one. That would leave open the option of using nuclear weapons against foes that might threaten the United States with biological or chemical weapons or transfer nuclear material to terrorists.

...

While Mr. Obama ended financing last year for a new nuclear warhead sought by the Bush administration, the new strategy goes further. It commits Mr. Obama to developing no new nuclear weapons, including a low-yield, deeply-burrowing nuclear warhead that the Pentagon sought to strike buried targets, like the nuclear facilities in North Korea and Iran. Mr. Obama, officials said, has determined he could not stop other countries from seeking new weapons if the United States was doing the same.

Still, some of Mr. Obama’s critics in his own party say the change is symbolic because he is spending more to improve old weapons.

At the center of the new strategy is a renewed focus on arms control and nonproliferation agreements, which were largely dismissed by the Bush administration. That includes an effort to win passage of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was defeated during the Clinton administration and faces huge hurdles in the Senate, and revisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to close loopholes that critics say have been exploited by Iran and North Korea.

Mr. Obama’s reliance on new, non-nuclear Prompt Global Strike weapons is bound to be contentious. As described by advocates within the Pentagon and in the military, the new weapons could achieve the effects of a nuclear weapon, without turning a conventional war into a nuclear one. As a result, the administration believes it could create a new form of deterrence — a way to contain countries that possess or hope to develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, without resorting to a nuclear option.