International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 13 Jun 2008 11:07

Hardly any nuke reactors are being built in the US which means its not at all cost effective for them. Same could well be true for India. The decomissioning cost of old reactors in the UK is astronomical. Someone is obviously making a ton of money off taxpayers by inflating the bill by a factor of 10 to 100X.

The cost of decommissioning ageing nuclear power sites has risen "rapidly" in the past few years by £12bn to £73bn ($146b) , according to an official report. The National Audit Office (NAO) said costs were rising, even for the most imminent work. It said the industry faced "significant challenges".

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 Jun 2008 04:44

Reactor Grade Plutonium's Explosive Properties
by J. Carson Mark
http://www.nci.org/NEW/NT/rgpu-mark-90.pdf

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 14 Jun 2008 17:38

Anybody want some plutonium?

Nuclear waste to be buried near homes?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 16 Jun 2008 05:12

Revealed: Australia spy targets

"We put quite a lot of effort into the Japanese target," he said.

"After all they have lots of nuclear reactors, an advanced space sector and an enormous stockpile of plutonium. There's no Japanese intention now to get nuclear weapons, but who knows what the world will look like in a decade or two decades' time.

"A disarmament commission is all very fine, but the Japanese have all the knowledge and kit to become a nuclear power in a matter of months if they wanted to and we have to cover all the possibilities however remote they may seem now."

The issue of Japan's growing plutonium stockpile has recently attracted significant international attention, with Australian National University emeritus professor Gavan McCormack labelling Japan "a plutonium superpower".

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Jun 2008 19:49

X-Posting:

June 15, 2008 :: Smugglers Had Design For Advanced Warhead

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 17 Jun 2008 07:22

India to join group against nuke terror

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 17 Jun 2008 08:59

Russia may help Britain scrap nuclear submarines

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Jun 2008 05:52

DER SPIEGEL: TROUBLE IN TACKLING KHAN NETWORK
Intelligence Agencies Undermine Nuclear Smuggling Trial

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Jun 2008 06:05

Official: US has to stop the nuclear black market

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 20 Jun 2008 02:42

The House Energy and Water Subcommittee denies funding for the RRW

With no such plan delivered, the fiscal year 2009 bill again denies all funding for RRW. There is no sense in expending the taxpayer’s hard earned dollars absent a clear plan for the complex.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 21 Jun 2008 05:01

Nuclear parts missing, says US report

The US military cannot locate hundreds of sensitive nuclear missile components, according to government officials familiar with a Pentagon report on nuclear safeguards.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Jun 2008 07:51

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Is Obsolete

By JANE HARMAN
June 20, 2008; Page A11

If claims by Iran that it's building 3,000 more centrifuges to enrich nuclear fuel are true, then the Bush administration and Congress face a more serious challenge than we first thought. Even assuming that Iran intends to use nuclear energy solely for peaceful purposes – and there are very good reasons to doubt Iran's stated intentions – the dangers posed by unsupervised, weapons-grade material in the hands of a regime that has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" are unacceptable.

The best course would be to persuade Iran to abandon its designs on the bomb and make its nuclear activities completely transparent to international authorities – as three United Nations Resolutions have required.

But Iran is not the only problem. Other countries may travel down the same path, waving the banner of peaceful nuclear energy. Some – including North Korea – already have, and the international system is ill-prepared to prevent wannabes.

Today's legal regime is no match for the wide dissemination of nuclear technology. Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) standards are obsolete, and the growth in the sheer number of nuclear facilities world-wide has made it difficult for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to achieve its mission.

Moreover, the NPT cuts most of the world out of the nuclear weapons club. It grandfathered in states that had nuclear weapons before 1967, and said that only they could keep them. Given the skyrocketing demand for alternatives to oil, we have to expect that more countries will want to develop nuclear energy. We need a system that allows states to pursue nuclear energy but prevents them from developing nuclear weapons under the radar.

