International Nuclear Watch & Discussion

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 09 May 2010 22:59

Democratic Brazil is not going to build a nuclear deterrent, but it certainly wants to be capable of doing so, if it one day proves necessary to maintaining its freedom of action.

You might compare it to the Indian position before the war with the PRC, and the Chinese test of 1964, or Algeria since the 1970s.

It seems quite unlikely however that Brazil would find itself in the position of India after 1962-64, Iran of the 1980s to present, or possibly the Japan of tomorrow. Latin America is a very different kind of neighborhood from other continents, even with the potential spillover of the US-Chavez antagonism.

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 10 May 2010 02:27

NRao wrote:"Chinese nuclear weapons pose no threat to other countries": envoy

If Chinese nukes donot pose any threat to anyone , why have them ?

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 11 May 2010 05:55

MIT-Italy-Russia Join Hands to Build New Tokamak Reactor: IGNITOR

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100430/ ... 0.214.html

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/fusi ... -0510.html

http://www.zeenews.com/news622266.html

Why doesn't India join in? We could really benefit from any energy research, and this is cheaper than ITER, which we've already signed onto.

Maybe our Italian political leadership could lobby on our behalf.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 14 May 2010 07:36

Obama Expands Modernization of Nuclear Arsenal

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/po ... reaty.html

praksam · Post by **praksam** » 18 May 2010 20:46

Miniature Nuclear Plants Seek Approval to Work in U.S

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... eO.Ce9I64I

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 21 May 2010 07:40

Some of the leading figures of the atomic age argue for a dramatic reduction in nuclear weapons — ultimately down to zero. Why?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... d_the_bomb

http://nucleartippingpoint.org/home.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 May 2010 02:24

The Four Nuclear Outlier States

http://www.cfr.org/publication/22164/fo ... tates.html

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 May 2010 02:30

abhishek_sharma wrote:Some of the leading figures of the atomic age argue for a dramatic reduction in nuclear weapons — ultimately down to zero. Why?

Not one of them will give a date for this eventual zero. Not in one year, five years, twenty years or a hundred years. They are simply engaged in deceitful posturing.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 May 2010 07:47

The Dangerous Illusion of 'Nuclear Zero'
By DOUGLAS J. FEITH AND ABRAM N. SHULSKY

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 09550.html

Consider the administration's recently released Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). One of the conditions that would permit the United States and others to give up their nuclear weapons "without risking greater international instability and insecurity" is "the resolution of regional disputes that can motivate rival states to acquire and maintain nuclear weapons." Another condition is not only "verification methods and technologies capable of detecting violations of disarmament obligations," but also "enforcement measures strong and credible enough to deter such violations."

The first condition would require ending the Arab-Israeli conflict, settling the Korean War, resolving Kashmir and the other India-Pakistan disputes, and defusing Iran's tensions with its neighbors and with the U.S. It also means solving any other significant conflicts that might arise.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 May 2010 17:36

Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu back in jail

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 23 May 2010 17:38

No oil spills with the nuclear option

Brazil's Take on Iran and NPT

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 May 2010 01:19

Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons
Exclusive: Secret apartheid-era papers give first official evidence of Israeli nuclear weapons

The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: "Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available." The document then records: "Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice."

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 May 2010 05:40

Uganda eyes nuclear power by 2018, to cover hydro shortfalls

“Even though we have a hydro potential in excess of 4,000MW along the river Nile, we cannot avoid nuclear energy because there are environmental limits to how much hydro you can get out of the river,” the NPA source observed.

Although Uganda has some 380MW of installed capacity on the Nile, output from the twin power stations at Nalubaale and Kiira at one point dwindled to 135MW due to a severe drop in Lake Victoria Water levels.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 24 May 2010 08:32

An Arsenal We Can All Live With

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24schaub.html

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 May 2010 16:38

^^^
the 311 warhead figure comes from here:

Remembrance of Things Past
http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2010/spring ... schaub.pdf

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 25 May 2010 08:06

All the nukes that you can use

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... ou_can_use

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 May 2010 16:05

Israel denies offering nuclear weapons for sale, but who believes it? The pic also shpowing Morchedai Vanunu,suddenly rearrsted perhaps as the Israelis had an inkling of the revelations and wanted to shut him up whil;e the controversy raged.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 81960.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 27 May 2010 00:47

UK has 'fewer than 225 nuclear weapons'

Britain has a total nuclear arsenal of fewer than 225 weapons, with 160 currently operational, Foreign Secretary William Hague said Wednesday.

Oooooouch.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 27 May 2010 00:59

UK has 4 SSBNs (one on patrol at all times). Each can carry 16 missiles but the UK doesn't lease enough Trident missiles to full arm 4 submarines. Average number of warheads (100 kt each) per SLBM is 3.

58 missiles - 10 for spare/test - with 48 deployed (3 subs - 1 in refit) means they only need 144 warheads.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 May 2010 01:21

Gerard wrote:Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons
Exclusive: Secret apartheid-era papers give first official evidence of Israeli nuclear weapons
The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: "Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available." The document then records: "Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice."

The report doesn't say Israel transferred any nukes to SA where as PRC did to TSP and TSP transferred stuff to Libya and Iran to make their own.

So this is like offering to sin (Israel) vs actually sinning(PRC and TSP).

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 29 May 2010 04:36

Report on the ongoing 2010 NPT Review Conference...
US stops clock on nuclear disarmament

On Thursday, a US diplomat drew a line in the sand by warning the US would reject the final document if it contained any reference to "time-bound disarmament"

So much for 'zero'

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 May 2010 07:17

UN talks back conference on nuclear-free Middle East

Pakistan is Arabic, right?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 May 2010 07:18

Better get good at kicking cans.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 29 May 2010 22:11

Israel rejects Middle East nuclear talks plan

Israel says it will not take part in a conference aimed at achieving a nuclear-arms free Middle East, proposed at a UN meeting in New York.

Nearly 200 nations, signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), backed plans for the meeting in 2012.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Jun 2010 06:31

More on the China-TSP deal. I guess, at least one admin, did not like the idea ox x-post into the TSP nuclear proliferation and deterrence threads. Clearly relevant, IMO. So, posting here.

Questionable China-Pakistan deal draws little comment from U.S.

China suggests the sale is grandfathered from before it joined the NSG, because it was completing work on two earlier reactors for Pakistan at the time. "China and Pakistan conduct civilian nuclear cooperation fully in compliance with the two countries' respective international obligations," said Chinese Embassy spokesman Wang Baodong. "The cooperation is transparent, only for peaceful purpose and subject to IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] supervision."

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Jun 2010 06:43

U.N. Says Iran Has Fuel for 2 Nuclear Weapons

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 03 Jun 2010 06:51

U.S. Says No, but Nuclear Option for Spill Gains Support

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 Jun 2010 00:50

To make the BP spill worse, go nuclear

http://hoffman.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... go_nuclear

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 Jun 2010 01:23

Nuclear Option on Gulf Oil Spill? No Way, U.S. Says

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 05 Jun 2010 08:33

The Breach
China is about to break important international rules designed to prevent nuclear proliferation. Can Beijing be stopped?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... the_breach

Right now, Pakistan is blocking negotiations at the U.N. Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, citing the U.S.-India deal and the NSG exemption for India. Many NSG states think that China -- the only one of the NPT's five nuclear-weapons states never to have declared a moratorium on producing fissile material for nuclear weapons -- stands behind Pakistan in holding up the negotiations.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 12 Jun 2010 09:04

Restarting a leaking reactor in Canada

The National Research Universal reactor supplied a third of the world's medical isotopes until it was shut down in May of last year after a pinprick-sized radioactive water leak was discovered. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. made a request Friday for a formal hearing in hopes of restarting medical isotope production at the Ontario plant by mid-summer.

First nuclear facility in 30 years

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has authorized startup of a $3 billion uranium enrichment plant in New Mexico, the first major nuclear facility to be licensed in the US in the past three decades.

arun · Post by **arun** » 15 Jun 2010 13:20

The Washington Post is reporting that the US Government is not buying PR China’s argument that the deal to supply the CHASNUPP 3 & 4 nuclear reactor to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is halal as it was grandfathered prior to PR China’s entry into the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG).

WaPo reports that the US will raise its objections to the deal during the NSG annual plenary meeting in New Zealand next week:

Washington objects to China-Pakistan nuclear deal

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 15 Jun 2010 22:24

i suspect its only an act. behind the scenes they support it.

the reason they publically object to it since it rubbishes the NPT.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 15 Jun 2010 23:02

Support it? if so...stupid yankees don't know what mess they are allowing it to develop.....I hope they update Israelis with whereabouts of paki missile silos...which can be shared with India.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 16 Jun 2010 05:09

Neshant wrote:the reason they publically object to it since it rubbishes the NPT.

The supply by China of civilian nuclear reactors, under IAEA safeguards, to Pakistan does not violate the NPT

arun · Post by **arun** » 16 Jun 2010 07:02

US State Department spokesperson Philip Crowley responding to a question by PTI’s Lalit Jha on the deal between PR China and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for the supply of CHASNUPP 3 & 4 nuclear reactors.

The US appears to be not buying the PR Chinese argument that the deal was grandfathered at the time PR China joined the NSG:

Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
June 15, 2010 …………………….

QUESTION:The China-Pakistan nuclear deal – we understand that the U.S. will oppose or plans to oppose that in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. I’m wondering, what are the arguments for opposing that? And secondly, how do you respond to those who say that the U.S. opened the door to this kind of agreement with the U.S.-India deal?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we have asked China to clarify the details of its sale of additional nuclear reactors to Pakistan. This appears to extend beyond cooperation that was grandfathered when China was approved for membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. We believe that such cooperation would require a specific exemption approved by consensus of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, as was done for India. So we’re not looking at any difference between the two.

QUESTION: And maybe China informed you about the sale of these two nuclear plants?

MR. CROWLEY: I think, Lalit, this was an issue that we’ve had periodic discussions with China for some time.

US State Dept

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Jun 2010 09:07

Burma has a nuclear program. It's a mess, but it's still a nuclear program.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... n_harmless

negi · Post by **negi** » 17 Jun 2010 04:07

Guys I think Chinese proposal for sale of reactors to Pakistan might pass through the NSG with just enough help from Unkil and its camp (they might abstain from voting). Remember PRC abstained from voting when Unkil tabled India's case in the NSG ? I clearly see both Lizard and Unkil have been in bed over this issue umpteen times and an equal-equal for TSP is due. The only difference is since PRC is the initiator , Unkil will get to keep its good boy image in the NPA world else there is no way PRC can pull this off all by itself.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 17 Jun 2010 15:45

negi wrote:Guys I think Chinese proposal for sale of reactors to Pakistan might pass through the NSG with just enough help from Unkil and its camp (they might abstain from voting). Remember PRC abstained from voting when Unkil tabled India's case in the NSG ? I clearly see both Lizard and Unkil have been in bed over this issue umpteen times and an equal-equal for TSP is due. The only difference is since PRC is the initiator , Unkil will get to keep its good boy image in the NPA world else there is no way PRC can pull this off all by itself.

It will not be a clean pull off, as Sher Khan would like to preserve its NPA image. So, most likely, something on the lines of only these two, this one time only - accepting the Grand Father idea or a delay tactic. Also, I think, this can be used by Sher Khan as leverage against TSP, to do something against say Haqani or Quetta Shura guys. But yes, this may eventually go through.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 18 Jun 2010 03:19

Nuclear industry chiefs head to NZ

Now United States negotiators at the NSG meeting in New Zealand face a conundrum in trying to oppose the proposed Pakistan deal while dodging charges of hypocrisy, given the administration only last year sealed a US deal to supply India with civilian nuclear equipment, the Christian Science Monitor reported.