International Response:  Weapon-Grade Uranium Exits Yugoslavia

The United States, in cooperation with Yugoslav and Russian authorities and the Nuclear Threat Initiative, secretly transported more than 100 pounds of weapon-grade nuclear material Wednesday from a reactor in Yugoslavia to Russia, U.S. officials said.

Three guarded trucks left the Vinca Institute Wednesday night and drove to the Belgrade airport.  One of the trucks carried more than 5,000 rods of highly enriched uranium — enough to make two nuclear bombs.  The material was flown to Russia, where it will be processed for use in a commercial power plant, and arrived in the country yesterday.

U.S. State Department officials said Wednesday night that they did not know where in Russia the material would be processed, but Serbian officials told Reuters it would go to the Ulyanovsk Nuclear Processing Plant, the New York Times reported.

U.S. officials and nuclear analysts praised the project as an example of international cooperation to reduce the risk that terrorists or hostile states could acquire nuclear weapon materials.  The United States paid $2.5 million for the project out of State Department nuclear threat reduction funds, and the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a private nonprofit group, provided $5 million for environmental cleanup at the Vinca Institute, State Department officials said.

The United States had been concerned that adversaries could acquire nuclear material from the institute, which has been closed for more than a decade with questionable security, according to the Times.

“Serbia might have decided to sell this material to Iraq,” said Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  “It’s a good thing for all of us that that possibility has now been eliminated” (Dames Dao, New York Times, Aug. 23).

“By disposing of the hazardous material, which could be used to make nuclear weapons, Vinca is no longer a potential target for possible terrorist attempts to get hold of this fuel,” a Yugoslav government spokesman said.

State Department officials praised Russia for its cooperation.  In past years, Russia had been unwilling to help return nuclear supplies that the Soviet Union had provided to allies to Russia for reprocessing, but the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry worked closely with U.S. officials for many months to plan this week’s operation and agreed to accept the uranium.

“There has been a sea change,” said Janet Bogue, deputy assistant secretary of state for European affairs.  “The Russians were eager to get this done.  They are just as acutely aware of the risks as we are” (Joby Warrick, Washington Post, Aug. 23). 

The Soviet Union had provided the Vinca Institute’s reactor, and it was used for scientific research, training power plant operators and producing medical and industrial materials, the Times reported (Dao, New York Times).

The Washington Post, however, reported that former Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito carried out a secret nuclear weapons development program at the institute.  “We must have the atomic bomb.  We must build it even if it costs us one-half of our income for years,” he told aides in 1950, according to histories of the time.

Yugoslavia never developed nuclear weapons, but there were concerns about the remaining unused uranium fuel left at the reactor when it closed in 1984, said William Potter, director of the Monterey Institute’s Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

“You still have at Vinca many of the scientists who had been involved in this covert nuclear weapons program,” Potter said.  “Whatever technical know-how is needed for a weapon, you have that in spades at Vinca” (Warrick, Washington Post, Aug. 23).

[EDITOR'S NOTE:  The Nuclear Threat Initiative is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group, Inc.]

Back to top

South Asia:  Armitage Continues Peace Efforts

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is to arrive in New Delhi today and travel to Islamabad tomorrow as part of U.S. efforts to stabilize relations between India and Pakistan, Pakistani newspaper Dawn reported today.

Armitage intends to emphasize that as nuclear-armed states, the two countries no longer have the option of fighting wars to resolve disputes, the State Department has said (see GSN, July 30).

“He is going to continue our dialogue on both bilateral issues as well as on continuing tensions between the two countries,” a State Department official told Dawn.  Tensions between India and Pakistan have decreased but military forces are still mobilized along the border, the official added.

Indian officials indicated earlier this week that Armitage might receive a somewhat cool reception because of India’s concern that the United States has been unable to persuade Pakistan to end cross-border movement by militants in Kashmir, according to Dawn (see GSN, July 29).  Indian Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani said yesterday, however, that Pakistan has “partially fulfilled” its promise to stop infiltration, Dawn reported.

If infiltration continues, it is without Pakistani knowledge or support, Pakistani Deputy Foreign Minister Inamul Haq said earlier yesterday (Dawn, Aug. 23).

For further information, see:

Pakistani Embassy to the United States

Indian Embassy to the United States

Carnegie Endowment Nuclear Status Map

Back to top

Argentina:  Proliferation Concerns Influenced U.S. Policy, Newly Released Report Says

Newly released documents indicate that U.S. attempts to curb human rights abuses in Argentina during the 1970s were tempered by a desire to dissuade the country from developing nuclear weapons, the Los Angeles Times reported today (see GSN, Feb. 15).

A 1978 U.S. State Department intelligence report — one of more than 4,000 the department declassified and released this week — says that while the Carter administration was increasing pressure on Argentina to cease its campaign against dissidents, U.S. policymakers were concerned that such pressure might harm attempts to convince Argentina to join a treaty establishing a nuclear weapon-free zone in Latin America.

“Argentina’s nuclear status and capabilities have forced the United States to examine carefully the possibility that human rights initiatives could be detrimental to continued U.S. influence in the nuclear area,” the report from the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research said.  “The U.S. human rights approach to Argentina has always been tempered by Argentina’s potential as a nuclear proliferator.”

The nuclear weapons issue was one of the major topics on the agenda of a September 1977 meeting between former U.S. and Argentine Presidents Jimmy Carter and Jorge Rafael Videla, according to the report.  The issue came up again during a visit by former U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance to Buenos Aires in November 1977.

Even though Argentina never developed nuclear weapons, analysts have said the country was close to doing so during the period of military rule from 1976 to 1983.  The United States was particularly worried about Argentina’s nuclear development because of its rivalry with neighbor Brazil, the Times reported.

Argentina’s military junta never attempted to use the nuclear weapons issue to ease U.S. pressures on human rights violations, the State report says.  It did, however, “undoubtedly appreciate the bargaining power of their nuclear chip,” the report says, adding that the generals might “attempt to inject it directly into human rights discussions.”

The report demonstrates that nuclear proliferation concerns were a “very, very important factor” in influencing U.S. policy toward Argentina at the time, said Carlos Osorios, an analyst at the National Security Archive (Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, Aug. 23).

For further information, see:

Treaty of Tlatelolco Text

Back to top

IAEA:  U.S. Appropriates Emergency Funds to Agency

Emergency legislation signed Aug. 16 by U.S. President George W. Bush provides $9 million to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Nucleonics Week reported earlier this month.

The legislation — the second fiscal 2002 supplemental appropriations bill related to Sept. 11 response efforts — includes $4 million for additional IAEA safeguards in “specific countries under safeguards” and $5 million for nuclear materials security programs, according to Nucleonics Week.  Although the White House had not requested the funds, Congress added the money.

In other legislation, Congress has proposed offering more funds to the agency than Bush requested in some areas, while making cuts in others.

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved July 18 its version of the fiscal 2003 foreign operations appropriations bill, which would add $3.5 million to the White House’s request of $50 million for U.S. “voluntary” contributions to the IAEA.  The House has not yet acted on its version of the bill.

Conversely, Senate legislation that would fund the Commerce, Justice and State departments would provide $47.5 million for the “assessed” contribution to the IAEA, down from the White House’s request of $52.2 million.  The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the bill July 18, but the House has not taken it up yet (Daniel Horner, Nucleonics Week, Aug. 8).

For further information, see:

International Atomic Energy Agency

U.S.-IAEA Safeguards Agreement (U.S. State Department)

Back to top

Taiwan:  Cabinet Drafts Weapons Ban Legislation

Taiwan’s Cabinet has drafted a bill stating Taiwan’s position on banning use of nuclear weapons and its opposition to nuclear proliferation, AFXpress reported today (see GSN, March 14).  Officials plan to submit the bill to the Parliament in the session set to start next month, C.J. Yeh, minister without portfolio, has said (AFXpress, Aug. 23).

Back to top

United States:  Bush Policy Reduces Dependence on Nuclear Weapons, Report Says

By Bryan Bender

Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Contrary to previous analyses, a report released this week says the Bush administration’s new nuclear strategy will result in less dependence on nuclear weapons in defense planning.

Relying for the first time on non-nuclear options in U.S. strategic war planning should raise the threshold for using nuclear weapons because it increases flexibility for responding to strategic threats, according to The Nuclear Posture Review:  How is the “New Triad” New, published by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

“With additional military options and a smaller nuclear force, the new triad over time should reduce further the role nuclear weapons play in U.S. strategy,” the report says.

In the nuclear review, unveiled in January, officials outlined a revised nuclear triad to meet new threats of the post-Cold War era in which the deterrent value of America’s nuclear arsenal might not apply to nonstate actors such as terrorist groups.

The review scraps the Cold War triad — reliance on land-, air- and sea-based nuclear weapons — in favor of a broader triad that includes nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities, defensive means and defense-industrial infrastructure (see GSN, Jan. 7).

Combined with the administration’s decision to store many of the thousands of deployed nuclear warheads slashed in the so-called Moscow Treaty with Russia and with revelations that the number of states listed as possible nuclear targets has expanded, the classified document has raised concerns that nuclear weapons are taking on greater prominence in U.S. war planning.

“Most of the criticism has involved claims that the review will lead to greater reliance on nuclear weapons, an expansion in the set of states targeted by U.S. nuclear forces, insufficient progress in reducing nuclear arsenals and an increased likelihood of nuclear use,” the report’s author Kurt Guthe wrote (see GSN, March 11).

Guthe argued, however, that a closer look at the new triad indicates how nuclear weapons could take on less, not more, importance in the years ahead, particularly because of an availability of non-nuclear options.

“The non-nuclear strike capabilities of the new triad make possible strategic attack without nuclear use,” the report says.  “This option might be employed, for example, to defang an opponent armed with weapons of mass destruction.”

Even if deterrence were to fail and chemical or biological weapons were used against the United States or one its allies, the president might opt against a nuclear strike in certain conditions, according to the report — if the effects were relatively small, targets suitable for nuclear weapons were not available, large civilian deaths were likely or vital interests were not at stake.  Foregoing the nuclear option, furthermore, could provide an opportunity to demonstrate the deterrent value of superior non-nuclear forces.

In augmenting nuclear forces with non-nuclear strike capabilities and defenses, the new triad is “inherently more flexible than the nuclear triad,” the report says.

Most significantly, non-nuclear strike capabilities are “more usable instruments of war.”  For example, the United States has expended 35,000 non-nuclear precision-guided munitions in the last 10 years, according to the report.

Meanwhile, offensive information operations — efforts to strategically attack an enemy’s communications infrastructure — will offer even more non-nuclear options in the future, the report says.

“Because of their potential for widespread and indiscriminate destruction nuclear weapons long have been regarded by U.S. leaders as weapons of last resort,” it says.

For further information, see:

Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments

Back to top

North Korea:  Bolton to Visit Seoul; Draft Speech Elicits Concern

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Bolton is expected to begin a three-day visit to Seoul Aug. 28 to discuss concerns related to North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs with South Korean officials, the Korea Times reported today.

The officials, who will include South Korean Foreign Minister Choi Sung-hong, are expected to also discuss a potential visit by a U.S. envoy to North Korea, perhaps as early as next month (Korea Times, Aug. 21).

South Korean and some U.S. diplomats have expressed concern that during his visit Bolton might give a speech hostile to North Korea.  A draft speech for Bolton calls North Korea a “terrorist” state and repeats U.S. President George W. Bush’s January statement that North Korea is an “evil” country, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, Jan. 30).

Bolton might also accuse North Korea of selling missiles and trying to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (see GSN, July 17).  The draft speech says that the United States would withdraw from the 1994 Agreed Framework if it were to discover evidence that North Korea is producing plutonium or enriched uranium.  Under the framework, North Korea has agreed to freeze its nuclear programs in exchange for U.S.-led construction of two light-water nuclear power reactors (see GSN, Aug. 8).

Officials in Bolton’s office have refused to comment, but some senior U.S. officials said that including so many issues in one speech might set back efforts to improve U.S.-North Korea relations, according to the Times.  The speech would be “bellicose and threatening,” one official said.

Relations between North Korea and the United States were mostly frozen between the time that the Bush administration took office in 2001 and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell met with North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam Sun for 15 minutes during a conference last month, according to the Times (see GSN, July 31).  U.S. envoy James Kelly will probably visit North Korea in the fall to resume formal dialogue, the Bush administration said Friday (see GSN, Aug. 1).

South Korean officials said that if Bolton gives the speech as it has been drafted, he might derail relations between North Korea and South Korea, which held talks last week, the Times reported.

“Relations are improving.  There has been tangible progress in inter-Korean relations,” an Asian diplomat in Washington said yesterday.  If Bolton criticizes North Korea, however, it “would not have a desirable impact,” the diplomat said.

Some U.S. State Department and other administration officials have expressed surprise at Bolton’s draft speech, adding that it is being “toned down” or that Bolton might not deliver it at all, according to the Times.  The Asian diplomat suggested that Bolton might give the speech in Tokyo (Ben Barber, Washington Times, Aug. 22).  Bolton is scheduled to attend a disarmament conference in Japan before arriving in Seoul (Korea Times).

For further information, see:

Agreed Framework Text

KEDO

Back to top

Iran-Russia:  Ministers Formalize Spent-Fuel Agreement

Russia has signed all agreements necessary to reclaim spent nuclear fuel from the nuclear power plant that Russian experts are helping to build in Bushehr, Iran, Russian Atomic Energy Minister Alexander Rumyantsev said yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 21).

“We will return all the spent nuclear fuel, and it will not fall into anybody’s hands but Russia’s,” Rumyantsev told the Russian army’s official Krasnaya Zvezda daily, according to Agence France-Presse.  “Now we are completely legitimate,” he added.

A report recently released by Greenpeace had indicated that Iran had refused to return spent nuclear fuel to Russia (see GSN, June 24).  Iran might be able to use the fuel to make nuclear weapons, AFP reported (Agence France-Presse, Aug. 21).

Warning From U.S. Legislators

Also yesterday, a U.S. congressional delegation told Russian lawmakers the United States is concerned that Russian plans to build nuclear reactors in Iran might help Iran’s nuclear weapons program.  Russia said last month it is considering expanding nuclear cooperation with Iran (see GSN, Aug. 5).

“Over the past year, U.S.-Russian relations have greatly improved, and it would be very regrettable to have recent developments chill an otherwise blossoming relationship between our two countries,” House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), the delegation leader, said.

The delegation also called on Russia to abide by U.N. sanctions against Iraq.  Vladimir Lukin, deputy speaker of the Russian lower house of Parliament, said Russia plans to follow the sanctions (Associated Press/Boston Globe, Aug. 21).

Back to top

Iran-Russia:  Officials Discuss Nonproliferation in Moscow

Iranian Foreign Ministry Director for International Political Affairs Amir Hossein Zamani-Nia arrived in Moscow yesterday for a three-day visit scheduled to include discussions on nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Aug. 5; Islamic Republic News Agency, Aug. 20).

Discussions with Russian officials will include “an extensive range of disarmament and export control issues,” a Russian source said.  Zamani-Nia and Russian officials will probably also discuss whether Russia can take back spent nuclear fuel after giving it to Iran for the Bushehr nuclear power reactor, AFP reported (see GSN, July 24; Agence France-Presse, Aug. 20).

Back to top

Ukraine:  Rocket Unit Disbands

Ukraine has disbanded the military’s 43^rd Rocket Corps after 42 years of service, Defense Minister Volodymyr Shkidchenko said yesterday.  The move represents the near completion of the destruction of Ukraine’s strategic weapons, Shkidchenko said (see GSN, Aug. 6).

Under START, the Ukrainian 43^rd Rocket Corps transferred 1,272 nuclear warheads to Russia and destroyed 175 silos and 17 command posts within Ukraine, according to reports (Xinhua News Agency, Aug. 21).

For further information, see:

START I Text and Associated Documents (U.S. Defense Department)

Back to top

United States:  Energy Sites’ Security Staff Down by 40 Percent, Report Says

By Kerry Boyd

Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Energy Department has cut security forces at nuclear sites 40 percent in the last 10 years, according to a new report by Edward Markey (D-Mass.).

The number of uniformed guards at Energy nuclear sites dropped from 5,640 in 1992 to 3,500 in 2001, and security support staff dropped from 1,451 to 762 in the same period, according to the report released today.  The department cut back more on armed guards than on unarmed guards, who receive less pay and must meet lower physical standards, the report says.

The missions and sizes of the Sandia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore nuclear laboratories “have not changed dramatically,” but they experienced 24 percent, 21 percent and 12 percent cuts in their armed guards, respectively, the report says, citing unclassified information Energy provided Markey (see GSN, Aug. 13).  During the reporting period, five sites had no armed security guards, and officials reduced armed security forces at the Hanford Site by 47 percent.

Only two sites, the Pantex plant in Texas and Argonne West laboratory in Idaho, have increased armed guards during the last 10 years, the report says.

Security Delays and Cyberattacks

In addition to cutting security forces, Energy has been slow to implement security upgrades, the Markey report says (see GSN, March 1).  The department began to review its risk-determination policy for nuclear sites after the Sept. 11 attacks, but by the time plans for security upgrades are scheduled to be drafted and reviewed, “the earliest any DOE facility would be required to implement the new security requirements would be almost 2.5 years after the Sept. 11 attacks,” according to the report.

Energy facilities have also suffered successful cyberattacks, the report says.  It notes that successful attacks dropped from 130 in fiscal 1999 to 64 in fiscal 2001, which the department said was due to increases in firewalls and e-mail scanning capabilities.

Bush Administration Refuses Funds

The report criticizes the Bush administration for refusing to budget funds that the department had requested for security upgrades in the last year (see GSN, April 22).  In March, the department asked the Office of Management and Budget for $379.7 million in supplemental funds for “urgent and compelling” upgrades to address “security vulnerabilities,” the report says, quoting the department’s request.

In the White House supplemental appropriations request, however, administration officials asked Congress for only $26 million.  Congress in turn appropriated $360 million for emergency security and nonproliferation efforts at various Energy facilities, but the White House refused this month to use more than $26 million, the report says (see GSN, Aug. 9).

Administration Response

“Our weapons complex remains safe and secure, and the protection systems at our sites are robust, reliable and responsive to evolving security challenges,” Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said in a May letter to Markey, according to the report.

The department’s National Nuclear Security Administration, tasked with overseeing nuclear weapons laboratories, has criticized Markey’s report.

“The findings have been taken out of context,” NNSA spokesman Bryan Wilkes said, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  “It seems as if someone wants to sensationalize something that isn’t there.”

The drop in security forces has occurred at the same time that facilities have been scaled back, Wilkes said, according to the Journal-Constitution.  The Markey report also does not mention that Energy has hired hundreds of new security personnel since Sept. 11, he added.

The department has “taken numerous steps since Sept. 11 to improve security at our nation’s nuclear facilities,” Office of Homeland Security spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, according to the Journal-Constitution.

Back to top

Israel:  F-16 Primary Nuclear-Capable Aircraft in Israeli Forces

If Israel were to strike another country with nuclear weapons by air, it would most likely use its nuclear-capable F-16 airplane, according to the new issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Nuclear Notebook.

Although Israel has several types of aircraft that can deliver nuclear gravity bombs, including F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, F-16s and F-15Es, according to the Notebook, “The F-16 has been the backbone of the Israeli Air Force and is the most likely candidate for air delivery of nuclear weapons.”

Israel bought or received 230 F-16s from the United States between 1980 and 1995.  It announced plans to buy another 50 in 1999, and delivery is expected to begin early next year.  Only a small number of the F-16s are likely to be nuclear-capable, according to the Notebook.  Determining exactly which F-16 squadrons and which bases have nuclear missions is “especially difficult,” the Notebook said.

Israel also began purchasing the Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle in 1994, which has a nuclear role in the U.S. Air Force.  It is unclear whether Israel has modified the craft to carry nuclear weapons, the Notebook reported.

In addition to aircraft, Israel possesses the Jericho missile, which could also deliver nuclear weapons.  The country has also used its Shavit rocket to place Ofek satellites into space, and “the Shavit could be converted into a long-range ballistic missile with a range of up to 7,000 kilometers, depending on the weight of the warhead,” according to the Notebook (see GSN, June 26).

U.S. Pentagon and State Department officials told the Washington Post in June 2002 that Israel was arming three submarines with nuclear-capable cruise missiles, the Notebook reported (see GSN, June 19).  A senior Israeli official also said that the country’s Dolphin-class submarines carry modified U.S. Harpoon anti-ship missiles that could carry nuclear weapons if Israel were to modify them.

“It is unknown whether the missiles have that modification,” the Notebook reported.

In addition to strategic nuclear weapons, some reports have indicated that Israel has developed nuclear artillery and maybe nuclear mines, according to the Notebook.

Israel has refused to confirm or deny the existence of an Israeli nuclear arsenal, but “it is generally accepted by friend and foe alike that Israel has been a nuclear state for several decades,” the Notebook reported, adding that estimates of the number of Israeli nuclear weapons range from 75 to 200 weapons (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Nuclear Notebook, Sept./Oct.).

For further information, see:

Carnegie Endowment World Missile Chart

Carnegie Endowment Nuclear Status Map

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP