United States:  Energy Explores Two Options for Nuclear “Bunker Busters”

The U.S. Energy and Defense departments have told two nuclear weapons laboratories to study possible designs for nuclear weapons that could destroy underground targets, the San Jose Mercury News reported today (see GSN, March 19).

Scientists at the Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos national laboratories will study ways to modify existing nuclear bombs rather than creating completely new bomb designs.  The designs will probably focus on strengthening the bomb’s casing and interior supports while leaving nuclear explosives intact.

Lawrence Livermore scientists will study modifying the B83, a hydrogen bomb designed for the B-1 bomber, according to the Mercury News.  The B83 is already designed to withstand significant impact before detonating, and scientists have studied its potential use for penetrating underground targets since the 1980s.

The Los Alamos researchers will focus on the B61, which has already been modified to penetrate earth.  Both the B61 and the B83 allow authorities to adjust their yields.

The United States has tested non-nuclear earth-penetrating weapons, but so far such weapons can only penetrate a few dozen feet, according to the San Jose Mercury News.

The studies, scheduled to begin next month, are expected to describe the advantages and disadvantages of each potential bomb design, allowing authorities to choose one of the laboratory’s designs if the United States decides to construct an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon.

The U.S. government has not yet decided whether it will build such weapons, said Lisa Cutler, spokeswoman for the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration.

Debating the New Designs

Proponents of earth-penetrating nuclear weapons say the bombs could reach and destroy targets — such as underground command bunkers or facilities with weapons of mass destruction — which conventional weapons cannot destroy (see GSN, March 15).

Energy officials have also said that assigning the two laboratories will help their scientists maintain their skills since the United States ended nuclear testing 10 years ago (see GSN, March 19).

Critics, however, have said that developing nuclear weapons to use in a limited manner to destroy underground targets blurs the line between nuclear and conventional weapons and increases the likelihood that nuclear weapons would be used (see GSN, March 11).

The Bush administration has said it prefers to modify existing designs rather than developing new nuclear weapons, but critics have said that significant modification is basically the same thing as new designs.

“If I take my Honda into the shop, and it comes out a Ferrari, that’s not a modification, it’s a new car,” said Marylia Kelley, who leads the Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment (Dan Stober, San Jose Mercury News, March 26).

Back to top

India-Pakistan:  No Threat of Nuclear War, Says Indian PM

Nuclear war will not break out in South Asia, but India is prepared for any contingency, Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 19).

“There is no possibility or threat of a nuclear war.  India has already declared that it would not be the first to use nuclear weapons, and Pakistan has also expressed similar views.  I do not see any threat of a nuclear war,” said Vajpayee (see GSN, March 19).

He added that India has no current plans to withdraw its troops from the border with Pakistan, where both sides have amassed their forces in the last few months.  India will only consider dialogue with Pakistan “when a conducive atmosphere is created,” Vajpayee said (Press Trust of India/Times of India, March 25).

Musharraf Warns India

Vajpayee's comments followed a speech Saturday by Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf during Pakistan Day.  Musharraf warned India against taking any aggressive action, saying, “If anyone tries to challenge (Pakistan’s) power, they would be taught a lesson that would be remembered for a long time.”

Musharraf said Pakistan is willing to resolve issues with India, including the two countries’ disagreement over the status of Kashmir.  He said he plans to continue to reform Pakistan’s intelligence services and combat terrorism within and outside Pakistan.

“We must save Pakistan from terrorism and the menace of sectarianism, even if we have to pay a heavy price,” he said (see GSN, March 13).

Pakistan’s usual national day military parade was canceled because most of its troops are deployed on borders with India and Afghanistan (Brian MacQuarrie, Boston Globe, March 24).

Sizing Up

Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes yesterday said Musharraf’s statement to teach anyone who challenges Pakistan’s power was “childish,” and added that Musharraf lives in a “make-believe world.”

“Pakistan should not misconstrue our restraint in a wrong way,” Fernandes said.  “They have tasted defeat at our hands several times.  India is a powerful nation, and Pakistan stands nowhere near it.  Musharraf should know Pakistan’s aukat (standing) and speak accordingly,” Fernandes said while speaking to troops on the India-Pakistan border (Press Trust of India/Times of India, March 26).