According to IAEA Director Mohammed ElBaradei, what's needed is a multinational initiative that ensures uninterrupted supplies of fuel, regardless of market disturbances or disagreements with suppliers. But the next NPT conference is scheduled for 2010. We should not wait two years to consider a new path.

In 1946, American presidential adviser Bernard Baruch called for countries to transfer ownership and control over civil nuclear activities and materials to a new international organization. Seven years later, President Dwight Eisenhower rolled parts of Baruch's plan into the "Atoms for Peace" initiative, which laid the groundwork for the IAEA. These ideas, though they advanced important goals, were never fully implemented, partly because demand for nuclear energy was low and the nuclear club was relatively small.

More recently, the Department of Energy attempted to tackle this issue by creating a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) – a blueprint for an international organization to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. Although 19 countries bought in to GNEP, it has failed to stem the spread of nuclear technology – largely because the Bush administration has treated it as a research and development initiative, and because the National Academies of Science concluded that it is dependent on technology that is unproven.

A more promising approach might be to create an international consortium of fuel centers that provide enrichment and reprocessing of nuclear fuel, and end-to-end oversight of nuclear resources. Driven by market demand, private companies could operate facilities with IAEA oversight, and participating states would agree not to engage in independent enriching and reprocessing. Material would be purchased from the international market, thereby creating supply assurance for nations who fear being denied fuel.

This concept is a private-sector version of the International Nuclear Fuel Authority envisioned by Sens. Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh, and could borrow from the low-enriched uranium "emergency" stockpile concept proposed by the Nuclear Threat Initiative.

It differs from piecemeal ideas like Iran's 2006 offer that France create a means for production of enriched uranium in Iran, Russia's notion that all of Iran's enrichment take place on Russian soil, or the Saudi suggestion that Switzerland enrich nuclear material for the Middle East. These ideas would not advance U.S. counterproliferation goals. Instead, a comprehensive international consortium would make nuclear energy available and cost effective for countries while solving the guessing game Iran has played by denying its nuclear weapons ambitions.

Even Al Gore agrees that nuclear energy must be considered as the world reduces reliance on fossil fuels and starts to meet the energy demands of exploding populations. Some argue that the nuclear renaissance is already upon us – 23 new permit applications for nuclear reactors have been filed in the past two years in the U.S. alone, and another 150 are planned across the globe.

Iran's unsupervised nuclear program poses an existential threat to Israel and possibly other nations. While we can't take away the knowledge gained through their clandestine program, by "renting" only the amount of fuel necessary for production of peaceful nuclear energy, we may be able to convert these threats posed by Iran and future Irans into a roadmap to nuclear security for the entire world.

Ms. Harman, a Democratic congresswoman from California, is chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jun 2008 16:42

Syria, NKorea helped Iran develop nuclear programme

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jun 2008 21:41

Nuclear chief warns of 'ball of fire'

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Jun 2008 21:42

North Korea invites TV crews for nuclear show

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jun 2008 16:53

New Nuclear Plants Are On Their Way, With Federal Help

BY REINHARDT KRAUSE AND SEAN HIGGINS

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 6/20/2008

With $18.5 billion up for grabs, the Energy Department's loan guarantee program is expected to restart building nuclear plants in the U.S. after a three-decade hiatus.

However, the nuclear industry's resurgence could be short-lived.

The $18.5 billion may be enough to partially fund only three or four nuclear plants, analysts say. About a dozen proposals are expected to vie for the financing. The DOE will begin the review process later this summer.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects up to 21 applications by year-end to build 32 reactors.

The presidential election may be key to nuclear's revival. Democrat Barack Obama isn't likely to support extending loan guarantees. Republican John McCain wants 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030.

With banks short of capital, the availability of low-interest rate government credit is vital to large-scale projects like nuclear plants.

They take 4-5 years to build — though the approval process can be far longer — and cost billions of dollars each. Costs vary depending on how much electricity the power plants generate.

"The range seems to be between $6 billion or $7 billion to $10 billion to build one plant," said Robert Hornick, a senior director at credit rater Fitch. "So you can see how the federal loan guarantee program, with $18.5 billion, doesn't get you too far."

