Announcement

**Merlin** · 25 Mar 09,, 10:42

Things are in motion between US and Russia on a new Start I agreement. But the subsequent steps have to involve the other nuclear armed nations, firstly Britain, France and China, and next India, Pakistan and Israel.

Official: Russia, U.S. could reach strategic arms reduction treaty by December

MOSCOW, March 20 (Xinhua) -- Russia and the United States could reach an agreement on strategic arms reduction by December, a Russian deputy foreign minister said on Friday.

"We have enough time before December to work out a serious and detailed document," Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told a press conference.

"With political will, all this is quite achievable, and signals from Washington show that they are also determined to move towards such an agreement, which is a positive sign," he was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

Ryabkov said Russia was willing to cooperate with the United States on the missile defense shield on an equal basis. ...

The diplomat also said Moscow was pinning great hopes on an upcoming meeting between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama scheduled for April 1 in London.

Russian-U.S. relations have sank to a post-Cold War low due to the U.S. missile shield plans, Russia's brief war with Georgia last August and NATO's eastward expansion. Both Moscow and Washington have expressed willingness to reset bilateral relations since Obama took office in January.

The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which was signed between the Soviet Union and the United States in 1991, places a limit of 6,000 strategic or long-range nuclear warheads on each side.

Earlier this month, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov agreed on a work plan aimed at renewing the START, which is due to expire this December. ...

**Merlin** · 01 Apr 09,, 16:35

Obama met Medvedev in London to press the 'reset' button.

Q+A: Issues for future U.S./Russia arms deal

Apr 1, 2009 (Reuters) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and U.S. President Barack Obama said on Wednesday they will pursue an arms deal cutting nuclear warheads below levels agreed in 2002 in their first step toward mending relations.

Following are some of the key issues.

HOW WOULD THIS ADVANCE PREVIOUS DEALS?

The leaders said the proposed arms deal would go beyond the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), which committed both sides to cutting arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by 2012.

It would replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), which led to the largest bilateral reductions of nuclear weapons in history, and is due to expire in December.

HOW MANY WARHEADS DO BOTH SIDES HAVE NOW?

According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Russia currently has 3,113 strategic warheads compared with 3,575 for the United States. (www.carnegieendowment.org)

WHY DOES A NEW DEAL MATTER?

Russia sees START 1 as the cornerstone of post-Cold War arms control and believes that letting it lapse with no replacement could upset the strategic balance. Both sides see a new deal as a way to "press the reset button" on relations, which have been damaged by last year's Russia-Georgia war, differences over a planned U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe and Moscow's opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. ...

WHAT ABOUT THE U.S. MISSILE SHIELD PLAN?

U.S. plans to develop a missile system in Europe may be drawn into the negotiations as Russia argues that it would also affect the strategic balance and weaken its position. Washington says the system is aimed at intercepting missiles from hostile states such as Iran, and is not directed against Moscow.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Negotiators are due to report back by July, when Obama will travel to Moscow for a summit. A U.S. official said "it's pretty clear that we have to hit some milestones" by then.

**Merlin** · 06 Apr 09,, 07:47

A good insightful analysis from Xinhua.

Is Obama's non-nuclear drive realistic?

PRAGUE, April 5 (Xinhua) -- When U.S. President Barack Obama enthusiastically called on Sunday for "a world without nuclear weapons" in the picturesque Hradcany Square in central Prague, the 30,000 crowds cheered with thunderous applause.

But for politicians and analysts, questions may rise: Is it realistic? Does he mean business or just play lip service?

Everybody, including Obama himself, knows the road to a non-nuclear world could be bumpy. ..."...perhaps that's not in my lifetime," Obama told the crowds in Prague.

The United States boasts the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world. The country far outnumbers Russia and other major nuclear states, with some 4,000 atomic warheads in stock.

Washington has long put its nuclear advantage at a key point in its national security strategy, and Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, had adopted a more aggressive policy in maintaining the country's advantage in this regard. ...

In his speech in Prague, Obama not only stated "clearly and with conviction" his country's commitment and leadership in eliminating nuclear arms, but also tabled "concrete steps" in pushing his dream into reality, including hosting a world summit on nuclear security within next year.

The "concrete steps" included efforts to ease the role of nuclear arsenal in U.S. national security strategy, to conclude talks with Russia on a new "legally-binding" strategic arms reduction treaty and to pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Obama's initiative on building "a world without nuclear weapons" was, by no means, a flash of idea.

As early as on his campaign trail, Obama had said his arms-control efforts would follow the parameters laid out by the Nuclear Security Project, whose initiatives, including a plan for sharp reductions in U.S. nuclear stockpiles, were crafted by centrists including former Democratic senator Sam Nunn and former Republican secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George P. Shultz.

Shortly after his inauguration, the White House website posted Obama's agenda, including his pledges to "stop the development of new nuclear weapons" and work for a worldwide ban on the production of material for nuclear weapons.

However, such call will arouse opposition from home and abroad, Jan Techau, head of the European studies center of the German Council on Foreign Relations, told Xinhua. Obama is faced with potential opposition even within his own cabinet, Techau said. ....

It will also be hard for Obama to persuade other nuclear countries to follow suit.

Nevertheless, Techau said it "is realistic" to expect a cut on nuclear arsenal. For one thing, maintaining an immense nuclear arsenal, capable of destroying the planet for several times, is costly.

A rational cut of nuclear ammunition will also benefit both the United States and Russia, the two biggest nuclear rivals.

Obama's enthusiasm for a non-nuclear world is also attributable to the U.S. strategic consideration concerning Iran and the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.

"In so doing, President Obama intends to increase Washington's credibility in resolving the Iran issue," Techau said.

**Merlin** · 11 Apr 09,, 08:08

This Economist article analyses the long and complex path towards a world without the bomb.

Safe without the bomb?

Apr 8, 2009 [Economist] A nuclear-free world may never come about, but there can be safety in trying.

IF HE had hoped his vision of a world free of nuclear weapons would rally universal support for America’s new cause, Barack Obama’s disappointment came all too quickly.

North Korea’s pre-emptive, missile-guided raspberry on April 5th—hours before President Obama outlined his nuclear-free dream in Prague—had long been expected from a regime that treats rule-breaking as a national pastime. Its boss, Kim Jong Il, claims his latest rocket launched a satellite that is now warbling back patriotic songs from space. Others say he tested a nuclear-capable missile that flew about 3,200km (2,000 miles) before plopping into the Pacific (see article). The disappointment came hours later when China and Russia blocked all rebuke of Mr Kim at the UN Security Council, saying he had a right to a space programme, even though a UN resolution supposedly bans his missile work.

Such unhelpful politicking is merely one measure of the challenge in “getting to zero”. Mr Obama acknowledged that his nuclear-free vision may not be realised in his lifetime. ...

So isn’t the visionary Mr Obama just sloganeering? At worst, isn’t this the sort of nuclear-free-but-not-yet ruse that all five officially recognised nuclear powers—Russia, Britain, France and China too—can use to hang on to their bombs?

Safety can come before zero
Nuclear weapons cannot simply be wished away or uninvented. The technology is over 60 years old and the materials and skills needed are widely spread. Still, by infusing his idealism with a dose of realism Mr Obama can do more to create a safer world than simple “Ban the bomb” slogans ever could.

For zero nukes would make no sense if this left the world safe for the sorts of mass conventional warfare that consumed the first half of the 20th century. How many bombs would be needed to prevent that? And with what co-operation and controls to keep these remaining weapons from use? ...

Mr Obama is already committed to using the goal of zero to shape his future nuclear plans. Both America and Russia still have far more nuclear warheads than either wants. ... Encouragingly, Mr Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, have agreed that a modest cut will accompany new weapons-counting rules to be fixed by the end of the year, ...

But other nuclear dangers are growing. As more governments look to civilian nuclear power as a source of clean electricity, tighter controls and other new schemes are needed to help stop would-be cheats or terrorists from exploiting or stealing some of the proliferation-prone technologies and materials for bomb-building. The cheats include not just North Korea, which left the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and exploded a bomb of its own, but also Iran (in the treaty but defying UN calls to halt its suspect nuclear work), Syria and others. ... Unless the official nuclear powers take steps to uphold their side of the NPT bargain that obliges them to work towards abolishing their nukes in exchange for keeping others from seeking the bomb, this opportunity could be lost. The treaty could unravel.

The hazards ahead
Such is the disarmament minefield of today. Navigating a future world of much lower nuclear numbers presents new hazards. As America and Russia get close to 1,000 warheads each, they will want Britain, France and China to put their smaller arsenals on the negotiating table too. Britain has always said it will, China and France have not. And what about India, Pakistan, Israel and others? ....

Mr Obama is right. This and more are the work of decades. The world may never get to zero. But it would help make things a lot safer along the way if others act in concert. If North Korea and Iran can keep counting on the protection of China and Russia in their rule-breaking, progress will be all too slight.

**Merlin** · 25 Apr 09,, 06:32

I'll post this article here as there seems to be no thread that is more suitable.

Now the next big question is whether S Korea and Japan are forced to have their own nuclear arms capability.

N Korea is armed for nuclear war

25 Apr [Australian] THE world's intelligence agencies and defence experts are quietly acknowledging that North Korea has become a full nuclear power, with the capacity to wipe out entire cities in Japan and South Korea.

The new reality has emerged in off-hand remarks and single sentences buried in lengthy reports.

Increasing numbers of authoritative experts -- from the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency to the US Defence Secretary -- admit North Korea has miniaturised nuclear warheads to the extent they can be launched on medium-range missiles, according to intelligence briefings.

This puts the country ahead of Iran in the race for nuclear attack capability and alters the balance of power between North Korea's large but poorly equipped military and the South Korean and US forces ranged against it.

"North Korea has nuclear weapons, which is a matter of fact," IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei said. "I don't like to accept any country as a nuclear-weapon state, but we have to face reality."

North Korea carried out an underground nuclear test in 2006 but until recently foreign governments believed such nuclear devices were too unwieldy to be mounted on a missile.

With 13,000 artillery pieces buried close to the border between the two Koreas, and chemical and biological warheads, it was always understood the North could inflict significant conventional damage on Seoul, the South Korean capital. But Western military planners had calculated it could not strike outside the peninsula.

Now North Korea's supreme leader, Kim Jong-il, has the potential to order the killing of millions in Japan as well as the South, and to lay waste to US bases and airfields in both countries. This will force Western military strategists to rethink plans for war in Korea and increase the potential costs of any future Korean war.

The shift from acknowledging North Korea's nuclear weapons development program to recognising it as a nuclear power is controversial. South Korea resists the reclassification because it could give the North more negotiating leverage.

The successful work of enabling the nuclear devices to be mounted on weapons happened towards the end of last year, according to Daniel Pinkston, of the International Crisis Group think tank.

The successful work of enabling the nuclear devices to be mounted on weapons happened towards the end of last year, according to Daniel Pinkston, of the International Crisis Group think tank.

The US Forces Joint Command published an annual report Last December that for the first time listed North Korea, alongside China, India, Pakistan and Russia, as one of Asia's nuclear powers. The US Government insisted this did not reflect its official policy -- but then former US defence secretary James Schlesinger delivered a report from a Pentagon task force saying the same thing.

"North Korea, India and Pakistan have acquired both nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems," he said.

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates published an article in Foreign Affairs in January in which he referred to the "arc of nuclear powers running from Israel in the west through an emerging Iran to Pakistan, India, and on to China, North Korea, and Russia in the east". .....

**Merlin** · 25 Apr 09,, 08:21

Once you are recognised as a nuclear power, your voice carry a lot more weight.

Already N Korea has said any anti-missile attack on its satellite rocket/missile from Japan or S Korea would be an act of war. This warning carry much less threatening weight if N Korea is not a nuclear power.

Now N Korea gives this keynote speech warning below to S Korea at their recent one to one meeting.

N. Korea warns of anti-proliferation group

SEOUL, April 22 (UPI) -- North Korea warned South Korea against joining a U.S.-led anti-proliferation program during talks Wednesday in Kaesong, a North Korea border city.

The North Korean delegation at the meeting said South Korea's joining of the Proliferation Security Initiative would lead to an inter-Korean "confrontation," officials told the South Korean news agency Yonhap.

South Korea's Unification Ministry spokesman Kim Ho-nyon confirmed the issue was raised. Previously, Pyongyang has warned joining the anti-proliferation campaign would be considered a "declaration of war." South Korea said it still intends to join the initiative.

"When you look at a message or a keynote speech, there is what can be called an introduction similar to that of a written document. I believe the North Korean side did mention the PSI issue," he said during a news briefing. ...

**Officer of Engineers** · 25 Apr 09,, 15:12

I've gone through all open source intel and there is nothing to indicate that the NKs have nukes that can be mated onto missiles. They have not even performed a zero yield test since their dud in 2006. Unless, they've gone to a simple gun design which is too big to be missile mated, there's not any open source intel out there that would support these positions.

**Merlin** · 26 Apr 09,, 11:19

OOE, I rely mainly on the news media, but it is surprising what one can dig out. Here is one clear statement from the IAEA chief about N Korea.

ElBaradei: N. Korea has nuke weapons

BEIJING, April 24 (UPI) -- North Korea has nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them, says International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

Speaking in Beijing, Elbaradei told reporters, "North Korea has nuclear weapons, which is a matter of fact. I don't like to accept any country as a nuclear weapon state but we have to face reality," The Times of London reported Friday.

ElBaradei said the addition of North Korea as a "fully fledged nuclear power" makes nine countries in the world that have the capability of launching a nuclear missile. They include the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel.

His comments came as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned after meeting with North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Ui-chun that there would be no easy road to persuading Pyongyang to return to negotiations aimed at brokering a nuclear disarmament.
....

**Officer of Engineers** · 26 Apr 09,, 14:24

I know what he said but I cannot find the intel to support his position.

**Officer of Engineers** · 27 Apr 09,, 23:24

This is the only open source intel that would support his position and it's of dubious value.

North Korea claims to have weaponized plutonium - CNN.com

BEIJING, China (CNN) -- Senior North Korean officials say the communist regime has "weaponized" its stockpile of plutonium, according to a U.S. scholar, in a move suggesting that North Korea may have significantly hardened its stance on nuclear negotiations.
Selig Harrison said North Korean officials claimed to have enough plutonium for four or five warheads.

Selig Harrison said North Korean officials claimed to have enough plutonium for four or five warheads.
Click to view previous image
1 of 2
Click to view next image

Selig Harrison, one of the few U.S. scholars granted access to senior North Korean officials, said at a news conference in Beijing that the officials told him they had weaponized 30.8 kilograms of plutonium, enough for four or five warheads.

The director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy, who just returned from a five-day visit to Pyongyang, said senior North Korean officials told him the warheads will not be open for inspection.

If it is true, the news portends a gloomy outlook for the future of the six-party talks that began in 2003 with the goal of getting North Korea to end its nuclear program.

"It does change the game," Harrison said.

South Korea, the United States, Japan, China and Russia are participating in the talks.

A 2007 agreement calls for scrapping nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula in return for energy aid to the North, normalized relations between the North and the United States and Japan, and a formal peace pact. Video Watch a report on North Korea's nuclear negotiations �
Don't Miss

* Myanmar releases North Koreans
* Kim Jong Il pictured in public
* Hill admits North Korea talks have stalled
* Report: North Korea to hold election in March

The North Koreans told Harrison they want the rest of the fuel aid that Japan has promised them.

North Korea had agreed to disable the reactor that had produced plutonium for nuclear weapons. But the United States and its allies have asked it to give up the plutonium it already has, an estimated 30 kilograms, as well as details of any other bomb-producing programs.

Harrison said one possible reason for Pyongyang's tough new stance could be the declining health of leader Kim Jong Il, who reportedly suffered a stroke last year and may no longer be involved in day-to-day decisions.

"People I talked to have many indications that some important things are submitted to him, but he is not working in the way he used to," Harrison said.

He said military hard-liners have taken the lead in demanding from the United States a full declaration and verification of all nuclear weapons sent to South Korea between 1957 and 1991. The hard-liners also seek full normalization of relations with Washington before more talks about scrapping their nuclear arsenal.

On Tuesday, during her Senate confirmation hearing for the secretary of state position, Sen. Hillary Clinton made it clear: de-nuclearization first, then diplomatic normalization.

President-elect Barack Obama has stated his willingness to talk to the North Korean leader.

Harrison also said the North demanded the completion of the light-water reactors as compensation for the dismantling of the Yongbyon nuclear reactor.

The light-water reactor, which is not capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium, was promised to North Korea in the early 1990s for the North giving up its nuclear weapons. Its construction has been suspended.
advertisement

North Korea has long considered its nuclear program integral to its national security.

North Korea tested a nuclear weapon in 2006. In June, it acknowledged producing about 40 kilograms of enriched plutonium.

**Mercenary** · 28 Apr 09,, 13:19

If the N.korean plutonium story is indeed true..and it does tie-up with the "Satellite launch" they just had- maybe to test the reach for delivering the warhead to a potential adversary...it may have passed/failed- but S.Korea and Japan will suddenly become "hostages"..its a lose-lose situation all of a sudden.. Keep delivering aid to N.Korea in exchange for not using it on them, or attack N.Korea along with the US and possibly face a few nuclear strikes(there is really no way they can take-out the nukes 100%, because of the mounatinous terrain and missile silos in caves).

**Officer of Engineers** · 28 Apr 09,, 13:39

Only problem is that the NKs tried 3 launch tests and failed 3 launch tests. There isn't a whole lot of confidence in their statements right now. The one nuke test that they did do not only was a dud but their entire theoretical background for that device was way off whack.

So, I really can't take their word that they're a nuclear weapons state.

**Merlin** · 29 Apr 09,, 15:50

Back to the nuclear arms reduction agreement of US and Russia, I'm glad they are going to have a formal START talk soon.

Russia, U.S. to hold first formal START talks in mid May Moscow

MOSCOW, April 27 (Xinhua) -- Russia and the United States will hold first round of full-fledged talks on nuclear weapons reduction between May 18 and 20 in Moscow, news agencies reported late Monday citing Russian Foreign Ministry.

"We have agreed to hold the first round of talks between the two delegations in the full format in Moscow between May 18 and 20," the Interfax news agency quoted a statement from the ministry assaying.

Officials from Russia and the United States have met in Rome last week for initial talks.

After the initial talks both sides said they were satisfied with the outcomes and were optimistic about future steps in the process, which was aimed at creating a new treaty to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) before it expires in December this year. ...

The two sides are expecting a bilateral agreement at the end of 2009. According to Russian and U.S. arms control experts, the new upgraded treaty will seek to reduce arsenals to 1,500 on each side. ...

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and the U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton will hold further talks on the issue in Washington on May 7. ...

**Swift Sword** · 29 Apr 09,, 19:11

Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post

I've gone through all open source intel and there is nothing to indicate that the NKs have nukes that can be mated onto missiles. They have not even performed a zero yield test since their dud in 2006. Unless, they've gone to a simple gun design which is too big to be missile mated, there's not any open source intel out there that would support these positions.

Sir,

When you say a simple gun assembly is too big to put on their missile, is your use of "big" related to mass or geometry? IIRC, gun assemblies have been made in a number of narrow diameter applications...but then there could be some length vs. air frame balance issues, I suppose.

I agree with your assessment that there is a bit of puffery and exaggeration in many claims about North Korea's program. However, every country that has seriously pursued fission weapons has ended up with the capability and the North Korean effort, even with the failures, appears to be a credible attempt.

Regards,

William

Announcement

Nuclear Arms Control?

Nuclear Arms Control?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment