International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 30 Mar 2009 23:03

The government has announced that it is putting the commercial arm of the UK's Atomic Energy Agency, UKAEA Limited, up for sale.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 31 Mar 2009 02:11

Gaddafi: No recognition of a nuclear-armed Israel

'We cannot recognize Israel while they have nuclear weapons and we have modest weapons,' Gaddafi said. 'And we should insist on the return of the displaced. We cannot recognize Israel until they agree to these two demands.'

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 31 Mar 2009 02:13

South Africa, China join forces in commercialisation of pebble bed nuclear technology

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Apr 2009 13:24

Disarmamanet the new mantra.I'd previuosly posted some intriguing excerpts about how we came very close to total N-disarmament during the Gorby-Reagan talks,sabotaged by Nitze.The futility of expecting N-weapons to keep the peace-as is being shown in the global campaign against terror,and the need to disarm,is being strongly advocated by several US experts.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 011286.ece

Scrapping nuclear arms is now realpolitik

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 01 Apr 2009 19:00

N. Korea miniaturized nuclear warheads for Rodong missiles: expert

The U.S. and South Korean intelligence authorities have obtained information that North Korea has succeeded in miniaturizing nuclear bombs made using plutonium extracted from its Yongbyon nuclear complex

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 02 Apr 2009 01:35

Obama and Medvedev Work to Reduce Nuclear Warheads

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 02 Apr 2009 01:40

IAEA may need intelligence arm against atom terror

The U.N. atomic watchdog may need to set up its own intelligence unit to combat a growing menace of nuclear terrorism, a former senior CIA official said in an interview Wednesday.

"It's urgent because there's been a fundamental breakdown in nuclear security. The record of material seizures shows they have been serendipitous, not because (police) were looking for it," said Mowatt-Larssen. "We are living on borrowed time. The problem is too overwhelming for bilateral and unilateral efforts alone."

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 02 Apr 2009 01:42

North Korea 'has capacity for nuclear strike' on Seoul and Tokyo

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 02 Apr 2009 03:04

Engaging China and Russia on Nuclear Disarmament
http://cns.miis.edu/opapers/op15/op15.pdf

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 03 Apr 2009 02:50

IAEA chief welcomes Russian-US nuclear commitments

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 03 Apr 2009 02:50

General Petraeus warns Israel may strike Iran first over nuclear fears

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 03 Apr 2009 04:40

Heart Cells Can Regenerate, Nuclear-Bomb Evidence Shows

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 04 Apr 2009 03:05

240 fires on UK nuclear submarines

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 04 Apr 2009 03:06

Louisiana Air Base Picked for U.S. Nuclear Command

The U.S. Air Force has elected to house its new Global Strike Command, responsible for the nation's nuclear bombers and missiles, at Barksdale Air Force Base, La.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 04 Apr 2009 05:42

Subcritical Testing at Lop Nor

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 04 Apr 2009 16:49

Areva Signs Pact To Supply MOX Fuel To Japanese Nuclear Plant

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 04 Apr 2009 17:19

The perils of nuclear disarmament: How relinquishment could result in disaster

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 05 Apr 2009 02:39

Obama to Announce Push For Nuclear Disarmament

"This weekend in Prague I will lay out the agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons," he said.

Notice the language. Not an agenda for a a world without nukes. An agenda to seek the goal of a world without nukes, the goal being somewhere in the far future, the agenda being arms control not disarmament - CTBT, FMCT etc.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 05 Apr 2009 18:12

Pathetic.
Just CTBT + FMCT. That won't wash at the NPT review.....

Obama promotes nuclear-free world

But as long as a nuclear threat existed, the US would retain its nuclear capability, although it would work to reduce its arsenal. He said his administration would work to bring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) into force in order to achieve a global ban on nuclear testing.

He said he hoped to negotiate a new treaty to end the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. ... Although his nuclear goals might not be realised in his lifetime, he said he would strive to achieve them.

Many obstacles to Obama nuclear dream

He is 47 years old, so, given that the life expectancy in the US is about 78, that means another thirty years or more in which the goal might not be realised. And nobody knows what might happen in that time.

Sceptics might also argue that President Obama is trying to head off criticism of the US in advance of the five-yearly review conference of the NPT which comes next year.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 06 Apr 2009 02:25

Kazakhstan Offers To Host 'Nuclear Bank'

Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic and nuclear weapons state, approached the White House in recent weeks to volunteer to host an international "nuclear fuel bank" where nations that renounce nuclear weapons can purchase fissile fuel for nuclear energy reactors, a senior White House official said Sunday.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 06 Apr 2009 20:02

Gerard wrote:Kazakhstan Offers To Host 'Nuclear Bank'
Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic and nuclear weapons state, approached the White House in recent weeks to volunteer to host an international "nuclear fuel bank" where nations that renounce nuclear weapons can purchase fissile fuel for nuclear energy reactors, a senior White House official said Sunday.

Ah................ My very favorite.

GNEP re-surfaces with a different host!!!!

Obama is chasing the same policy that Bush put forth, with two twists: 1) Obama is willing for the "bank" to be hosted outside the US (and specifically in a Soviet country - see below) and 2) make no exceptions when it comes to rules (India beware).

U.S. Offers to Cut Nuclear Arms

Basing such a bank in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet state and nuclear-weapons test site that still hosts Russian space launches, would be the clearest sign yet that the administration is willing to make compromises to win Russian support for new arms efforts.

One more thing: Obama is considering handing over this "bank" to the IAEA, which Bush did not want to do.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 06 Apr 2009 22:58

Anti-nuclear Nuclearism

The Obama administration is likely to continue a policy that we call “anti-nuclear nuclearism.” Anti-nuclear nuclearism is a foreign and military policy that relies upon overwhelming U.S. power, including the nuclear arsenal, but makes rhetorical and even some substantive commitments to disarmament, however vaguely defined. Anti-nuclear nuclearism thrives as a school of thought in several think tanks that have long influenced foreign policy choices related to global nuclear forces. Even the national nuclear weapons development labs in New Mexico and California have been avid supporters and crafters of of it.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 07 Apr 2009 05:32

Patience with Pyongyang
By Hans Blix

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 07 Apr 2009 06:05

Why Not a World Without Nukes?

The NPT requires signatory nations "to negotiate in good faith" toward total, worldwide nuclear disarmament. This has been official U.S. policy for 40 years: We seek a world with no nuclear weapons. Obama said nothing new.

Has any U.S. administration really been serious about the prospect of eliminating all nuclear weapons? Of course not -- and neither has any government of any of the other nuclear powers that belong to the NPT. To abandon the goal of disarmament, though, would weaken the treaty's ability to dissuade nuclear-capable nations from becoming nuclear-armed nations.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 07 Apr 2009 07:33

Iran supports US-backed nuclear fuel bank idea

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 07 Apr 2009 07:40

Obama's nuclear-free world

The main beneficiary of the nuclear-free world would be the United States. As the supreme conventional military power, America would enjoy extraordinary strategic advantages in the post-nuclear environment. Our cities would be safe from annihilation. Conventional forces would be free to operate globally without the risk of nuclear attack. Command of the air and sea would be unquestioned. The United States would enjoy unchallenged escalation dominance and would be able to intervene in a greater number of regions with more force, without fear that an unforeseen series of events could lead to uncontrolled nuclear conflagration

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 07 Apr 2009 07:44

Japanese perceptions of Obama's nuclear 'twin commitments'

Japan would not welcome fewer U.S. nuclear forces if this results in diminished U.S. leverage in negotiations. * Japan is concerned about a possible shift in Chinese deterrence doctrine as a result of reduced U.S. nuclear dominance between the U.S. and China. Japan does not want: (1) the U.S. to have nuclear parity with China, which leads to quasi-mutual assured destruction in U.S.-China nuclear relations; (2) to encourage China to shift its doctrine from minimum deterrence to limited deterrence, which gives China more options and freedom of maneuver in nuclear warfare; or (3) to encourage China to increase its reliance on theater deterrence, which would include increasing medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) that could target Japan without fearing retaliatory forces.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Apr 2009 08:03

Gerard wrote:Japanese perceptions of Obama's nuclear 'twin commitments'
Japan would not welcome fewer U.S. nuclear forces if this results in diminished U.S. leverage in negotiations. * Japan is concerned about a possible shift in Chinese deterrence doctrine as a result of reduced U.S. nuclear dominance between the U.S. and China. Japan does not want: (1) the U.S. to have nuclear parity with China, which leads to quasi-mutual assured destruction in U.S.-China nuclear relations; (2) to encourage China to shift its doctrine from minimum deterrence to limited deterrence, which gives China more options and freedom of maneuver in nuclear warfare; or (3) to encourage China to increase its reliance on theater deterrence, which would include increasing medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) that could target Japan without fearing retaliatory forces.

The Japanese are so full of - you know what. As long as they have an umbrella they will pontificate to the rest of the world to denuke!!

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 07 Apr 2009 09:30

A £1bn nuclear white elephant

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Apr 2009 02:34

Getting to Zero: An Interview With International Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Commission Co-Chair Gareth Evans
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2009_4/Evans

ACT: You have spoken in the past about the need to bring the three non-NPT members into the global nonproliferation disarmament regime. How do you think the international community can best achieve that goal?

Evans: You have three logical options. One, which is not really an option at all, is to get them to sign up for the NPT itself, wearing either a nuclear-weapon-state hat or a non-nuclear-weapon-state hat, either of which seem to be totally implausible notwithstanding the endless numbers of speeches that continue to be made to this effect. The rituals of First Committees and NPT PrepComs and review conferences do seem to be in need of a bump along.[9]

The second approach is to say, let's have a new whiz-bang nuclear weapons convention which basically starts from the beginning and brings together all the good things that are in the NPT, and the FMCT, and the CTBT, and creates a new universe from scratch-that has a place for these guys in it. There is a tactical question whether there is still some utility in trying to start an Ottawa or Oslo kind of process just to energize the grass roots for that sort of campaign.[10] In terms of getting real world results in the short to medium term, I think that is difficult to imagine happening.

So this leaves you with the third option, which is to somehow find other forms of discipline: new regimes, new strategies-bilateral, plurilateral, multilateral-that can subject these guys to global disciplines both on the nonproliferation and on the disarmament side. In that context, we have now the India-U.S. nuclear deal. The good thing you can say about it is that it does demonstrate that there are ways out there, institutionally, of subjecting nuclear-armed states presently outside the NPT to various disciplines that will be important in the long run. The fact that the Indians have to safeguard at least some of their facilities is an important step forward. But the trouble is that it is not nearly as good a deal as it should have been. Clearly it is a very weak discipline to which India is being exposed-with basically no inhibitions on fissile material production, not even on the issue of testing. It is not a model to be emulated, but it does point the way forward. We do have to somehow create parallel structures, parallel processes, parallel forms of discipline, and gradually bring people aboard on them.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Apr 2009 03:21

Nuclear test-ban treaty chief: US must ratify pact

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Apr 2009 03:32

End favouritism for Israel: Fraser

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Apr 2009 03:35

Afrikantov OKBM completes installation and adjustment of main equipment of CEFR in China

Specialists of Afrikantov OKBM OJSC (100% subsidiary of Atomenergoprom OJSC) have completed the installation and adjustment of the main equipment (reactor safety systems, heat exchangers, reloaders, control devices) of the China Experimental Fast Reactor (CEFR), a project that is being implemented with the support of Russian companies.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Apr 2009 05:51

Biden put in charge of nuclear non-proliferation

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Apr 2009 06:05

Defense Secretary Robert Gates Holds Briefing on Defense Budget

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I’m wondering, aside from the Air Force, which was what you discussed last year regarding a nuclear enterprise, I’m wondering what changes will be reflected in the budget dealing with changes you’re making to nuclear oversight or stewardship across the DOD enterprise based on the recommendations of the Schlesinger task force’s (inaudible) report.

GATES: Correct me on this, but I think that we have an additional $700 million in the budget for nuclear surety.

Is that about -- that’s about right, about $700 million for nuclear surety that takes into account all of the things you just described.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Apr 2009 06:09

Brits' nuclear sub accident surfaces

A BRITISH nuclear-powered submarine with 130 crew crashed into Australia's continental shelf off the coast of Perth in a potentially deadly accident that was covered up at the time.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Apr 2009 00:45

US moves on Iran N-trade

Hmmmmmmmmmm...

New York prosecutors joined with the Obama administration yesterday to shut down a China-based network that allegedly supplied Iran's nuclear and missile programmes with the unwitting aid of some of Wall Street's biggest banks.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 09 Apr 2009 02:34

States threatening to halt payments if U.S. cancels Yucca Mountain

Several legislatures of states with nuclear power plants are considering stopping or reducing payments to the federal government for nuclear waste management until the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nev., repository opens or another solution to the waste problem emerges.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 09 Apr 2009 02:49

Nuke watchdogs seek US weapon lab consolidation

Nuclear watchdog groups are proposing that the U.S. reduce its nuclear weapons complex to just three sites as a step toward the nuclear weapons-free world that President Barack Obama envisioned in a speech days ago in Prague.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 09 Apr 2009 02:55

Kangarooistan soon to be homeland for the non-proliferation ayatollahs?

Imagine there's no bomb

Australia should prepare for a world free of nuclear weapons by "walking the talk". We should reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our own security policies, as we call on nuclear weapon states to do. To ensure that we are part of the solution and not the problem also means that the international safeguards on which we depend to ensure that our uranium does not now or in the future contribute to proliferation, need substantial strengthening and universal application. Our reliance on the "extended nuclear deterrence" provided by the US should be reviewed so that Australian facilities and personnel could not contribute to possible use of nuclear weapons, and we anticipate and promote by our actions a world freed from nuclear weapons. Canada championed the treaty banning landmines, or Ottawa Treaty; Norway led the way on the cluster munitions with the Oslo Convention. Why should the Nuclear Weapons Convention the world needs and deserves not be championed and led by Australia and become known as the Canberra (or Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane) Convention?

Malcolm Fraser (former prime minister), Sir Gustav Nossal (research scientist), Dr Barry Jones (former Labor government minister), General Peter Gration (former Defence Force chief), Lieutenant-General John Sanderson (former chief of the army and former governor of Western Australia) and Associate Professor Tilman Ruff (national president of the Medical Association for Prevention of War Australia).