Others put the per-plant cost at $5 billion to $8 billion.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized loan guarantees for several technologies, including coal, solar, wind and nuclear. Congress has authorized $42.5 billion for loans — $18.5 billion for nuclear.

Presidential Divide

There is an assumption that the government will offer more loan guarantees, Hornick says.

Not so fast, says Jason Grumen, chief energy policy adviser to the Obama campaign.

"(Obama) believes that the loan guarantees in the current act were substantial and sufficient," Grumen said. "He is eager to make sure that the (DOE) acts efficiently to move forward with those loan guarantees but he believes that nuclear power has received more than fair treatment in recent legislation."

Loan guarantees cover up to 80% of construction costs. Utilities, some of which have formed consortiums, are expected to provide 20% in equity. The Treasury may directly finance certain projects.

"I don't expect that projects backed by federal loan guarantees will have any trouble when they come to market in 2010 or 2011," said Richard Myers, vice president for policy development at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group.

Because of the hefty investments needed to build nuclear plants, the industry may see big changes, says Glenn George, vice president at NERA economic consulting.

"There may be consolidation at the company level, more consortia or pooling among developers, or market entry by some of Europe's bigger utilities or by well-capitalized players that haven't been in the generation business — the oil majors or somebody else," he said.

Utilities Unite

Many utilities are indeed joining forces to line up financing.

UniStar Nuclear Energy is a joint venture between Constellation Energy (CEG) and EDF, a French energy giant that operates more than 50 nuclear reactors. A handful of U.S. utilities have joined UniStar, which plans to use nuclear technology from France-based Areva.

Nine U.S. utilities are in NuStart Energy, including Entergy, (ETR) Duke, (DUK) Exelon, (EXC) Progress Energy, (PGN) SCANA (SCG) and Southern Co. (SO) The group favors nuclear tech from GE and Westinghouse, owned by Japan's Toshiba.

Seeking to widen its U.S. business, Toshiba has invested in NRG Energy's (NRG) planned two nuclear plants.

DOE must award loan guarantees by 2009. They're contingent on utilities getting build and operate licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC is reviewing applications for 15 reactors from consortiums or utilities.

New nuclear power plants aren't expected to produce electricity until 2013 or 2014, at the earliest.

One utility seems ready to plow ahead without federal guarantees. SCANA's South Carolina Electric & Gas said in May it would build two nuclear plants for $9.8 billion.

Federal financing gets the most attention, but the 2005 energy act also offers up to $125 million in annual tax credits for nuclear plants' first eight years of operation.

That's key to attracting investors, says Robert Michaels, economics professor at California State University, Fullerton.

He adds, "It's becoming very difficult to site the most logical alternative, which is coal-fired plants."

Many nations plan to expand nuclear power, viewed as a clean, carbon-free electricity source, despite waste disposal concerns. Nuclear reactors are more costly to build than coal- or gas-fired plants. But operating costs are far lower.

McCain has been a long-time supporter of nuclear power. He says it provides about 20% of U.S. electricity, despite a halt in building.

"In Europe and elsewhere, they have been expanding their use of nuclear energy," McCain said in a June 17 speech. "But we've waited so long that we've lost our domestic capability to even build these power plants. Nuclear power is among the surest ways to gain a clean, abundant and stable energy supply, as other nations understand. If they have the vision to set and carry out great goals in energy policy, then why don't we?"

Copyright 2000-2008 Investor's Business Daily, Inc. Click here for copyright permissions!
Copyright 2000-2008 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jun 2008 22:57

N.Korea invites media to nuclear plant blast

Sarkozy warns of nuclear-armed Iran

EU imposes new sanctions on Iran

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 23 Jun 2008 23:03

AQ Khan 'nuclear middleman' freed

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 Jun 2008 04:38

German parties press U.S. to withdraw nuclear arms

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 Jun 2008 04:40

Gordon Brown seeks Sellafield nuclear deal with Japan

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 Jun 2008 04:42

US Navy's Newest Nuclear Submarine Christened By 9/11 Widow; Ready For Sea

nkumar · Post by **nkumar** » 24 Jun 2008 10:36

Russia’s nuclear interest revived

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 25 Jun 2008 01:07

Arab World nuclear race / Who has what, and from where

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 25 Jun 2008 20:41

Total nuclear disarmament of India by the west is the aim: Pranab

http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/25/stories ... 801200.htm

AnantD · Post by **AnantD** » 26 Jun 2008 06:02

Neshant:

The news article says "Total Nuclear disarmamant is the aim" not

Total nuclear disarmament of India by the west is the aim: Pranab

Big difference there.

Read the article, its about the furthering the totally wasted effort towards the "concept" of nuclear disarmament by all the nuclear powers.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Jun 2008 18:36

One down?

Bush welcomes N. Korea move on nuclear program

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 27 Jun 2008 05:54

US braces for tough verification of NKorea's nuclear dossier

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 27 Jun 2008 05:59

The Nuclear Expert Who Never Was
By Scott Ritter

I am a former U.N. weapons inspector. I started my work with the United Nations in September 1991, and between that date and my resignation in August 1998, I participated in over 30 inspections, 14 as chief inspector.

I bring up this history because during the entire time of my intense, somewhat intimate cooperation with the IAEA Action Team, one name that never entered into the mix was David Albright.

I can’t say for certain when Albright became “Doctor” Albright. A self-described “physicist,” he allows the term to linger, as he does the title “former U.N. inspector,” in order to create the impression that he possesses a certain gravitas. David Albright holds a master of science degree in physics from Indiana University and a master of science in mathematics from Wright State University. I imagine that this résumé permits him to assign himself the title physicist, but not in the Robert Oppenheimer/Edward Teller sense of the word. Whatever physics work Albright may or may not have done in his life, one thing is certain: He has never worked as a nuclear physicist on any program dedicated to the design and/or manufacture of nuclear weapons. He has never designed nuclear weapons and never conducted mathematical calculations in support of testing nuclear weapons, nor has he ever worked in a facility or with an organization dedicated to either.

Eventually, one must begin to question the motives of Albright and ISIS. No self-respecting think tank would allow itself to be used in such an egregious manner. The fact that ISIS is a creation of Albright himself, and as such operates as a mirror image of its founder and president, only underscores the concerns raised when an individual lacking in any demonstrable foundation of expertise has installed himself into the mainstream media in a manner that corrupts the public discourse and debate by propagating factually incorrect, illogical and misleading information.

Albright, operating under the guise of his creation, ISIS, has a track record of inserting hype and speculation about matters of great sensitivity in a manner which skews the debate toward the worst-case scenario. Over time Albright often moderates his position, but the original sensationalism still remains, serving the purpose of imprinting a negative image in the psyche of public opinion. This must stop. It is high time the mainstream media began dealing with David Albright for what he is (a third-rate reporter and analyst), and what he isn’t (a former U.N. weapons inspector, doctor, nuclear physicist or nuclear expert). It is time for David Albright, the accidental inspector, to exit stage right. Issues pertaining to nuclear weapons and their potential proliferation are simply too serious to be handled by amateurs and dilettantes.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 27 Jun 2008 06:11

South Africa: Recycling of spent nuclear fuel on the cards

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 28 Jun 2008 07:41

US nuclear weapons reportedly out of UK

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 29 Jun 2008 01:51

Bhopali termite news....
ANALYSIS: More `near-nuclear' states may loom

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 29 Jun 2008 02:38

Nuclear warheads could explode 'like popcorn': report

A design defect in UK's nuclear weapons could cause warheads to detonate one after another in a chain reaction if they were accidentally dropped, according to Britain's nuclear-weapons safety manual.
According to the declassified nuclear-weapons safety manual, drawn up by Britain's Ministry of Defence internal nuclear-weapons regulator, more than 1,700 warheads are affected by the problem, which would cause them set off a chain reaction known as "popcorning" if they were accidentally dropped, The Daily Telegraph said.

Nuclear missiles could blow up 'like popcorn'

Nuclear warheads 'popcorning' alert

But the MoD manual argues that the standard single-point design may not be enough to prevent "popcorning" – a disastrous chain reaction of explosions that could occur as a result of warheads being stacked closely together.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 29 Jun 2008 02:53

DEBATING ARTICLE VI

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 29 Jun 2008 04:40

Debating Disarmament, Interpreting Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
By Christopher Ford
Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, November 2007

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol14/143/143ford.pdf

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 29 Jun 2008 04:43

The focus in the first of these paragraphs upon the parties’ intention to move toward
disarmament rather than upon some legal obligation or even any understanding that
such steps will inevitably occur obviously fits better with Article VI’s textual emphasis on
good faith pursuit than with the ICJ’s claim that there exists an implicit obligation ‘‘to
conclude’’ disarmament agreements. But the second of these two preambular paragraphs
goes even further, making clear that steps toward nuclear disarmament specifically,
ending the manufacture of nuclear weapons and eliminating nuclear weapons and
delivery systems are envisioned as occurring pursuant (rather than prior) to a treaty on
general and complete disarmament. Significantly, because such measures are not
described as steps expected before such an overall disarmament agreement is reached,
this language undercuts the idea that nuclear weapon states’ failure to agree on total
nuclear disarmament in advance of such a general treaty constitutes noncompliance.1

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2008 07:14

G,

Your Keeda "theory" being validated:

ANALYSIS: More `near-nuclear' states may loom

This just may be far more important that the deal India is about to sign and it, IMHO, will drive the vote in the US Congress - IF it reaches that stage. It would be a great irony if India signs and the US Congress rejects the 123:

By CHARLES J. HANLEY
The Associated Press
Saturday, June 28, 2008; 12:16 PM

-- It may have rattled windows and raised dust, but the blast that toppled a towering symbol of North Korea's atom-bomb project was a mere blip on a world map where more and more states may "go nuclear" _ or nearly so _ in the years to come.

At a recent meeting of members of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Ukrainian chairman sought to strike an upbeat note about the future, highlighting the "public and political momentum towards a world free of nuclear weapons."

Volodyrmyr Yelchenko was right: Statesmen as diverse as Henry Kissinger and Mikhail Gorbachev have taken up the cause of "nuclear abolition." And this year's U.S. presidential contenders both support a more favorable American stance toward arms control.

But other forces are pushing back. Renewed interest in nuclear energy, to stem global warming, is expected to give more states the technological building blocks for a bomb. The continuing revelations about the Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan's network, which reportedly had blueprints for a compact weapon, show that globalized nuclear smuggling is growing more sophisticated and dangerous.

As much as anything, the perpetuation of the exclusive club of "accepted" nuclear powers _ from old hands America and Russia to newest members India and Pakistan _ may lead others, frustrated with such a two-tier world, to consider challenging the doomsday cartel.

Even if North Korea follows through on Friday's destruction of the cooling tower at its Yongbyon complex and fully dismantles its weapons program, giving up its handful of bombs, it will still belong to another club of nuclear-capable states.

Those are the 40-plus countries with the scientists, engineers and infrastructure for building bombs _ and in at least one other case, that of South Africa, a history of having done so.

About a dozen are nuclear "rollback" states, ranging from Sweden and Switzerland, which seriously researched the weapon option in the 1950s and 1960s and then pulled back, to Iraq under Saddam Hussein, which desperately tried, and failed, to produce a bomb before the 1991 Gulf war.

Rebecca Hersman, a proliferation expert at Washington's National Defense University, stresses that nuclear rollback is "a process, not an outcome." Those who have been there before could go that way again.

"Success in the past by no means assures success in the future," Hersman says. The dominoes could fall the other way.

Success in the future, the specialists say, depends heavily on success in "rolling back" North Korea and Iran, which is accused by Washington and others of clandestinely planning a bomb. Iran denies that, saying its atomic program is aimed at using nuclear reactors to generate electricity.

If North Korea balks at final disarmament, if Iran moves toward an atomic arsenal despite international pressure, some of their neighbors may reconsider the nuclear option.

South Korea, still technically at war with the north, had a secret nuclear weapons program it abandoned in the 1970s, under U.S. pressure. Hersman says its first-rate nuclear-power industry today puts Seoul in an excellent position to quickly build a bomb if it feels threatened.

Across the Sea of Japan, in the only nation to have suffered atomic bombings, the possibility of a made-in-Japan bomb was a taboo subject for a half-century. In recent years, however, as the North Korean threat loomed larger, Tokyo's leadership has spoken more openly of that option. Its leading-edge nuclear establishment is well equipped for it.

Taiwan, another Asian "rollback" state, launched a secret weapons program in the 1970s, as it watched U.S.-China relations thaw and feared losing its American nuclear shield. By the late 1980s, under U.S. pressure, it ended its flirtation with the ultimate weapon, but it's believed capable of quickly reviving the program if tensions heighten with nuclear-armed China.

In step with Iran's year-by-year advances in uranium enrichment, a process key to both nuclear power and bomb-making, Saudi Arabia and Tehran's other Arab rivals across the Persian Gulf have plunged into planning for nuclear power, with French and U.S. help. The Arabs' Gulf Cooperation Council has proposed its own regional uranium-enrichment operation.

In Egypt, last January's announcement of plans for its first nuclear power plant could signal something of a "bounceback" four decades after nationalist President Gamal Abdel Nasser briefly explored the idea of nuclear arms.

Those who monitor such developments don't predict rapidly falling dominoes _ an impending "breakout" of new weapons states. Robert J. Einhorn, a former U.S. government arms-control specialist, notes that over the past 40 years more nations abandoned weapons programs than initiated them.

Instead, other countries may follow "rollback" state Brazil's example, positioning themselves as compliant with the Nonproliferation Treaty's ban on bombs, but equipping themselves with the power technology _ enrichment centrifuges _ that enable them "to move rapidly to weaponization if and when needed," as Einhorn says.

For some, near-nuclear may be near enough.

___

Charles J. Hanley has reported on nuclear-weapons issues for more than 20 years.
© 2008 The Associated Press

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2008 07:19

Nuclear weapons programs around the world

Visit the site to check out each nation's program.

By The Associated Press
The Associated Press
Saturday, June 28, 2008; 12:18 PM

-- A look at nuclear weapons programs around the world:

CONFIRMED NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITIES:

United States, Russia, China, France, Britain, Pakistan, India, North Korea

___

UNDECLARED NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITIES:

Israel

___

ALLEGED NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMS:

Iran, Syria

___

FORMER NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMS:

_ South Africa, Iraq, Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Sweden, Switzerland, Libya, ex-Soviet countries Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine (inherited Soviet-era weapons on their soil when Soviet Union disbanded)

Some governments, such as Sweden's, undertook nuclear weapons research programs but did not begin to build weapons. South Africa is the only country known to have built and then given up nuclear weapons.
© 2008 The Associated Press

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jun 2008 07:23

Rice calls on North Korea to come clean on uranium

nalysis: Nuclear papers leave many questions open

US nuclear weapons reportedly out of UK

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 29 Jun 2008 19:06

Dick Cheney 'tried to block North Korea nuclear deal'

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 29 Jun 2008 19:08

Bush exit may pave way for new nuclear security strategy

To reestablish the US nonproliferation leadership needed to repair the system, Kimball proposed that the next president act quickly to slash the still-bloated US and Russian nuclear arsenals, end the pursuit of new nuclear warheads and ratify the CTBT.

He also called for US-led efforts to make NPT holdouts such as India, Israel and Pakistan meet the commitments expected of NPT members.

Along with China, they should be lobbied to enter the mainstream by ratifying the CTBT and officially capping fissile material production, he said.