Back to top

North Korea:  South Korea Will Deliver Letter on WMD, Missiles

During a visit to Pyongyang next week, envoy Lim Dong-won will deliver a letter to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il from South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, South Korean officials said (see GSN, March 25).

The letter will urge North Korea to resolve issues over nuclear weapons and missile development and to reume dialogue with the United States, the officials said.

Lim, South Korean presidential adviser on security and unification issues, “will meet North Korean leader Kim.  He will explain Seoul’s stance on inter-Korean and North Korea-U.S. issues and deliver President Kim’s letter,” a South Korean official said.

“He will emphasize that the security situation on the Korean Peninsula may face a crisis unless the outstanding matters are promptly settled,” the official said (Yonhap news agency/BBC Monitoring, March 26).

South Korean President Kim said he wants to restart negotiations that have been deadlocked for five months.

“The talks will be very broad, covering all security issues.  We hope it will break the stalemate,” said a South Korean official at the presidential Blue House.

North Korea’s agreement to accept South Korea’s request for new negotiations could illustrate a separation of inter-Korean issues from U.S.-North Korean relations, said analysts.

“North Korea has traditionally taken the same approach towards Seoul and Washington because it saw them as one and the same enemy, but it seems to have realized that one is more friendly than the other,” said a European diplomat in Seoul (Andrew Ward, Financial Times, March 26).

Low Hopes

South Korea played down expectations for an improvement in relations.

“Expectations are running high for the visit due to stalled inter-Korean relations and tension lingering on the Korean peninsula, but we have to remain composed,” said Kim spokesman Park Sun-sook.

Lim’s visit probably would only lead to a resumption of inter-Korean negotiations or family reunions, and not to a new U.S.-North Korea dialogue, said Chon Hyun-joon of the Korean Institute for National Unification.

“There will be a breakthrough in frozen inter-Korean ties, but the North’s response depends on the gift to be offered by the South,” Chon said.

Moon Chung-in, of Seoul’s Yonsei University, said there could be a security emergency on the Korean Peninsula sometime in the next year (see GSN, March 20).

“Speculation about a security emergency in 2003 is coming from several quarters, and as if to back up the theory, there are some inauspicious signs,” Moon told the South Korean newspaper JoongAng Ilbo.  “Ever since the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, the international situation has been dramatically different.  The North’s brinkmanship tactics can be hazardous” (Agence-France Presse, March 26).

Back to top

United States:  Officials to Reserve Thousands of Nuclear Warheads

The United States plans to keep 2,400 nuclear warheads in a reserve “responsive force” that would enhance a deployed force of 1,700 to 2,200 warheads, according to arms control experts briefed by U.S. officials (see GSN, March 22).

U.S. President George W. Bush announced plans last November to cut the deployed nuclear arsenal to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by 2012, and U.S. officials have repeatedly stated U.S. intentions to place some of those warheads in reserve rather than destroy them (see GSN, Nov. 14, 2001).

Arms control experts only recently learned, however, that the United States would keep as many as 2,400 warheads as a responsive force, plus thousands more on inactive reserve.  According to leaked parts of the classified Nuclear Posture Review, warheads in a responsive force would be removed from delivery vehicles such as missiles, aircraft and submarines, but they could be redeployed quickly — ranging from a few days to a few months but all within three years.

A U.S. draft proposal of an agreement with Russia to cut nuclear arsenals would allow either side to move warheads from a responsive force into operational mode as long as one country informs the other, said an arms control expert.

A Natural Resources Defense Council report said that the U.S. arsenal would probably contain almost the same number of nuclear warheads in 2012 as it does today (see GSN, Feb. 19).

From Reductions to Proliferation?

Some members of Congress have said Bush’s plan to store rather than destroy nuclear warheads would create an incentive for Russia to also store nuclear warheads, which might be kept in insecure facilities (see GSN, March 18).

“This approach surely will make it highly unlikely that Russia will destroy its nuclear warheads,” said Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.).  “If we store our nuclear weapons, Russia is likely to follow suit.  And if there are more warheads retained by Russia, the threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons will increase.”

“What kind of an example do we set for other nations when we say we are reducing our strategic nuclear stockpile to 1,700 or 2,200 nuclear warheads when what we really are thinking of doing is moving nuclear warheads from missiles and bombers to warehouses where they could be quickly and easily brought back to service?” asked Levin (Jonathan Wright, Reuters/Yahoo.com, March 22).

Back to top

Russian Testing:  U.S. Action Might Force Return to Russian Testing, Lawmaker Says

Russia might resume nuclear weapons testing if the United States continues to develop its nuclear arsenal, a senior Russian lawmaker said Sunday (see GSN, March 22).

“A resumption of nuclear testing at Russia’s Novaya Zemlya test range is quite possible if the U.S. pushes ahead with its nuclear weapons program,” said Andrei Kokoshin, a member of the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian Parliament.

Russia should also begin developing precision weapons, Kokoshin said.  Russia conducted its last nuclear weapons test in 1990 and ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 2000 (Vladimir Radyuhin, The Hindu, March 25).

All nuclear weapons states will probably need to test their nuclear weapons arsenals at some point, former Russian Atomic Energy Minister Yevgeny Adamov said today.

“Countries of the world will either agree and develop a formula for totally renouncing nuclear weapons, or those possessing them will have to make tests,” Adamov said, adding that nuclear weapons states should purchase supercomputers as a temporary measure to simulate tests.

“The role of nuclear weapons will soon change,” Adamov said.  “One will stop seeing it as a deterrence factor, and it can quite easily become the cheapest means to solve a conflict in order to spare manpower and material values” (Vladimir Rogachev, ITAR-Tass, March 25).

Back to top

North Korea:  South and North Korea Exchange Envoys, Restart Dialogue

North and South Korean officials plan to discuss concerns about North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs in meetings next month, with preparations beginning as early as today, according to reports.

“I will deliver our views on nuclear and missile issues and will relay the president’s desire that the issues should be settled in a good way,” said envoy Lim Dong-won, reportedly a close advisor to South Korean President Kim Dae-jung.

“What is important is to prevent tension from mounting on the Korean peninsula,” Lim said.

Lim helped design the South Korean “Sunshine Policy” of engaging North Korea, and he helped produce the June 2000 summit between the two Korean leaders, AFP reported (Agence France-Presse, March 25).

Lim left for North Korea today, the South Korean news agency Yonhap reported, according to the New York Times (see GSN, Feb. 20).

“We expect the talks to lay the groundwork for a resumption of stalled relations between South and North Korea,” said South Korean presidential spokeswoman Park Sun-sook (Howard French, New York Times, March 25).

Renewed Sunshine?

Some experts and officials expressed hope for progress in North and South relations after the June 2000 summit, but the peace process stalled last year, according to AFP.  North Korea froze relations with South Korea and the United States in response to what it called hostile policies of the Bush administration (see GSN, Feb. 22), AFP reported (Agence France-Presse).

Tensions peaked after U.S. President George W. Bush said North Korea is part of an “axis of evil,” along with Iran and Iraq (see GSN, March 12).  Last week, Bush refused to certify that North Korea is in compliance with the 1994 Agreed Framework (see GSN, March 21), under which North Korea promised to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for international aid, including the construction of two modern nuclear power reactors.

“The United States welcomes and supports dialogue between South and North Korea,” U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jo-Anne Prokopowitz said after simultaneous North and South Korean announcements on the upcoming talks (New York Times).

North Korea Warms Up to Russia

Bush’s policy, which is more hard-line than that of former president Bill Clinton, has pushed North Korea closer to Russia, despite cold relations for a decade, according to the New York Times.

Before this year, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il never visited the Russian embassy in Pyongyang, but “the Russian ambassador sees Kim Jong Il almost once a week now,” said Alexandre Mansourov, a former Soviet diplomat in North Korea and now a teacher at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Hawaii.

“The North Koreans want to know clearly that the Russians will be on their side” if the United States attempts to form a coalition against the country, said Mansourov.  “If crunch time comes, they want to know that Russia will not support any military action.”

Another problem that could push North Korea toward Russia is a delay in constructing the two light-water reactors in North Korea (see GSN, March 20).

Choe Thae Bok, chairman of the North Korean Supreme People’s Assembly went to Russia last week and asked Russian Industry Minister Ilya Klebanov for Russian assistance to build a nuclear power plant.  Klebanov was noncommittal, according to the Times.  The Russian Atomic Energy Ministry said Friday that North Korea had not officially asked for a nuclear power plant, and “neither have our countries negotiated the issue” (James Brooke, New York Times, March 24).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP