USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER

CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL

Maxwell AFB, Alabama

Issue No. 828, 23 July 2010

Articles & Other Documents:

White House Presses Republicans On Arms Treaty Myanmar Nuclear Weapon Program Claims Supported By Photos, Jane's Reports US-Russia Nuke Treaty Facing Hurdles In US Senate U.S. Wants Transparency From Myanmar After Reports 'US, Russia Knows That Iran Does Not Have Nuclear of Nuclear Arms Program Weapons' Russia In Talks On Iskander Missile Export New Sanctions Crimp Iran's Shipping Business As Insurers Withhold Coverage Russia Ready To Export Iskander Missiles

Iran Slams US Breach Of Swap Statement Russia To Resume Test Launches Of Troubled Bulava Missile Aug.-Sept. Merkel: Iran Not Working Seriously With IAEA Senators Concerned About Nuclear Weapons Spending Suggestions Of Iran Nuclear Sabotage Cut

U.S. Announces New Sanctions Against N. Korea Report Blasts Military For Not Being Nuke-Proof

Korea Seeks Nuke Reprocessing Deal By 2012 All Together Now: Missile Defense

Nonnuclear Nations Seek Bigger Say Via Alliance Sanctions and Dr Strangelove

US To Freeze 100 N Korea-Linked Bank Accounts

Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal. As part of USAF Counterproliferation Center’s mission to counter weapons of mass destruction through education and research, we’re providing our government and civilian community a source for timely counterproliferation information. This information includes articles, papers and other documents addressing issues pertinent to US military response options for dealing with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats and countermeasures. It’s our hope this information resource will help enhance your counterproliferation issue awareness. Established in 1998, the USAF/CPC provides education and research to present and future leaders of the Air Force, as well as to members of other branches of the armed services and Department of Defense. Our purpose is to help those agencies better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Please feel free to visit our web site at http://cpc.au.af.mil/ for in-depth information and specific points of contact. The following articles, papers or documents do not necessarily reflect official endorsement of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or other US government agencies. Reproduction for private use or commercial gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. All rights are reserved.

New York Times July 22, 2010 White House Presses Republicans On Arms Treaty By PETER BAKER Page – A7 WASHINGTON — With time running out for major votes before the November election, the White House is trying to reach an understanding with Senate Republicans to approve its new arms control treaty with Russia by committing to modernizing the nuclear arsenal and making additional guarantees about missile defense. The White House pressed allies in Congress in recent days to approve billions of dollars for the nation‘s current nuclear weapons and infrastructure even as administration and Congressional officials work on a ratification resolution intended to reaffirm that the treaty will not stop American missile defense plans. The effort to forge a genuine bipartisan coalition contrasts with most of President Obama‘s legislative drives in the past year because a treaty requires a two-thirds vote, meaning that the president needs at least eight Republicans. White House officials are optimistic that they can reach an agreement that will attract enough Republicans but are racing against the calendar because the closer it gets to the election, the more partisan the debate may become. At stake is perhaps Mr. Obama‘s most tangible foreign policy achievement, a treaty that bars the United States and Russia from deploying more than 1,550 strategic warheads and 700 launchers. If the president fails to get the New Start treaty ratified, it will undercut his effort to rebuild the relationship with Moscow and his broader arms control agenda. The critical player is Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, who has criticized the treaty but also signaled that his reservations could be assuaged. In particular, he has sought to modernize the nuclear force, and the administration has proposed spending more than $100 billion over 10 years to sustain and modernize some strategic systems. ―I‘ve told the administration it would be much easier to do the treaty right than to do it fast if they want to get it ratified,‖ Mr. Kyl said Thursday in an interview. ―It‘s not a matter of delay,‖ he added, but ―until I‘m satisfied about some of these things, I will not be willing to allow the treaty to come up.‖ Mr. Kyl sounded hopeful that he could reach agreement, ticking off three ways the White House could assure him that the proposed nuclear modernization program would be adequate: ensure enough first-year money in the next round of appropriations bills, include enough second-year money in a follow-up budget proposal and revise the long-range modernization plan to anticipate additional costs in later years. ―I‘m not questioning the administration‘s commitment to this,‖ he said, ―but this is a big deal, and it needs to have everybody‘s commitment to it at takeoff, and I really don‘t see that the groundwork has really been laid.‖ Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has met with Mr. Kyl once and invited him and other senators to talk about the treaty again next week. Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has likewise been talking with Mr. Kyl regularly and is trying to help resolve Republican demands to inspect at least some of the secret negotiating record. ―If they get Kyl, it‘s over,‖ said Samuel Charap, an analyst at the Center for American Progress, a research organization close to Mr. Obama. ―He carries a lot of weight, and he has made himself such a hard get that if they get him, it will be a big deal. But the question is, are they willing to pay the price he‘s asking in light of what they want to do in the future?‖ So far, administration officials say they are willing to pay that price because they are also committed to modernization. With Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the Foreign Relations Committee‘s ranking Republican, already supporting the treaty, Democrats hope they can win the votes of other Republicans on the committee like Senators Bob Corker of Tennessee and Johnny Isakson of Georgia. ―We certainly would like to support Start,‖ Mr. Corker said in an interview. ―The crux of what‘s happening right now for folks like me that would like to support the Start treaty is really ensuring that we have an appropriate and thoughtful modernization program.‖ While he said the current plan was still too vague, he added, ―I really think there‘s a good opportunity to have a good outcome here.‖ But Baker Spring, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation and a treaty critic, said Republicans were not simply bargaining for the best deal. ―Either the administration meets the admittedly varied goals of the New Start skeptics or they will vote against it,‖ he said. The White House is working closely with Mr. Kerry and Mr. Lugar as they draft a joint resolution of ratification that could include language intended to reaffirm that the treaty does not impose any meaningful restriction on American missile defense plans. To reassure Republicans, Mr. Biden also lobbied lawmakers to approve the first-year expense of the modernization program. A Senate committee supported the administration‘s spending request on Thursday, but last week a House subcommittee cut it back by $99 million, angering Republicans. Democrats want to offset that with $80 million in unspent money from other programs. Mr. Kerry has said he wants his committee to vote on the treaty before the Senate leaves town for summer recess, possibly Aug. 3 or 4. That would mean a fall floor debate in the midst of the campaign or perhaps during a postelection lame duck session. ―We‘re at a very delicate juncture now,‖ said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, an advocacy group. ―We‘ve only got a certain number of weeks left before the November election.‖ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/us/politics/23start.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Kyiv Post – Ukraine US-Russia Nuke Treaty Facing Hurdles In US Senate July 23, 2010 By The Associated Press The once smooth path for U.S. Senate ratification of a major nuclear arms control agreement with Russia is looking a little dicier. Conservatives opposing New START, a replacement for a Cold War-era treaty, are trying to make it an issue in November's congressional elections. While they are unlikely to kill the agreement, they could force Democrats to delay a ratification vote until after the election. That could be damaging to President Barack Obama. A narrow victory after a lengthy, contentious debate could destroy his hopes for achieving more ambitious goals, including further reductions of nuclear weapons and ratification of a nuclear test ban treaty. "A delayed ratification with a close vote would be a blow to U.S. leadership around the world," said Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, a foundation that advocates a world free of nuclear weapons. "People would doubt the president's ability to negotiate other agreements." The administration still hopes to win approval for New START before the Senate begins its summer break in August. To do that would require the support of at least eight Republicans, along with all 57 Democratic and two independent senators to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority in the 100-member Senate. The administration is expressing confidence, but so far only one Republican senator, Richard Lugar of Indiana, has announced his support. Administration officials say they could wait until the "lame duck" session that takes place after November's election, but before new lawmakers are sworn in. The White House does not want to postpone a vote until next year because Republicans are expected to pick up seats in the election. Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the New START agreement in April. It would shrink the limit on strategic warheads to 1,550 for each country, down about a third from the current ceiling of 2,200. It also would make changes in the old treaty's procedures that allow both countries to inspect each other's arsenals and verify compliance. An affiliate of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, has taken the lead in opposing the treaty. The Heritage Action for America, an advocacy group, has started a petition drive and may run political advertisements on the issue during the election season. It also is lobbying in the Senate. Though arms control is hardly a major issue in a campaign season dominated by economic worries, the divisive political environment makes it difficult for Republicans to buck the conservative mainstream and hand Obama a victory that might be considered his top foreign policy achievement. Tom Daschle, a former Democratic Senate Majority leader, who supports the treaty, says Heritage's influence may explain why so many Republicans have been reticent about taking a stand. "It is certainly serious enough to silence some Republican senators," he said. He added that he expected enough Republicans eventually would come around for passage. Heritage won some prominent support when a likely GOP presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, announced opposition to the treaty in a newspaper column this month. Some Republicans say that U.S. negotiators made too many concessions and that that the treaty does not establish adequate procedures for making sure the two sides abide by its terms. They also fear that Russia could use the treaty to limit U.S. missile defense plans. Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona and other Republicans are holding out support over another issue, insisting that the administration increase money available to maintain and improve existing nuclear warheads. The administration appears willing to accommodate Republicans on that issue and has requested a 10 percent increase. It has rejected criticism of the treaty, however, and has tried to win over Republicans by citing the support of some of the party's foreign policy luminaries, including former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz and former President George W. Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley. The administration says that Russia has strong incentives to abide by the treaty because the U.S. arsenal is technologically superior and the costs of maintaining large stockpiles is harder for Russia to bear. The defeat of the treaty would damage Obama's efforts to repair U.S.-Russian relations and to rally international cooperation on eliminating nuclear weapons. Administration officials say that Republicans will ultimately come around because rejecting the treaty would leave the two countries dangerously uncertain about each other's arsenals. The authority to conduct inspections expired with the old START treaty last year. "There is a simple question to ask: What is this and what if we don't have the treaty?" said Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher, the State Department's top arms control official. "I think that the risk of not having this is significant." http://www.kyivpost.com/news/world/detail/75091/ (Return to Articles and Documents List)

News.AZ – Azerbaijan 'US, Russia Knows That Iran Does Not Have Nuclear Weapons' Wednesday, 21 July 2010 By Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said the US and Russia know that Iran does not have any nuclear weapons. Speaking in a press conference Tuesday evening in the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) summit in Geneva, Larijani stressed his disagreement with remarks made by Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev about concerns on Iran's nuclear work and said, "the fact is that the US and Russia know that Iran does not have any nuclear weapons, so there is no reason to be concerned." Also regarding a question about security forces efforts for replacing Islamic regime for Islamic Republic after Iran's 2009 presidential elections, Larijani said, "it is not a realistic view, nobody in Iran was seeking the goal, since there is no difference between Islamic regime and Islamic Republic and that Islamic thought mainly focuses on justice." Also regarding some reports that during post-election events in Iran, the green movement has called for removing Spiritual Leadership (Velayate Faghih) from power, Larijani said, "I have not heard it so far, they (the movement) have not mentioned it in their statements and if they had had, it was a strategic mistake, since the Spiritual Leadership is under the framework of our constitution." He added, the Spiritual Leadership in Iran keeps people's votes secure. Asked about Brazil and Turkey mediation in Iran's nuclear issue, Larijani said, "there was no mediation, the US President Barack Obama has written letters to Turkish Prime Minister and Brazilian President and called for their engagement." Larijani then referred to the 4th US-sponsored resolution imposed on Iran and said, "the measure by the US and Security Council insulted Brazil, Turkey and Iran." Meanwhile concerning European Union foreign ministers' decision to impose new sanction on Iran, he said, "the new resolution will succeed as much as three previous ones did." As to a question that recent protests of merchants in Iran's main bazaar shows their dissatisfaction with Iran's economic situation, Larijani said, "the protest had nothing to do with whole economic situation, but it was about new tax rules." He added, "the government and merchants held talks and the issue is being solved." http://www.news.az/articles/19553 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Post New Sanctions Crimp Iran's Shipping Business As Insurers Withhold Coverage By Thomas Erdbrink and Colum Lynch, Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, July 21, 2010 Page - A13 TEHRAN -- Just weeks after the United States and the United Nations imposed new rounds of sanctions on Iran, Tehran's ability to ship vital goods has been significantly curtailed as some of the world's most powerful Western insurance companies cut off Iranian shippers out of fear that they could run afoul of U.S. laws, the insurers say. The new measures pose a serious test for Iran. In particular, the U.S. sanctions, which threaten to penalize foreign companies that sell fuel and other refined petroleum products to Iran, have forced ports and freighting companies across the globe to reevaluate their Iranian business. Dozens of Iranian vessels that transport crude oil, industrial equipment and other goods and supplies in and out of the Islamic Republic have been denied insurance coverage for weeks, insurance company representatives said. "Iranian-flagged ships are facing problems all over the world as they currently have no insurance coverage because of the new sanctions," said Mohammad Rounaghi, deputy manager of Sea Pars, an Iranian company that provides services for international ship owners and maritime insurance companies. "Basically, most ports will refuse them entry if they are not covered for possible damages." In a blow to Tehran, maritime insurer Lloyd's announced this month that it would stop underwriting gasoline imports to Iran, a move that analysts say will probably prompt other insurers to follow. "Lloyd's will always comply with applicable sanctions," Sean McGovern, its general counsel, said in a statement. "The U.S. is an important market for Lloyd's and, in recognition of this, the market will not insure or reinsure refined petroleum going into Iran." But Russia and India have made it clear that they intend to continue legitimate trade with Iran, providing Tehran with hope that some nations will accept its solution for the insurance crisis: coverage guaranteed by the Iranian government. "These sanctions have not affected us much," said Mohammad Hussein Dajmar, the managing director of the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), which has 160 ships in its fleet. "The world has many ports. We will sail to those nations that want to do business with us." Business interests In recent weeks, IRISL, which was privatized four years ago and was specifically targeted by the sanctions, has approached several insurance companies to reinsure its fleet of ships, according to a representative of a Dutch maritime insurer who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. The shipping firm is seeking "protection and indemnity" insurance needed to gain entry to almost every port worldwide. "They knocked on our door asking for help," the representative said. "But we have many business interests in the U.S. so we are forced to deny them service." The new sanctions have also led fuel suppliers in Europe and the Middle East to refuse to refuel Iranian planes. "These measures hurt people, not our government," said Mohammad Jalali, an Amsterdam-based Iran Air district manager, citing the 4 million Iranians living abroad. BP, meanwhile, has canceled its contract with Iran Air in Hamburg, Germany, the company said last week, citing the new trade sanctions. Even the U.S.-based Educational Testing Service has stopped registration for its tests in Iran because, under the U.S. sanctions, it can no longer accept payments from the Islamic Republic. The company's popular Test of English as a Foreign Language is required for acceptance to universities worldwide, and the move could hurt the chances of young Iranians hoping to study abroad. In an effort to compel Iran to halt its uranium enrichment, the U.N. Security Council last month imposed a wide range of military and financial sanctions on Iran, including a call for nations to prevent their financial institutions from insuring or reinsuring ships suspected of carrying banned weapons components. Members were also asked to report to the U.N. on Iran's efforts to set up front companies to conceal its shipping activities. Congress this month adopted far more stringent measures designed to target foreign companies that sell gasoline and other refined petroleum products to Iran. Although Iran is the second-largest oil producer in the world, it lacks refining capacity and relies on foreign suppliers for nearly 5 million gallons of gasoline a day. Iran claims its uranium enrichment program is needed to develop energy, but the United States and others believe Iran is seeking to build nuclear weapons. In a retaliatory move, Iran's parliament on Tuesday passed a bill calling for cargo inspections of any ship from a country that inspects Iranian vessels under the sanctions. Iranian leaders have made clear that such inspections will occur in the narrow Strait of Hormuz. Angry governments The U.S. sanctions have angered many governments, including Russia, China and India, which claim the United States has no right to unilaterally impose U.S. laws on their companies. On Wednesday, Sergei Shmatko, the Russian energy minister, met with the Iranian oil minister, Masoud Mir-Kazemi, and said afterward that Moscow has no intention of abiding by the U.S. sanctions. "The sanctions cannot stop us," he said. "If there is a commercial interest and attractive terms, Russian companies are ready to supply oil products to Iran." India has also said it would ignore the U.S. sanctions. Even so, foreign-flagged ships could encounter problems sailing to Iranian ports, experts said. Maritime transportation companies often charter ships and rent out portions of the cargo space. Freighting companies regularly outsource loading to subcontractors. "Under the new sanctions, all of these groups are responsible for the cargo the ship is carrying," the Dutch insurer said, explaining that the companies must prove to the U.S. government that they exercised "due diligence" in checking that the cargo holds no forbidden products. "For most companies, that will just be way too much paperwork." Iranian private transporters are worried for the future. Under Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the import of goods, including Chinese textiles and German luxury cars, has increased by 50 percent. "How will we get those products to Iran if there are no ships?" a Tehran-based owner of a family-run international transportation company said. "In today's globalized world, it is much harder to evade sanctions." There are more ominous signs on the horizon for Iranian transporters. The European Union is expected to approve its own sanctions against Iran in the coming days. A consortium of Iranian government-owned insurance companies last week sought to allay insurers' concerns, pledging to put up $1 billion as a guarantee. But the offer has received a cool response, according to the Dutch insurer. "Imagine your oil tanker crashing into a cruise ship filled with Americans in the port of Hong Kong," the insurer explained. "A billion dollars doesn't cover that." Lynch reported from New York. Special correspondent Kay Armin Serjoie contributed to this report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/20/AR2010072005958.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Press TV – Iran Iran Slams US Breach Of Swap Statement Thursday, 22 July 2010 Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani says Tehran's declaration on a possible nuclear fuel swap deal is the only solution to the nuclear issue, adding that sanctions are sure to result in failure. Speaking in a meeting with Speaker of Japan's House of Representatives Takahiro Yokomichi in Geneva on Wednesday, Larijani said the Tehran declaration was the product of negotiations held in Japan earlier in February. "After those discussions, Iran made certain efforts as a result of which the Tehran declaration was issued which came as a clear sign of our positive cooperation," the Iranian speaker said. Iran, Brazil and Turkey issued a joint nuclear fuel swap declaration on May 17, based on which Tehran agreed to exchange 1,200 kg of its low-enriched uranium on Turkish soil with fuel for its Tehran research reactor. The US and its European allies snubbed the declaration and, in less than a month after its announcement by the Tehran government, the UN Security Council imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear work. "If the Tehran declaration is fully implemented many issues will be resolved completely. The path of the resolutions will bear absolutely no fruit," Larijani cautioned. He went on to say that the US-driven sanctions against Iran breached the nuclear fuel swap declaration and a Washington pledge to commit to any such deal. During Larijani's earlier visit to Tokyo, Japan offered to enrich uranium for Iran seeking to allay international concerns that Iran might be pursuing military objectives in its nuclear program. The enriched uranium would be used at Tehran's research reactor to produce medical isotopes. Iran, a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, says its nuclear program is directed at the civilian applications of the technology. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=135788§ionid=351020104 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Daily Star – Lebanon Merkel: Iran Not Working Seriously With IAEA Compiled by Daily Star staff Thursday, July 22, 2010 German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Wednesday that Iran did not seem to be working seriously to solve disagreements over its nuclear program and she was skeptical a new round of talks would yield much. ―At the moment Iran does not seem to be working on solving the problems with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with real seriousness,‖ Merkel told a news conference. ―We have already started many rounds of talks with Iran, and it will surprise no one that I am a little skeptical whether that will lead anywhere.‖ Britain and the US said on Tuesday that it was not too late for a peaceful solution to the crisis over Iran‘s nuclear program, but said they were determined to enforce new sanctions. The UN approved sanctions against the Islamic Republic in June, seeking to put pressure on Tehran to return to talks on its uranium-enrichment program. European Union foreign ministers will adopt sanctions going beyond the UN restrictions against Iran next week, diplomats said. ―We urge the Iranian regime to resume negotiations with the international community without delay. It‘s not too late for them to do so,‖ British Prime Minister David Cameron said at a joint news conference with US President Barack Obama. ―America and Britain, with our partners, stand ready to negotiate and to do so in good faith. But in the absence of a willing partner we will implement with vigor the sanctions package agreed by the Security Council and in Europe we will be taking further steps as well,‖ he said. Both leaders said Iran had been one of the main issues in their talks during Cameron‘s first visit to Washington as premier. Major powers suspect Iran is using its nuclear program to develop weapons, but Tehran says it is enriching uranium only for electricity generation. ―I thanked David for Great Britain‘s efforts to ensure strong European Union sanctions in the coming days,‖ Obama said. ―Along with our P5+1 partners,‖ he said, referring to the five permanent Security Council members and Germany, ―we remain committed to a diplomatic solution, but the Iranian government must understand that the path of defiance will only bring more pressure and more isolation.‖ The new EU steps focus on trade, banking and insurance, transport including shipping and air cargo, and important sectors of the gas and oil industry. Iran‘s Parliament approved a law Tuesday calling on the government to retaliate against any countries that inspect its ships and aircraft or refuse to provide fuel to its aircraft as part of foreign sanctions, the semi-official Fars news agency reported. – Reuters http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=117314#axzz0uQuP9sKp (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Financial Times – U.K. Suggestions Of Iran Nuclear Sabotage By James Blitz and Roula Khalaf in London and Daniel Dombey in Washington July 22, 2010 Iran has suffered a series of technical setbacks to its nuclear programme in the past 12 months, triggering suggestions that western intelligence agencies are sabotaging its likely ambition to build an atomic weapon. As Iran continues to defy international sanctions, western security analysts say the country is making progress towards the ability to test a nuclear bomb in the next few years. But a series of recent reverses, notably affecting Iran‘s ability to enrich uranium, is prompting debate over whether the programme is being undermined by sabotage, sanctions, or the incompetence of the regime‘s scientists.In the past year, a dramatic reduction has taken place in the number of centrifuges enriching uranium at the regime‘s nuclear plant in Natanz. In May 2009, the International Atomic Energy Agency said there were 4,920 operational centrifuges. Twelve months later the IAEA stated that Iran was running only 3,936, a reduction of 20 per cent. Iran also appears to be having difficulties on other fronts. Ivan Oelrich, of the Federation of American Scientists, said the centrifuges were only working at 20 per cent efficiency. The latest IAEA report says that 4,592 centrifuges are installed at Natanz – but are sitting idle and doing nothing at all. Some security analysts see this as evidence of covert sabotage by western intelligence agencies. ―There are signs that there has been a concerted intelligence operation which is able to debilitate and set back the Iranian programme,‖ says one academic, speaking on condition of anonymity. ―It is not foolproof. But a large number of Iranian centrifuges have crashed and up to half have had to be replaced in recent times. This success didn‘t happen entirely accidentally.‖ Others are less willing to give western intelligence total credit. ―Nothing we know can rule out sabotage and clearly something fishy is going on,‖ says Mr Oelrich. ―But just because there is sabotage does not rule out the possibility that the Iranians are also grossly incompetent.‖ Leading analysts believe western agencies have been trying to sabotage the programme for some time. ―The UK, the US, the Israelis all want to get companies to help them put bogus equipment into the programme,‖ said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security. Mr Albright said Iran was vulnerable to this kind of sabotage because it needed to import equipment from abroad, often through shady middlemen who help the regime defy international sanctions. ―The Iranians really don‘t make that much; they don‘t make vacuum pumps, they don‘t make valves, they don‘t reverse engineer that well,‖ he said. ―So western suppliers are critical.‖ Michael Adler, an expert on Iran‘s nuclear programme at the Woodrow Wilson Centre in Washington, said intelligence agencies actively exploited this reliance on imports. ―[They] trace the procurement patterns, they find people shipping, say, a vacuum pump for a centrifuge. Then they put in a gremlin. The thing about centrifuges is that they operate in cascades. So when one goes down, you get a domino effect.‖ However, these experts, offer a word of caution. They say that Iran faces other problems that would explain the setbacks. For example, its scientists are still using old centrifuges – called P1s and P2s – which were first employed decades ago. ―It is hardly surprising these break down,‖ said Mr Adler, ―especially given the regime‘s ambitions for speedy success‖. Others argue that the scope for sabotage has been much reduced because Iran has acquired computer systems that allow it to produce its own numerically generated parts for the enrichment programme. These systems, originally designed for car production lines, can also be used to build equipment for uranium enrichment. Iran insists talk of sabotage is western propaganda. ―I strongly deny Iran‘s nuclear programme is sabotaged. This is a media war to suggest the Islamic Republic is dependent on foreign help,‖ says Kazem Jalali, a member of the Iranian parliament‘s foreign policy and national security committee. ―Our nuclear programme is 100 per cent localised. We do not need to stretch our hands to the world markets.‖ However, some security analysts are confident that an international sabotage operation is having an effect. ―The central question in international diplomacy is whether Iran will acquire the bomb or whether Iran will be bombed,‖ says the academic. ―This is not a question that western leaders are having to worry about in the coming weeks and months. This may well be because of the effectiveness of concerted intelligence operations.‖ Faulty parts Perhaps the best-known of the alleged attempts to sabotage Iran‘s nuclear programme came in 2006, when power supplies at the enrichment facility in Natanz blew up, writes James Blitz. The blast destroyed no fewer than 50 centrifuges. Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, then head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation, said later that the equipment had been ―manipulated‖. There have been other examples. A Swiss company that provided Iran with spare parts for its enrichment programme is reported to have been persuaded by the CIA to introduce defective elements. In 2004, the New York Times reported that inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency stumbled upon vacuum pumps at Natanz that had been cleverly damaged so they did not work properly. In June 2008, an Iranian businessman was sentenced to death for allegedly supplying defective equipment to the nuclear programme. No details were given of what the equipment was. But an Iranian counter-intelligence official said the incident did irreversible damage. Additional reporting by Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc135fc6-95af-11df-b5ad-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Yonhap News – South Korea July 21, 2010 U.S. Announces New Sanctions Against N. Korea By Chang Jae-soon, Kim Deok-hyun and Lee Haye-ah SEOUL, July 21 (Yonhap) -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced a set of new sanctions against North Korea on Wednesday to punish Pyongyang for the sinking of a South Korean warship and warn the communist regime against further provocations. The announcement came after Clinton, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and their South Korean counterparts held unprecedented high-level security talks meant to underscore the firmness of their alliance in the wake of North Korea's deadly sinking of the warship Cheonan in March. "Today, I'm announcing a series of measures to increase our ability to prevent North Korea's proliferation, to halt their illicit activities that helped fund their weapons programs and to discourage further provocative actions," Clinton told a news conference in Seoul after high-level security talks with South Korean officials. Clinton said Washington's "new country-specific sanctions" will target the North's "sale and procurement of arms and related material and the procurement of luxury goods and other illicit activities." "Let me stress that these measures are not directed at the people of North Korea who have suffered too long due to the misguided and malign priorities of their government," she said. "They are directed at the destabilizing illicit and provocative policies pursued by that government." In addition to new sanctions, Clinton said that the U.S. will expand ones already in place under U.N. resolutions to "identify, pressure and put out of business North Korean entities involved in proliferation and other illicit activities overseas." She said all of these measures will target the North's "leadership" and "their assets," recalling that similar financial sanctions by Washington in 2005 hit the impoverished regime hard. "We did get some action from the North Koreans as a result of these steps that were taken at that time," Clinton said. The "two-plus-two" security talks, one of the biggest shows of the nearly six-decade-old alliance between Seoul and Washington, were aimed at demonstrating the U.S. security commitment to the Asian ally in the wake of the ship sinking that left 46 sailors dead. "The ministers urged North Korea to take responsibility for the attack," the two sides said in a joint statement. "They also called upon North Korea to refrain from further attacks or hostilities against the ROK and underscored that there would be serious consequences for any such irresponsible behavior." ROK is an acronym for South Korea's formal name, Republic of Korea. The disaster has been the dominant security issue in the region for months, completely overshadowing international efforts to rid North Korea of its nuclear programs. Pyongyang has denied any role in the attack. But after the U.N. Security Council issued a mild rebuke over the sinking, the North has been making a series of conciliatory moves, including expressing its willingness to return to the stalled six-party nuclear disarmament talks. South Korea, however, views Pyongyang's outreach as a ploy to duck responsibility for the sinking, and has urged the North to show sincere willingness to give up its nuclear programs if it wants to reopen the stalled nuclear talks involving the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the U.S. Clinton shared Seoul's view, saying resuming the nuclear talks "is not something we're looking at yet." The North should first take responsibility for the ship sinking and demonstrate sincere willingness to dismantle its nuclear programs, she said, "but to date, we have seen nothing" indicating change in Pyongyang's stance. The joint statement also urged the North to demonstrate its genuine will for denuclearization with concrete actions. Clinton said the North can get everything it wants -- such as the lifting of sanctions, energy and economic aid and the normalization of relations with Washington -- if it halts "its provocative behavior, its threats and belligerence toward its neighbors" and takes irreversible steps to disarm. "But as long as the North Korean leadership takes a different choice, continuing defiance, provocation and belligerence, it will continue to suffer the consequences," she said. Gates warned of the possibility of the North staging fresh provocations, saying there has been "some indication over the last number of months" as Pyongyang tries to transfer power from leader Kim Jong-il to his third son. "So I think it is something that we have to look at very closely. We have to keep it in mind and be very vigilant," he said. Ahead of the formal talks, Clinton and Gates made a highly symbolic visit to the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) on the border with North Korea, together with their South Korean counterparts, Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan and Defense Minister Kim Tae-young. It was the first time for the foreign and defense chiefs of the U.S. to visit the DMZ together. "We are here today not just to show our appreciation for the vital work U.S., ROK and other forces do in maintaining the armistice, but also to send a strong signal to the North, to the region, and to the world that our commitment to South Korea's security is steadfast," Gates said at the DMZ. ROK stands for South Korea's official name, the Republic of Korea. Clinton urged the North to stop isolating itself from the international community and choose a better future for its impoverished population of 24 million. She also stressed that the U.S. security commitment to the South will remain strong until the North changes. "There is another way. There is a way that can benefit the people of the North," Clinton said. "But until they change direction, the United States stands firmly on behalf of the people and the government of the Republic of Korea. We provide a stalwart defense to our allies and partners." The two top U.S. officials also visited Seoul's War Memorial of Korea, where they laid a wreath and paid tribute to U.N. troops killed in the Korean War and to the 46 sailors killed in the Cheonan's sinking. Gates and Seoul's Defense Minister Kim agreed Tuesday on a series of large-scale joint military exercises. The drills are "designed to send a clear message to North Korea that its aggressive behavior must stop," Gates said. On Wednesday, the 97,000-ton U.S. aircraft carrier USS George Washington arrived at South Korea's southeastern port of Busan for a four-day drill set to begin Sunday. The exercise will also involve some 20 ships and more than 200 aircraft, including four F-22 Raptors that will fly on training missions in and around Korea for the first time. President Lee Myung-bak hosted dinner for Clinton and her delegation later in the day. "It was greatly meaningful (for Clinton and Gates) to visit Panmunjom and the War Memorial to pay tribute in person to those killed in the Korean War and to the victims of the Cheonan incident," Lee told the U.S. delegation. "I feel really reassured about the 60 years of the Korea-U.S. alliance." Clinton replied that the relations between the two countries will further deepen in the future. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2010/07/21/91/0301000000AEN20100721010700315F.HTML (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Joong Ang Daily – South Korea Korea Seeks Nuke Reprocessing Deal By 2012 Seoul is negotiating with Washington on new accord for reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel July 22, 2010 By Bloomberg News Korea aims to reach an accord with the United States by 2012 that would allow the country to reprocess spent nuclear fuel for use in reactors to produce electricity, Minister of Knowledge Economy Choi Kyung-hwan said. The two countries are discussing revising an agreement set to expire in 2014 that bans South Korea from recycling uranium, which can also be used to make atomic weapons. South Korea, which plans to build more reactors to increase the share of nuclear power generation from about 40 percent, is running out of space to store the spent fuel. ―I hope that we can get recycling spent fuel as part of the agreement,‖ Choi, whose ministry oversees energy and industrial policies, said yesterday in an interview in Washington where he is attending a meeting of energy officials. ―The U.S. and South Korea will finalize it by 2012.‖ The current agreement was signed in 1956 and revised in 1974. Allowing South Korea, which briefly sought to build atomic bombs in the 1970s, to reprocess the fuel may discourage North Korea from giving up its weapons program. Asia‘s fourth-largest crude oil importer also seeks to buy overseas fields to reduce its dependence on imports and plans to increase exports of nuclear reactors, Choi said. The country wants to boost sales of its atomic power reactors after winning an $18.6 billion order from the United Arab Emirates in December, he said. The nation emerged as a rival in the global nuclear-power plant industry after state-run Korea Electric Power Corp. beat out General Electric and Areva last year for an order to build four reactors in the U.A.E. Korea said in June it may reach an agreement by the end of the year to build atomic generators in Turkey. ―We are trying to develop alternatives to oil and will continue to pursue acquisitions of promising oil and gas companies,‖ the minister said. Korea, which imports almost all of its energy and mineral needs, is competing with China and India in the search for raw materials after crude oil prices fell from an all-time high in 2008, making assets cheaper. Choi declined to say whether Korea is interested in buying assets from BP, which must pay for Gulf clean-up efforts. http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2923549 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Daily Yomiuri – Japan July 22, 2010 Nonnuclear Nations Seek Bigger Say Via Alliance The Yomiuri Shimbun The government has begun work on forming an alliance of nonnuclear states that will aim to give those nations a greater voice on global nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation issues, according to sources. Having conceived the alliance in cooperation with Australia, the government intends to call on 11 other nations, including Canada, Germany and South Korea, to join the alliance. A U.N. General Assembly meeting scheduled for September is considered by the government to be a good opportunity to hold an inaugural meeting of the 13 founding member nations, the sources said. Nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation issues have been largely left in the hands of Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States--the five nuclear states acknowledged under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. However, the dynamics of global discussions have been transforming. The United States has signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with India, which possesses nuclear weapons but has yet to join the NPT. Japan has started negotiations with India over striking a similar deal. "Cooperation among nations sharing common ideals will be the most effective way to promote discussions on nuclear disarmament," a senior Foreign Ministry official said. The government is seeking to limit the alliance to 13 members because Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada felt participation by many nations would result in more compromise and less substance in agreements made, the sources said. Japan and Australia have been cooperating closely on nuclear issues. In February, Okada and his Australian counterpart, Stephen Smith, issued a joint statement to express their commitment to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. At the NPT review conference held in New York in May, Japan and Australia jointly lobbied for the adoption of a plan to convene a conference on making the Middle East free of nuclear weapons. The two governments envisage the alliance as a means to step up calls for North Korea and Iran to scrap their nuclear development programs and urge India, Pakistan and Israel to join the NPT. Aiming to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in military strategy, the two governments also intend for the alliance to urge nuclear states to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states, and to possess nuclear weapons only for deterrent purposes. The two nations hope that once the alliance is established, a ministerial-level meeting of member nations will be held roughly once a year until the next NPT review conference in 2015, the sources said. http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/20100722TDY01T01.htm (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Times of India – India US To Freeze 100 N Korea-Linked Bank Accounts By Press Trust of India (PTI) July 23, 2010 SEOUL: The US has identified about 200 bank accounts with links to North Korea and is expected to freeze some 100 of those suspected of being used for weapons exports and other illicit purposes banned under UN resolutions, a source said today. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced earlier this week that Washington will slap fresh sanctions on North Korea as punishment for the March sinking of a South Korean warship as well as pressure to get Pyongyang to end its nuclear programmes. Clinton also said the US will expand existing sanctions on Pyongyang that have been in place under UN resolutions. The latest resolution, issued after Pyongyang's atomic test blast last year, calls for preventing financial services that could fund the North's nuclear or missile activities and banning weapons trade with the regime. "The US treasury department and intelligence authorities have identified about 200 overseas bank accounts, including those suspected of holding funds from weapons exports and other illicit dealings in violation of the UN resolutions," a diplomatic source said on condition of anonymity. The US is expected to have about 100 of them frozen by notifying banks of the illicitness associated with the North Korean accounts, the source said. The State Department said Wednesday the US will carry out new sanctions within two weeks to cut off money flowing to its leaders through the trafficking of weapons of mass destruction and counterfeit and luxury goods in violation of UN resolutions. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/US-to-freeze-100-N-Korea-linked-bank- accounts/articleshow/6204882.cms (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Bloomberg.com Myanmar Nuclear Weapon Program Claims Supported By Photos, Jane's Reports By Peter S. Green July 21, 2010 Allegations by a Myanmar defector that the military-run country is pursuing a nuclear program are corroborated by newly available commercial satellite images, Jane‘s Intelligence Review said in an article released yesterday. The photos of buildings and security fences near the country‘s capital, Naypyidaw, confirm reports by Major Sai Thein Win of machine tool factories and other facilities alleged to be part of a nascent program to build nuclear weapons, the magazine reported from London. ―They will not make a bomb with the technology they currently possess or the intellectual capability,‖ Jane‘s analyst Allison Puccioni said in an interview. ―The two factors do make it possible to have a route to one.‖ U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed concern about reports that North Korea and Myanmar are expanding military ties and sharing nuclear technology at a meeting of Southeast Asian foreign ministers in Thailand last year. Clinton said the U.S. would remain ―vigilant‖ against any military cooperation between the two countries. Yesterday, Clinton announced further sanctions against North Korea in an effort to halt the country‘s nuclear- weapons program. Sai said he worked at two factories involved in the nuclear program. His report to a Burmese opposition news website, Democratic Voice of Burma, based in Norway, included documents and color photographs of the interior of the installations. The satellite imagery reviewed by Jane‘s showed only the exterior of the buildings, Puccioni said. ‗Overly Ambitious‘ Jane‘s said Myanmar‘s nuclear program is ―overly ambitious with limited expertise,‖ in a statement yesterday. While Myanmar is a signatory to international agreements to control nuclear weapons use, it hasn‘t agreed to more recent changes in the treaties and therefore isn‘t subject to international inspections, the magazine said. ―With Myanmar‘s current freedom from sanctions and relative economic prosperity, the junta may be able to outsource the technical know-how and tools to reach its goals far sooner than expected,‖ Christian Le Mière, editor of Jane‘s Intelligence Review, said in a statement. ―Someone had to be assisting them, that‘s the frightening thing,‖ said David Kay, a former United Nations weapons inspector and now a fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies in Arlington, Virginia, in an interview. ―Myanmar is uniquely incapable of carrying this through.‖ North Korea could be the country providing aid, said Michael J. Green, an adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former senior director for Asia on the National Security Council under President George W. Bush. North Korea During the Bush administration, North Korea discussed delivering short-range missiles and nuclear capability to Myanmar, Green said. ―We worry about the transfer of nuclear technology‖ and indications of clandestine military cooperation between two of Asia‘s most secretive regimes, Clinton said last year. ―I‘m not saying it is happening, but we want to be prepared to stand against it.‖ State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said on July 12 that the U.S. continues ―to have concerns about Burma‘s relationship with North Korea. It‘s something that we watch very, very carefully and consistently.‖ Last year, the U.S. Navy followed the Kang Nam I, a North Korean freighter headed in the direction of Myanmar with unknown cargo. The ship turned around and returned home. The evidence points to a method of uranium enrichment, laser enrichment, that the North Koreans have never used, Kay said. ―If it is laser enrichment the finger points more toward Chinese assistance or some place in the former Soviet Union,‖ he said. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-21/myanmar-nuclear-weapon-program-claims-supported-by-photos-jane- s-reports.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Bloomberg.com U.S. Wants Transparency From Myanmar After Reports of Nuclear Arms Program By Peter S. Green and Daniel Ten Kate July 21, 2010 The U.S. called on Myanmar to disclose its relationship with North Korea amid concerns Kim Jong Il‘s regime is helping the military-run Southeast Asian nation pursue a nuclear weapons program. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will hold meetings in Hanoi today with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which includes Myanmar. Tomorrow, she will join North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Ui Chun at Asia‘s biggest security forum. ―We have told Burmese officials that they have international obligations we expect them to heed,‖ State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said yesterday in an e- mail, referring to Myanmar by its former name. ―This requires greater transparency in their dealings with North Korea.‖ Myanmar told its Asean counterparts at meetings this week that it‘s not seeking nuclear weapons. Jane‘s Intelligence Review released an article yesterday with newly available commercial satellite images that it says corroborate allegations by Myanmar defector Major Sai Thein Win that the government is pursuing an atomic bomb. ―Myanmar‘s government, the foreign minister, has told us categorically that they don‘t have a nuclear weapons program, and have no ambitions‖ to start one, Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo told reporters in Hanoi on July 20. Myanmar Foreign Minister Nyan Win hasn‘t addressed reporters at the meeting. Last month, after Al Jazeera television reported the allegations, his government said they were ―baseless accusations based solely on the fabrications of deserters, fugitives and exiles.‖ North Korea Ties Myanmar conducts relations with North Korea ―in the same way as it has been trying to maintain friendly relations with every nation,‖ the Foreign Ministry said in a June 11 statement. The country upholds United Nations resolutions regarding North Korea and shipments between the nations involve ―normal commercial activities,‖ it said. Photos of buildings and security fences near the country‘s capital, Naypyidaw, confirm reports by Sai Thein Win of machine tool factories and other plants alleged to be part of a nascent program to build nuclear weapons, Jane‘s reported from London. ―They will not make a bomb with the technology they currently possess or the intellectual capability,‖ Jane‘s analyst Allison Puccioni said in an interview. ―The two factors do make it possible to have a route to one.‖ Military Ties Clinton expressed concern about reports that North Korea and Myanmar are expanding military ties and sharing nuclear technology at a meeting of Southeast Asian foreign ministers in Thailand last year. The U.S. will remain ―vigilant‖ against any military cooperation between the two countries, she said. Yesterday, Clinton announced further sanctions against North Korea in an effort to halt the country‘s nuclear- weapons program. Sai said he worked at two factories involved in the nuclear program. His report to a U.S.-funded Myanmar opposition news website, Democratic Voice of Burma, based in Norway, included documents and color photographs of the interior of the installations. The satellite imagery reviewed by Jane‘s showed only the exterior of the buildings, Puccioni said. Myanmar‘s nuclear program is ―overly ambitious with limited expertise,‖ Jane‘s said in a statement yesterday. While Myanmar is a signatory to international agreements to control nuclear weapons use, it hasn‘t agreed to more recent changes in the treaties and therefore isn‘t subject to international inspections, the magazine said. Nuclear Free The reports about Myanmar‘s nuclear weapons program ―perplexed‖ Asean member states, Indonesia Foreign Marty Natalegawa said in a July 20 interview. Asean ministers, including Myanmar, reiterated intentions to keep Southeast Asia free of nuclear weapons at the meetings this week. The allegations directed at Myanmar are a ―manifestation of the lack of information about what‘s happening in the country,‖ Natalegawa said. ―That‘s why we think the best approach would be to ensure greater transparency so we have greater confidence about what‘s going on.‖ Asean works closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency and can send inspectors to Myanmar under the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone treaty, he said. During President George W. Bush‘s administration, North Korea discussed delivering short-range missiles and nuclear capability to Myanmar, according to Michael J. Green, an adviser at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies and former senior director for Asia on the National Security Council under Bush. The evidence points to a method of uranium enrichment, laser enrichment, that the North Koreans have never used, David Kay, a former United Nations weapons inspector and now a fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies in Arlington, Virginia, said in an interview. ―If it is laser enrichment the finger points more toward Chinese assistance or some place in the former Soviet Union,‖ he said. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-22/u-s-wants-transparency-from-myanmar-after-reports-of-nuclear-arms- program.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

RIA Novosti – Russian Information Agency Russia In Talks On Iskander Missile Export 21 July 2010 Russia is in talks with foreign customers interested in buying Iskander tactical missile systems, a senior executive at state-controlled arms exporter Rosoboronexport said on Wednesday. Deputy General Director Alexander Mikheyev said it was too soon to identify the customers or countries in question. "Rosoboronexport is marketing the Iskander, but no contracts have been signed yet," he said. The Iskander-E (SS-26 Stone), an export version of the Iskander-M missile system in service with the Russian military, is a theater ballistic missile system designed to effectively engage a variety of targets at a range of up to 280 km (170 miles). It carries a single warhead with a payload of 400 kg to comply with the limits laid down by the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). On Saturday, the chief of Russia's Ground Forces, Col. Gen. Alexander Postnikov, said Iskander missiles had been put into operation in the Leningrad Military District. The report aroused concern among Russia's western neighbors. In particular, Estonian Defense Minister Jaak Aaviksoo said the deployment was "incomprehensible in view of Russia's current relations with NATO." The United States has scrapped its plans for a missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland. Moscow welcomed the move, and President Dmitry Medvedev said that Russia would drop plans to deploy Iskander-M missiles in its Kaliningrad Region, which borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. However, Washington has not given up on its European missile shield initiative. In May, the United States opened a temporary military base in northern Poland, just 80 km (50 miles) from the border of Russia's Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad, a move that drew fierce criticism from Russia. MOSCOW, July 21 (RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100721/159896732.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

People‘s Daily – China Russia Ready To Export Iskander Missiles July 21, 2010 Russia is ready to export its Iskander tactical missile systems, declared state arms trader Rosoboronexport on Wednesday. "Rosoboronexport is marketing the Iskander, but no contracts have been signed yet," Deputy General Director Alexander Mikheyev said as quoted by local media. He added that consultations with some companies were underway. The missile system, a powerful weapon that could change military-political situation in a number of countries, have always been attractive to foreigners. Experts said the Iskander missiles could be used for tactical nuclear weapon delivery as well. Source: Xinhua http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90853/7075693.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

RIA Novosti – Russian Information Agency Russia To Resume Test Launches Of Troubled Bulava Missile Aug.- Sept. 23 July 2010 Test launches of Russia's ill-fated Bulava ballistic missile will resume in August or September, a high ranking Russian Navy official said on Friday. "In all, three test launches are to be carried out before the end of the year," he said. A source close to the government commission probing the incident said earlier on Friday the failure of the Bulava's latest test launch, from the Dmitry Donskoy nuclear submarine in the White Sea on December 9, 2009, was caused by a defective engine nozzle. Since then, all further Bulava test launches were put on hold pending the results of a government commission probe. The source said it was not a design but manufacturing fault. "It was simply that the missile wasn't built right," he said. The Bulava (SS-NX-30), a three-stage liquid and solid-propellant submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), has officially suffered seven failures in 12 tests. Some analysts suggest that in reality the number of failures was considerably larger, with Russian military expert Pavel Felgenhauer contending that of the Bulava's 12 test launches, only one was entirely successful. The future development of the Bulava has been questioned by some lawmakers and defense industry officials, who have suggested that all efforts should be focused on the existing Sineva SLBM. However, that would require major changes to the Borey-class submarines and the Russian military has insisted that there is no alternative to the Bulava and pledged to continue testing the missile until it is ready to be put into service with the Navy. MOSCOW, July 23 (RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20100723/159922862.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Global Security Newswire Senators Concerned About Nuclear Weapons Spending Cut Thursday, July 22, 2010 By Martin Matishak, Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON -- Senior members of the U.S. Senate this week expressed apprehension over a recent decision by their House colleagues to cut funds from the White House's decade-long spending plan for the nation's nuclear weapons complex (see GSN, July 16). The House Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee last week approved a fiscal 2011 spending bill that would devote an additional $525 million to the National Nuclear Security Administration's weapons activities, which can include warhead modernization, infrastructure improvements and stockpile management. That figure is $99 million less than requested in February by the White House, which wants $7 billion in total nuclear-weapon spending in the next fiscal year. However, it would still provide an 8 percent increase over the present budget cycle of $6.4 billion for that appropriations line. The reduction would be offset in large part by $80 million in previously appropriated NNSA funds "no longer required for their intended purpose," House committee Vice Chairman Ed Pastor (D-Ariz.) said in a statement. The measure also recommends "substantial increases to [nuclear weapons] life-extension programs and infrastructure investments," he stated. Republicans have criticized the current nuclear-weapon modernization budget as insufficient, leading to increased concerns about changes to the spending cycle that begins Oct. 1. The proposed cut also could impact ongoing deliberations on the successor agreement to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. A number of Republican senators, including Minority Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.), have said they would not back the U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control agreement without a long-term, well-financed commitment to updating the U.S. nuclear weapons complex. "There are already concerns about the adequacy of the president's plan for meeting our full recapitalization and modernizations needs, and this lack of commitment by House Democrats to at least meet the president's request is troubling," Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in his opening statement during a Tuesday hearing on the treaty. The proposed cut "is significant to me and a lot of others," Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) added. "I hope in the process that Congress will at least fund to the level that the administration has requested for fiscal year 2011." "Obviously it's very hard to bind the future of Congress, but we certainly can bind the administration and ourselves for this coming year," he said. U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April signed the replacement to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The agreement would require both nations to lower their strategic arsenals to 1,550 deployed warheads, down from an earlier settled ceiling of 2,200, and cap their fielded nuclear delivery platforms at 700, with up to another 100 held in reserve. The treaty must be ratified by the Senate and by Russia's legislature before entering into force. It would need 67 votes of support in the Senate, which would have to include yes votes by eight Republican lawmakers. The administration submitted the treaty to Congress in May, along with a report required by the fiscal 2010 National Defense Authorization Act that lays out a 10-year, $80 billion blueprint for warhead operations including stockpile sustainment and investments in the nuclear-complex infrastructure. An unclassified fact sheet of the document, known as the "1251 report," shows spending ramping up from $6.4 billion in the current budget cycle to $9 billion in fiscal 2018, before ending with $8.8 billion in fiscal 2020. It is unclear if the proposed funding cut for nuclear-weapon activities would survive the budget process. The House subcommittee's measure must be voted on by its parent panel and then the full body before it is merged with the Senate spending bill. The Senate Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee announced Tuesday that it would support a $634 million increase for NNSA weapons activities in the coming budget year. The text of the legislation will be released after the full committee votes on the bill today, according to a panel spokesman. On Tuesday, McCain asked Principal Deputy Defense Undersecretary for Policy James Miller if the president should veto the legislation if it did not fully fund the administration's request for the nuclear weapons complex. "I think you've asked me a question that, frankly, is perhaps above my pay grade," Miller replied. "What I would do is provide our best assessment of the implications and specific consequences and do everything possible to support continuing to get to the administration's request on this -- on this funding level." He said the White House continues to support its request and would do so as the budget process moves forward. The administration believes the proposed increase is "critical to moving forward with our nuclear weapons modernization effort and our -- and our work on infrastructure," Miller added. Thomas D'Agostino, who leads the semiautonomous branch of the Energy Department, told the Senate panel his agency had money in the bank because there are a "few projects" that were funded but delayed because they were not "fully ready." He said he would have to review the agency's budget documents to see which projects were involved and if they added up to $80 million. D'Agostino played down the proposed decrease, as the agency's proposed budget for nuclear weapons activities is roughly $7 billion for fiscal 2011. "And so, therefore, this $99 million number that keeps floating around, at this point is a fairly small percentage," he told the committee. "But at this point, we did scrub pretty hard to come up with this number, and to support the president's budget." Agency spokesman Damien LaVera yesterday noted that both the House and Senate budget blueprints mark significant increases for weapons efforts. "Taken together, we think this represents a broad, bipartisan consensus on the need to modernize the NNSA infrastructure, which will support our stockpile management mission along with nuclear nonproliferation, arms control and the rest of NNSA's nuclear security mission," he said in a statement to Global Security Newswire. http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100722_6341.php (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Wired News Report Blasts Military For Not Being Nuke-Proof By Olivia Koski July 22, 2010 If, by some chance, you end up surviving the nuclear apocalypse, don‘t count on the U.S. military to be around to help you rebuild. Or don‘t expect all its fancy electronics and communications equipment to work, at least. That‘s the strongly worded, rather ominous assessment from a joint Defense Science Board/ Threat Reduction Advisory Committee Task Force, which warns in a recent report that the military needs to wake up to its vulnerability to nuclear attack. ―Actions — both by others and of our own doing — are combining to create potentially tragic consequences on military operations involving the effects of nuclear weapons on the survivability of critical [military] systems,‖ notes the report, spotted by InsideDefense.com. Since the U.S. stopped squaring off against the USSR, American military leaders haven‘t been taking nuclear threats that seriously, the report implies. (Do they know something we don‘t?) ―Many of the post-Cold War generation of decision-makes simply do not have this issue on their ‗radar scope,‘ while others pay little or no attention to it because they fail to see is as a legitimate concern,‖ the report says. The Board concluded that there is an ―alarming atrophy‖ in understanding of nuclear issues within the military. It stems from a perceived remoteness of an attack and the cost and complexity of radiation-hardening equipment and training troops for nuclear environments. Even if we‘re past the days of ―massive arsenal-exchange scenarios like those of the Cold War,‖ a limited nuclear engagement could still put military communications systems at serious risk, according to the report. The American military counts more and more on its communications networks to fight. The task force is worried that infrastructure may not be nuke-proof. Blame the semiconductor revolution for that. Back in the 1960s, 92% of the market was government contracts, meaning reliability and environmental hardening were customer priorities. Now the government makes up only 5% of the market. ―Thus, instead of leading semiconductor technology development as they did in the early days of semiconductor products, the U.S. military systems now adapt what they can from leading-edge chips that target mainstream commercial applications,‖ says the report. Nuclear survivability is not typically a requirement for commercial electronics, of course. However, all satellites – both military and commercial – are hardened to protect against nuclear radiation that occurs naturally in space. Military satellites often have additional hardening requirements to withstand attack, but ―even those are highly variable,‖ says the report. And commercial satellites that support military communications are ―not hardened beyond expected natural operating environments,‖ it notes. The task force has many specific recommendations – reintroduce nuclear survivability into war games, educate troops, evaluate survivability of existing hardware, amp up modeling and test capabilities, and train the next generation of experts. Overall, they think a significant cultural change is in order – a cultural change that makes everyone more wary about nukes. So far, the advice hasn‘t been heeded. A similar report with similar conclusions was issued five years ago, to little avail. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/report-blasts-military-for-not-being-nuke-proof/ (Return to Articles and Documents List)

New York Times OPINION International Herald Tribune Op-Ed Contributor July 21, 2010 All Together Now: Missile Defense By SAM NUNN, IGOR IVANOV, and WOLFGANG ISCHINGER No other initiative has more near-term potential to ease the NATO-Russian relationship out of its petulant, impacted state, while giving a positive jolt to the revived but tentative and unfocused interest in an improved and more inclusive European security system, than missile-defense cooperation. Were North America, Europe and Russia to make defense of the entire Euro-Atlantic region against potential ballistic missile attack a joint priority, they would — apart from addressing a concrete problem — in a single stroke undermine much of the threat analysis that sets Russia against NATO, and prove that trilateral cooperation on a key security issue is possible. After decades of failed efforts to find common ground on missile defense, leaders in Washington, Moscow and Brussels have returned to the task. Both U.S. and Russian presidents have underscored the importance of finding a mutually acceptable approach to missile defense, and the U.S. side, in the run-up to the June 24 Washington summit, proposed a series of steps to start the process. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen last March moved three-way cooperation on missile defense to the very center of his proposed agenda, stressing the importance of creating ―a missile-defense system that not only defends the Euro-Atlantic community, but one that also brings it together.‖ No one thinks it will be easy. Years of thickening mistrust, differing threat analyses, and a deficit of political will still weigh on the prospects for cooperation — notwithstanding the recent improvement in U.S.-Russian relations. Nor are the technical obstacles trivial. For both practical and political reasons a fully integrated system with joint command and control may be a reach too far. Even separate but coordinated systems, the model experts think more likely, pose formidable challenges. But, significant as these hurdles are, the more fundamental point lies elsewhere. Political will, not technical obstacles, will determine whether missile defense becomes a pillar of a more inclusive and better-defended Euro- Atlantic community, or persists, even grows, as a source of tension and discord within what national leaders in their moment of hope at the Cold War‘s close spoke of as a ―Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals whole and free for the first time in 300 years.‖ The necessary political will, however, will almost certainly not emerge where it must — among all three parties, North America, Europe and Russia — unless the process, the system and its implementation are of, by and for all three. It will not come if a missile-defense system is essentially the creation of a single country with invited participation, or the work of two countries, or the project of an alliance. From the start, Europe, North America and Russia should assess jointly the common threat, and then undertake as equal parties to design from the ground up a common architecture to deal with the threat. Elements of the Obama administration‘s new U.S. four-stage territorial defense system may well provide a critical core for the effort, but the ultimate architecture and the division of labor sustaining it should be an equally balanced three-legged stool. The reasons for treating missile-defense cooperation as an imminent and serious objective go much beyond narrow concerns. More than a potential game changer in U.S.-Russian and NATO-Russian relations, more than a crucial step in search of a sounder European security order, and more than an essential factor in creating an optimally effective defense against ballistic missile threats, genuine trilateral cooperation in this instance promises to aid progress in bolstering the nuclear nonproliferation regime. It should add momentum to the already impressive achievements in securing nuclear weapons and materials. It would help Washington and Moscow address the role of strategic offense and defense as they contemplate new steps to render their nuclear relationship safer and more stable. And, not least, it will also create a basis by which strategically key states, including China, can explore cooperation on the role and place of missile defense in a multipolar nuclear world. Progress on all these fronts requires U.S., European and Russian leadership, and their success will either be enhanced or impaired by what happens in the realm of missile defense. Because the stakes are this high, we, voices from not one or two countries but from all parts of the Euro-Atlantic region, are concerned that this moment of opportunity not slip by, or be sabotaged by narrow-minded concerns, or take a back seat to things easier done. Sam Nunn, for 24 years a Democratic U.S. Senator from Georgia, is co-chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Igor Ivanov was Russia’s foreign minister from 1998 to 2004. Wolfgang Ischinger, a former German ambassador to Britain and the United States, is chairman of the Munich Security Conference. They are co-chairmen of the Euro- Atlantic Security Initiative commission. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/opinion/22iht-edischinger.html?ref=global (Return to Articles and Documents List)

London Guardian – U.K. OPINION Sanctions and Dr Strangelove What if efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons only made countries like Iran and North Korea more likely to want them? By David Shariatmadari Thursday, 22 July 2010 In a world of competing national interests, political differences, clashes not just of personalities, but of civilisations, you could be forgiven for thinking that there's nothing of any significance all our leaders agree on. The need to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, however, may qualify. This is why Iran now finds itself facing toughened sanctions, why Barack Obama, just like George W Bush before him, sees preventing an Iranian bomb as an urgent foreign policy priority, and why North Korea, it was announced yesterday, will receive similar treatment. Iran and North Korea are just the latest states to come under the nuclear spotlight: proliferation has obsessed the international community since the beginning of the atomic age. Hawks would argue that the risks of allowing it to occur unchecked are severe enough to justify pre-emptive war. Doves are likely to favour diplomatic solutions. Both, however, would be in agreement about the need to take action. But what if either approach made proliferation more, not less, likely? If anti-proliferation policies themselves acted as an incentive to acquire nuclear weapons? It would be a bitter irony. In Atomic Obsession, a book that has met with mixed reviews but was praised in this paper, John Mueller attempts a radical critique of anti-proliferation efforts, beginning with a startling analysis of US-Soviet arms control. According to Mueller, Salt I, the 1972 treaty that must have seemed like a rare outbreak of common sense in a Mad world, in fact acted as a spur to more ingenious and destructive methods of delivery. How? It limited the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles, but not the number of warheads each missile could carry. Partly as a result, so- called "multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles", first deployed by the US in 1969, became much more appealing. Treaties and talks, Mueller explains, were seen as opportunities to wring concessions from the other side. Carter kept the way open for the development of neutron bombs so the prospect could be used as a bargaining chip in arms control negotiations. But Carter was booted out, and the groundwork having been laid, Ronald Reagan was able to put them into production. Mueller convincingly shows how efforts at arms control can have unintended consequences. And in any case, he argues, the likely pace of proliferation has always been hugely exaggerrated. Most countries don't, in fact, want nuclear weapons. They confer few military advantages, they aren't necessary for prestige, they are massively difficult and expensive to make, and are likely to alienate foreign powers. There is already a huge inherent disincentive, and clumsily executed, aggressive and often inhumane efforts to stop proliferation have only made things worse. "Insofar as nuclear proliferation is a response to perceived threat, efforts to threaten, sanction, or attack potential new nuclear states can have the opposite effect, encouraging them to seek their own bomb in response to the pressure", he says. It's not that counter-proliferation, by itself, causes a state to go after nuclear weapons, just that it is likely to make them seem more urgently needed. The "intense hostility" that comes as part and parcel of non- proliferation efforts, a hostility which both Iran and North Korea are currently being exposed to, "has had the perverse effect of enhancing the appeal of such weapons to the threatened regimes for the sake of deterrence if nothing else." And sanctions, apart from inflicting hardship on the entire population, directly or indirectly, may also make it slightly easier (though still very difficult) to obtain nuclear weapons, by enhancing regime control. Mueller suggests that "the internal group likely to benefit most from sanctions [in Iran] is the Pasdaran, or Revolutionary Guards ... By creating artifical shortages and driving up prices for scarce commodities, sanctions make smuggling an extremely lucrative enterprise. As shown in Iraq in the 1990s, the regime can readily award this business to the chosen, assuring that they remain ardent supporters of its rule." Even Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, is of the opinion that sanctions will "probably not" deter Iran, which does raise the question of what, exactly, they are supposed to achieve. Mueller continues: "If Iran and North Korea really do want to develop a nuclear weapons capacity, there is no way this can be prevented, at least in the long term, except by invading the countries directly – enterprises that in both cases would likely make America's costly war in Iraq look like child's play in comparison." It seems like common sense, but in the circles that matter, these arguments currently have the status of taboo. Something must be done, is the consensus, and in the absence of anything remotely effective, what is being done is worse than nothing. Now, that really is Mad. David Shariatmadari is assistant editor of the London Guardian, Comment is free: belief http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/22/nuclear-sanctions-north-korea-iran (Return to Articles and Documents List)