USAF Counterproliferation Center (CPC) Outreach Journal #1098

USAF Counterproliferation Center (CPC) Outreach Journal

Issue No. 1098, 17 January 2014 Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal! As part of the CPC’s mission to develop Air Force, DoD, and other USG leaders to advance the state of knowledge, policy, and practices within strategic defense issues involving nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, we offer the government and civilian community a source of contemporary discussions on unconventional weapons. These discussions include news articles, papers, and other information sources that address issues pertinent to the U.S. national security community. It is our hope that this information resources will help enhance the overall awareness of these important national security issues and lead to the further discussion of options for dealing with the potential use of unconventional weapons. The CPC is seeking submissions for its annual General Charles A. Horner award, which honors the best original writing on issues relating to Air Force counter-WMD and nuclear enterprise operations. The deadline for submissions is March 31, 2014. For more information, please visit our web-site. The following news articles, papers, and other information sources do not necessarily reflect official endorsement of the Air University, U.S. Air Force, or Department of Defense. Reproduction for private use or commercial gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. All rights are reserved.

FEATURED ITEM: “Considering a Nuclear Gulf - Thinking about Nuclear Weapons in Saudi Arabia” By Dr. Norman Cigar, USAF Counterproliferation Center, November 2013, 183 Pages. http://cpc.au.af.mil/pdfs/books/nucleargulf.pdf Saudi Arabia's concern that Iran may obtain a nuclear weapon has driven that country to examine its need for a nuclear option. Dr. Cigar explores Saudi Arabia's decision calculus as that country struggles with balancing promises of U.S. extended deterrence with the desire to seek its own nuclear weapons that would offer a direct deterrent to an Iranian nuclear capability.

Outreach Journal Feedback or sign-up request: [email protected]

U.S. NUCLEAR WEAPONS 1. Sandia Conducts First Impact Test in Years of Nonnuclear B61 Components 2. 34 Nuclear Launch Officers Involved in Air Force Cheating Scandal

HOMELAND SECURITY/THE AMERICAS 1. Progress Made in Safeguarding Nuclear Materials 2. Kansas Biodefense Facility Set for Huge Funding Surge 3. Pentagon Advisers Press for Nuclear-Monitoring Revamp

ASIA/PACIFIC 1. Premier Stresses Innovation at Top Science Awards 2. China Conducts First Test of New Ultra-High Speed Missile Vehicle 3. S. Korea, U.S. to Discuss Deterrence Plan against N. Korean Nuke 4. China Hails First Test of Hypersonic Nuclear Missile Carrier 5. Call to Revise Plans for Defense against Nuclear Rockets 6. ‘No Targets’ for Missiles 7. NK Proposes Halting all Cross-Border Slander

EUROPE/RUSSIA 1. Ministers Ignore Vote, JSF Jet Fighter Could Carry Nuclear Weapons 2. Gates: British Cuts Limiting Military Partnership with US

MIDDLE EAST 1. Iranian Nuclear Chief: Nuclear Bill Would Have Consequences 2. Deal Reached on Implementing Iranian Nuclear Agreement 3. Iran Nuke Deal Doesn't End Debate over Sanctions 4. New Iran Agreement Includes Secret Side Deal, Tehran Official Says 5. President Rouhani: East, West Bow to Iran’s Power, Resistance 6. Deputy FM: Iran, IAEA to Continue Talks on February 8 7. Iran, IAEA Talks Postponed amid Nuclear Deal Preparations 8. Hard-liners in Iran Oppose ‘Poisoned’ Nuclear Deal 9. Obama Administration Releases to Lawmakers Iran Nuclear Deal Text

INDIA/PAKISTAN 1. Change At Pakistan's Nuclear Strategic Plans Division: Cause For Concern?

COMMENTARY 1. US Nukes: Now It’s Our Turn to Catch Up to the Russians 2. Op-Ed: Morale Is High in Nuclear Force 3. The Nuclear Nightmare 4. The Smart Choice on the B61 5. With Cold War Long Over, it’s Time to Show some Fiscal and Nuclear Courage 6. Will China's New Supersonic Warhead Bust US Missile Shield? 7. Some Bombs Can Be Tossed

Business Journals.com Sandia Conducts First Impact Test in Years of Nonnuclear B61 Components By Dan Mayfield, Reporter, Albuquerque Business First January 14, 2014 For the first time in seven years, Sandia National Laboratories has tested the nonnuclear components of its B61 nuclear bombs. The U.S. is forbidden to test the nuclear components, but “one of the main purposes of the stockpile is deterrence, so one important way to assure deterrence is to have a successful surveillance test that shows our systems work,” senior manager Patrick Sena said in a news release. Data from the test will be used to update the annual assessment of the nation’s stockpile for President Barack Obama. Sena said the preliminary data showed the test met the requirements of the worst-case conditions the B61 is expected to meet with high reliability. The lab’s surveillance tests study the nonnuclear components under different conditions. Sandia researchers hoisted a B61-11 earth-penetrating weapon by hoisting it above a target and attaching it to a rocket sled. http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/news/2014/01/14/sandia-first-impact-test-nonnuclear-B61.html Return to Top

Stars and Stripes.com 34 Nuclear Launch Officers Involved in Air Force Cheating Scandal Issue No.1098, 17 January 2014 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Center| Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CPC Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 2 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama By Jon Harper, Stars and Stripes January 15, 2014 WASHINGTON — On Wednesday, the Air Force’s top civilian and military leaders revealed that 34 nuclear missile launch officers were involved in a cheating scandal surrounding proficiency tests conducted last year at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana. The 34 personnel constitute about 18 percent of the missile officers stationed there. “There was cheating that took place with respect to this particular test. Some officers did it. Others apparently knew about it, and it appears that they did nothing, or at least not enough to stop it or to report it. Now this is absolutely unacceptable behavior and it is completely contrary to our core values in the Air Force,” new Air Force Secretary Deborah James told reporters at the Pentagon. “Cheating or tolerating others who cheat runs counter to everything we believe in as a service. People at every level will be held accountable if and where appropriate,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said. Over the weekend, the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigation found evidence that a missile launch officer from the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom texted answers to monthly missile launch officer proficiency tests to 16 other officers. “We subsequently approached the entire missile crew force at Malmstrom and 17 other officers who self-admitted to at least being aware of material that had been shared. We don’t yet know how or if each of those officers used that material, but we do know that none of them reported the incident to their leadership,” Welsh said. Welsh said he is not aware of a cheating scandal this large in the entire history of the missile force. All 34 involved have been decertified as launch officers. They are restricted from missile crew duty and their security clearances have been suspended. The OSI investigation into their individual involvement and the overall cheating scandal will continue, Welsh said. The officers vary in rank from second lieutenant to captain. The Malmstrom wing failed a nuclear security inspection last August due to “a problem in a security scenario,” but the failure was not related to carrying out operational procedures, Welsh said. On Wednesday, the commander of Global Strike Command, which oversees the Air Force’s nuclear enterprise, ordered a proficiency test be administered to all missile crewmembers in all three of the nation’s nuclear missile wings in the wake of the cheating at Malmstrom. As of Wednesday afternoon, about 20 percent of the entire missile crew force had taken the test, and 97 percent of them passed. There were three failures. The 97 percent pass rate matches historical averages, according to Welsh. James said the testing of the entire force will be completed by the end of the day Thursday. When asked about the motivation behind the cheating, Welsh said, “It’s hard to cover up incompetence cheating one time on a test. When you’re going to have a monthly simulator with two instructors watching you actually conduct the practical application of this knowledge in a simulator, you can’t hide that. And so whether it’s to get a better score on a test or — I just — I’d be speculating as to what it is, but I don’t believe it’s incompetence.” The cheating took place in August and September, according to officials. “We have no indications or evidence that it has occurred since then; the investigation has just started,” Welsh said. James and Welsh will now travel ahead of schedule to all of the ICBM bases next week. The other two are located at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming and Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota. “Secretary James and I will personally visit all of our missile bases … next week to ensure that our airmen have no question about our expectations of those who perform this vital mission,” Welsh said. Last week, Defense Secretary Hagel visited F.E. Warren to talk to ICBM launch officers following reports of low morale and poor performance among the nation’s missile crews.

Government Security News.com Progress Made in Safeguarding Nuclear Materials By John Wagley Monday, January 13, 2014 Seven countries have eliminated weapons-grade nuclear material from their territory in the past few years, according to a new report from the Washington-based nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI). Though the elimination of such material represents significant progress in helping reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism, much remains to be done, according to NTI. This includes creating an effective and accountable global system to improve nuclear material security. The countries that removed material from their territory included Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Mexico, Sweden, Ukraine and Vietnam, according to the 2014 NTI Nuclear Materials Security Index. That brings the number of nations with weapons usable material to 25, from 32 in 2012.

Global Security Newswire Kansas Biodefense Facility Set for Huge Funding Surge By Diane Barnes, Global Security Newswire January 15, 2014 A newly released omnibus appropriations bill includes a mammoth funding boost for a planned Kansas biodefense laboratory -- to more than 13 times last year's spending.

Global Security Newswire Pentagon Advisers Press for Nuclear-Monitoring Revamp By Diane Barnes, Global Security Newswire January 16, 2014 A Pentagon task force is pressing Washington to close critical "gaps" in how it tracks nuclear-arms efforts by countries around the world. The United States is "is not yet organized or fully equipped" to adequately monitor threats of nuclear-weapon capabilities spreading to additional countries, or growing in nations where they already exist, states a new report by a special panel convened by the Defense Science Board. "Too many factors have changed, and are changing from our historic basis and experience developed throughout the Cold War," according to the task force comprising nearly 50 members and chaired by independent consultants Miriam John and Donald Kerr. Former Defense acquisition czar Paul Kaminski heads the Defense Science Board, which advises the Pentagon on an array of technical matters. The 104-page document urges the White House and Cabinet-level agencies to address perceived shortcomings through a multitude of steps. Those would include adapting emerging surveillance technologies to track potential nuclear-arms assets and collaborating with other governments on a set of increasingly ambitious, atomic- transparency initiatives. In one broad area of focus area termed "International Cooperation and Transparency," the report calls first for an interagency plan to pursue new monitoring initiatives with the four other recognized global nuclear powers: China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom. The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency could assume new duties in supporting implementation, the document suggests. The report advises expanding those transparency activities subsequently -- first to nuclear-armed nations outside the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and then to other "major states" with atomic-energy programs. The emerging verification system would culminate, in the panel's vision, with the completion of "a future Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT 'X') to bring in all nuclear-weapon and material programs into a cooperative, multilateral regime."

Global Times – China Premier Stresses Innovation at Top Science Awards Xinhua, January 11, 2014 By Xinhua Chinese physical chemist Zhang Cunhao and nuclear weapons expert Cheng Kaijia won China's top science award on Friday for their outstanding contribution to scientific and technological innovation. The two academicians of the Chinese Academy of Sciences were presented with certificates by Chinese President Xi Jinping. Winners are each awarded 5 million yuan ($826,276). Zhang, the chemist, was born in 1928. During his 60 years of scientific research, Zhang focused on pioneering technologies including water gas technology, rocket propellant and lasers. Zhang was in charge of the National Natural Science Foundation for eight years, during which funds for natural sciences were increased eight-fold. Nuclear weapons expert Cheng, 96, has participated in more than 30 of China's nuclear experiments, including the country's first atomic bomb, hydrogen bomb, and the combination of the two bombs. His team established China's nuclear explosion theory, the research field of nuclear explosion effects, and technical safety standards. Premier Li Keqiang said at the ceremony that China must rely on scientific and technological innovation to improve the overall quality of its economy, move upward in the industrial value chain, and overcome restraints in resources. China's traditional growth mode, which was mainly driven by factor input, is difficult to sustain and is gradually losing its competitive edge in medium and low-end products, Li said. The government should free innovative scientific activities from administrative intervention and "let the market speak" in terms of research orientation, resource allocation and use of funds, he urged. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/836851.shtml#.UtNV23-9KSM Return to Top

The Washington Free Beacon – Washington, D.C. China Conducts First Test of New Ultra-High Speed Missile Vehicle Test is part of a new arms race for super fast weaponry By Bill Gertz January 13, 2014

Yonhap News Agency – South Korea S. Korea, U.S. to Discuss Deterrence Plan against N. Korean Nuke January 14, 2014 By Kim Eun-jung SEOUL, Jan. 14 (Yonhap) -- South Korea and the United States will hold a senior-level defense meeting to discuss ways to counter threats posed by North Korea's nuclear program and weapons of mass destruction, Seoul's defense ministry said Tuesday. The Extended Deterrence Policy Committee will hold its third table-top exercise for two days from Tuesday at the U.S. Pacific Command in Hawaii to discuss how to apply a bilateral strategy for tailored deterrence against North Korean weapons program. The move comes after defense ministers of the allies last year signed the tailored deterrence strategy to strengthen the American nuclear umbrella on the Korean Peninsula in light of Pyongyang's third nuclear test in February 2013. South Korea's Deputy Defense Minister Ryu Se-seung will meet with his American counterparts, including Elaine Bunn, deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy, and David Helvey, deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia, to enhance interoperability, the ministry said. "At this exercise, the allies will discuss the tailored deterrence strategy and how to apply extended deterrence policy to handle threat posed by North Korea's nuclear program and weapons of mass destruction," the ministry said in a statement. Seoul believes Pyongyang has made considerable progress in developing a fairly robust nuclear program in the past three years and is capable of developing atomic weapons at any time. During the bilateral summit in November, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel pledged to support deterrence capabilities with the full range of its military capabilities, including its nuclear umbrella and conventional strike missiles. South Korea's nuclear program was brought to a halt in 1992 when it signed a denuclearization treaty. The U.S., which stations 28,500 troops in the country, provides a nuclear umbrella to deter North Korean nuclear threat under a bilateral security alliance. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2014/01/14/16/0401000000AEN20140114003200315F.html Return to Top

South China Morning Post – Hong Kong, China China Hails First Test of Hypersonic Nuclear Missile Carrier US no longer only one with Mach 10 glider that can outfox defences and deliver nuclear warhead By Stephen Chen Wednesday, 15 January, 2014 China has flight-tested a hypersonic missile delivery vehicle capable of penetrating any existing defence system with nuclear warheads, according to the Pentagon.

The Chosun Ilbo – South Korea January 16, 2014 Call to Revise Plans for Defense against Nuclear Rockets Experts are calling for South Korea to improve its missile defenses given the growing threat that North Korea will one day be able to make a nuclear warhead small enough to be carried by a rocket. Prof. Choi Bong-wan of Hannam University said he carried out a computer simulation where North Korea fires a medium-range ballistic missile tipped with a nuclear warhead. The aim was to see what types of interceptor missiles would allow South Korea to deal most effectively with the threat. Choi was speaking at a seminar hosted by the National Assembly's Defense Committee on Wednesday. In one simulation, the North Korean Rodong missile with a range of 1,000 km carrying a 1-ton nuclear warhead reached Seoul within 11 minutes and 25 seconds, he said. A Rodong missile with a shortened range of 300 km fired at a high angle toward Seoul would give a PAC-3 missile, a strong candidate for South Korea's missile defense, only one second to intercept at an altitude of 12-15 km. A THAAD missile, which is another option for South Korea, would have a window of opportunity of 45 seconds to intercept an incoming missile at an altitude of 40-150 km. And an SM-3 missile, another possible candidate, would have 288 seconds to intercept the potential nuclear missile at an altitude between 70 and 500 km, he added. Currently, South Korea has only PAC-2 missiles, whose capability is much poorer than the PAC-3's, and is now seeking to purchase PAC-3 missiles. But Choi suggested that upgrade would offer little defense against a determined North Korean attack. http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2014/01/16/2014011601265.html Return to Top

Global Times – China ‘No Targets’ for Missiles Global Times, January 16, 2014 By Global Times The Chinese Ministry of National Defense on Wednesday responded to recent reports from some foreign media that China has tested supersonic missile weapons, saying it is "normal" and has "no specific targets." Recent media reports said that China conducted its first flight test of a new supersonic missile weapon on January 9 in a bid to gain the ability to break through US missile defenses. "It is normal to conduct scientific research tests within the Chinese territory according to the plan, and it does not target any specific countries or objectives," the Ministry of National Defense told the Global Times on Wednesday. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/837740.shtml#.Utcu7a-x5Dw Return to Top

The Korea Times – South Korea January 17, 2014 NK Proposes Halting all Cross-Border Slander

Issue No.1098, 17 January 2014 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Center| Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CPC Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 13 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama North Korea on Thursday formally proposed halting all cross-border slander starting Jan. 30 and called for mutual action to prevent a nuclear calamity on the Korean Peninsula. The North's powerful National Defense Commission (NDC) claimed that its "important proposal" clearly showed how Pyongyang wished to improve the frayed inter-Korean relations. The message came a day after the communist country warned of an "unimaginable holocaust" if Seoul carried out the annual Key Resolve and Foal Eagle exercises from late February through April as scheduled. "We call for realistic action to be taken to halt all slanderous exchanges to mark the Lunar New Year," the message carried by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said. It suggested that Seoul's policymakers should refrain from making inflammatory comments and the South Korean media should take the lead in creating an atmosphere conducive to harmonious cross-border ties. Lunar New Year's Day, celebrated by both Koreas, falls on Jan. 31 this year. It also said that the North is proposing that all hostile military actions by both sides be stopped and urged the South Korean government to make a decision to call off the joint annual military exercises with the United States. As a sign of good faith, the NDC said it will take the first step to stop raising tensions near the Seohae islands, or South Korean border islands in the Yellow Sea that have seen numerous military clashes in recent years. It did not elaborate on what concrete actions it will take. The five islands lie astride the sea demarcation line between the two Koreas, which Pyongyang has refused to recognize. It said all sides must desist from carrying out land, sea and air military maneuvers that are hostile in nature. On the critical denuclearization issue, the North said it wants to propose measures that all interested parties can take to prevent a nuclear catastrophe from taking place. "Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula remains the ultimate goal of the DPRK's military and people," the NDC argued. The DPRK stands for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the North's official name. It said the North Korean nuclear arsenal is nothing more than a deterrent against U.S. nuclear weapons and that it is not intended to threaten or harm other Koreans. The North tested three nuclear devices since 2006 and has claimed that it is a nuclear power. It then said Seoul should not engage in activities that can raise nuclear tensions on the peninsula. The committee, moreover, said that if its plan is accepted, headway can be made in hosting reunions of families separated by the Korean War (1950-53), as well as progress in other outstanding issues. The North has been lukewarm about the family reunions, and it called off scheduled family reunions last year at the last minute citing unfavorable conditions. The NDC, meanwhile, said that the important statement is being made because it has been given the mandate by the government, the ruling political party and other various organizations. Related to the statement, sources in Seoul said the North may be trying to gain an upper hand in inter-Korean negotiations after it rejected this month's call by the South to hold family reunions. Pyongyang's rejection of the reunion proposal was seen as a contrast to leader Kim Jong-un's earlier call for better cross-border relations in his New Year's address. They pointed out that in the latest statement that the DPRK's stance of simultaneously pursuing economic growth while building up its nuclear force is a legitimate policy goal. "This shows that they have not really given up their nuclear program," one Pyongyang watcher said. Yang Moo-jin, political science professor at the University of North Korean Studies, warned against the sudden statement, which he said may be a ploy to justify its future military actions against the South. Issue No.1098, 17 January 2014 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Center| Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CPC Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 14 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Others such as Chang Yong-seok, senior researcher at the Institute for Peace and Unification Studies at Seoul National University, said by mentioning it desire to prevent military confrontation, Pyongyang may be trying to end the stalemate in inter-Korean relations. He said there is a need to see want preemptive measures it will take to ease tensions. Regarding the latest proposal to halt calumny, experts said defense ministries of the sides had agreed in 2004 to end propaganda activities along the military demarcation line, as well as to prevent military clashes in the Yellow Sea, off the west coast. But war rhetoric from the North continued even after the agreement, with many verbal attacks lodged directly against South Korean presidents. Furthermore, there have been several bloody clashes along the maritime border. Meanwhile, South Korea's defense ministry said the North's latest proposal is nothing more than an attempt to justify their belligerent actions. The ministry also made clear that the two joint military exercises will go on as planned. "The Key Resolve and Foal Eagle are not offensive exercises, "Defense ministry spokesman Kim Min-seok told the Yonhap News Agency. He also said that it is always the North that slanders the South and that Seoul does not engage in such actions. Kim added that the North's proposal is something that the South will not accept and pointed out that Pyongyang is currently conducting winter military exercises of its own so it makes no sense for the South to call off its drills. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2014/01/116_149953.html Return to Top

Dutch News.nl – Netherlands Ministers Ignore Vote, JSF Jet Fighter Could Carry Nuclear Weapons Tuesday, 14 January 2014 The Joint Strike Fighter may be used to carry nuclear weapons in the future, according to defence minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert and foreign affairs minister Frans Timmermans. Last year a majority of MPs supported a motion stating the F-35 jet fighter should have no nuclear role. However, Hennis and Timmermans have now decided to set the motion aside because of the Netherlands' role within Nato. The minister say they will continue to support nuclear disarmament but say the Netherlands does have a nuclear role for the time being. 'We do not want to be tied to the standpoint set out in the motion,' they said in a briefing to parliament. Socialist MP Jasper van Dijk said this was a 'weak response' from the cabinet. 'Of course the Netherlands can make its own decision about nuclear weapons,' he said. The government made its decision to go ahead with the purchase of the controversial JSF fighters last September. They will replace the ageing fleet of F-16s. The decision brought to an end 18 years of political dithering. The Netherlands will buy 37 FSF jets to keep the cost within the €4.5bn special budget. They will cost an additional €270m a year to keep in the air. http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/01/jsf_jet_fighter_could_carry_nu.php Return to Top

Defense News.com Gates: British Cuts Limiting Military Partnership with US Issue No.1098, 17 January 2014 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Center| Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CPC Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 15 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama By Agence France-Presse (AFP) January 16, 2014 LONDON — Britain’s military cuts mean it will no longer be able to be a full partner alongside United States forces, former US defense secretary Robert Gates said Thursday. Gates, who served under US presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, said Britain no longer had the complete spectrum of capabilities, meaning its relationship with the US military was shifting. The comments suggest Britain’s military downsizing could have a negative impact on the “special relationship” between Washington and London. Gates, speaking to BBC radio, highlighted the Royal Navy’s lack of an aircraft carrier able to launch strike jets. “What we have always been able to count on, on this side of the Atlantic, were British forces that had full spectrum capabilities very much along the lines of our own forces, that they could perform a variety of different missions,” Gates said. “With the fairly substantial reductions in defense spending in Great Britain what we are finding is they won’t have full spectrum capabilities and the ability to be a full partner as they have been in the past. “I also lament that reality.” Prime Minister David Cameron’s coalition government announced heavy defense cuts in 2010 as part of its bid to rein in Britain’s massive deficit. The defense budget is being slashed by eight percent over four years. Between 2010 and 2020, Britain is reducing the size of its regular military from 178,000 to 147,000, while boosting the number of reservists. Britain has three helicopter landing craft: HMS Illustrious, Ocean and Bulwark. However, it will not have carrier strike capability until the new aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth — which will be Britain’s biggest-ever ship on the seas — enters service in 2020 with F35 fighter jets. Gates said of the lack of carrier strike capability: “Those kinds of things, I think, at the end of the day matter.” This century, Britain has been the United States’ closest partner in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Our primary partner for many decades now has been the United Kingdom. “I would a lot rather, in a port in the Middle East, have a British-flagged ship and an American-flagged warship than just an American-flagged warship by itself.” He also urged Britain to renew its nuclear deterrent. The coalition has deferred a decision on replacing Britain’s nuclear weapons program — the Trident missile-based system on board its submarines — until after the 2015 general election. “As we reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal we potentially get down to numbers that having allies who have their own capability could be very helpful,” he said. “I think it’s important for the UK not to deny itself this military capability altogether.” A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “Like the United States, the UK has had to take tough decisions on defense spending, but we still have the fourth largest defense budget in the world and the best-trained and best-equipped armed forces outside the United States.” http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140116/DEFREG01/301160028/Gates-British-cuts-limiting-military- partnership-US Return to Top Issue No.1098, 17 January 2014 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Center| Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CPC Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 16 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama

The Jerusalem Post – Israel Iranian Nuclear Chief: Nuclear Bill Would Have Consequences Bill calls for enrichment up to 60%; at least 218 of 390 Iranian MPs express support for legislation. By Reuters 11 January 2014 BEIRUT - Iran will have no choice but to step up its uranium enrichment if a bill now moving through parliament is approved, even though it has no current need for such highly-enriched uranium, its nuclear chief said on Saturday. The bill has received expressions of support from at least 218 of parliament's 290 members and, if passed, could threaten progress toward a resolution of Iran's long-running row with the international community over its nuclear program, on which a landmark interim agreement was struck last November. The parliament is much more hawkish than Iran's new president Hassan Rouhani on the nuclear issue, although some see the proposal, put forward last month, as a response to a bill introduced by conservatives in the U.S. Senate that would impose new sanctions on Iran. Iran has stockpiles of uranium enriched to 5 percent fissile purity, sufficient for nuclear power stations, and 20 percent, of great concern to major powers because it is a relatively short technical step from weapons-grade. The bill would call for enrichment to 60 percent, sufficient for use in the reactors that power nuclear submarines. Iran says it plans to build one of these, but the think-tank GlobalSecurity.org says this would require a vast leap in Iran's manufacturing capacity. Salehi told the Iranian Jaam-e-Jam network in an interview that Iran did not currently need such highly-enriched uranium, according to the state news agency IRNA. But he added: "If the members of parliament see that it's in the interests of the country that 60 percent enrichment could be useful, and they turn this desire into a law, then we will have no choice but to obey." The semi-official Fars News agency said lawmakers were scheduled to discuss the bill next week. Under the terms of the interim deal struck with the United States, Russia, China, Germany, France and Britain, Iran must limit its high-level enrichment for a period of six months in exchange for relief from some international sanctions. The deal is meant to buy time for a full pact to be agreed to end more than a decade of tension over Western concerns that Iran may be trying to develop an atomic weapons capacity under cover of a program that it says is wholly peaceful. Salehi, appointed by Rouhani, made clear that he favored a negotiated deal: "Overall, there's no option other than coming to an agreement. The next choice would be disagreeing, which would not benefit us, them, the region or anyone else." Separately, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has invited European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, the chief negotiator for the six powers, to visit Iran, Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told the Mehr News agency. http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Iranian-Nuclear-chief-nuclear-bill-would-have-consequences-337849 Return to Top

Al Jazeera America.com Deal Reached on Implementing Iranian Nuclear Agreement The interim agreement between Tehran and six world powers to curb Iran's nuclear program will take effect Jan. 20

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution – Atlanta, GA Monday, January 13, 2014 Iran Nuke Deal Doesn't End Debate over Sanctions By BRADLEY KLAPPER, Associated Press (AP) WASHINGTON — The weekend deal spelling out how Iran will roll back its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief buttresses the Obama administration's argument Tehran may be prepared for a grand diplomatic compromise averting the potential for war. But it has done little to sway skeptical lawmakers determined to levy new sanctions against Iran. With world powers and Iran set to start the clock on their six-month interim agreement Jan. 20, a parallel showdown looms between President Barack Obama and Congress over legislative action each side says has serious implications for the chances of diplomatic success. Obama warns adding more sanctions could kill negotiations; legislators insist they're the only way to ensure Iran keeps its word. Much could depend on Tehran quickly making good on its commitments. "Now is not the time to impose new sanctions," Obama said Monday as he met with Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy. White House press secretary Jay Carney said the fact Iran's government was now implementing what has been agreed "demonstrates that at the very least, testing whether or not Iran is serious is the right thing to do." The question of sanctions is essentially a tactical dispute over the best way to achieve a shared goal: preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and delivering an existential threat to Israel, while fundamentally reshaping the power dynamics of the Middle East. But for the Obama administration, the pressure from Congress has proven a constant headache at precisely the moment Iran's moderate-sounding President Hassan Rouhani is offering unprecedented flexibility in talks. The administration reached a milestone in its strategy Sunday. The U.S. and its five negotiating partners — Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia — secured a deal with Iran articulating how the Islamic republic will scale back its uranium enrichment program, halt progress at a plutonium plant and open up key sites to daily inspectors beginning next week. In exchange, world powers outlined how they will phase in $7 billion worth of relief from international sanctions that have crippled Iran's economy. The full agreement has yet to be made public. The agreement "will advance our goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama declared in a statement Sunday. He reiterated a threat to veto any new sanctions legislation from Congress, saying such action risks "derailing our efforts." Carney added Monday that new sanctions are "wholly unnecessary" because Congress could always act later. The implementation agreement provides the nuts and bolts to November's breakthrough interim deal with Iran, an arrangement that can be extended by six additional months. Negotiators hope to replace it with a comprehensive accord this year ending the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. Iranian reformers and moderate conservatives welcomed the agreement Monday, while hardliners repeated their opposition. Iran's leaders say uranium and plutonium activity is designed solely for peaceful nuclear energy and Issue No.1098, 17 January 2014 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Center| Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CPC Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 19 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama medical research purposes, but the United States and many other countries fear Tehran is covertly advancing toward atomic weapons capability. Israel and Iran's Sunni Arab rivals such as Saudi Arabia have been most vocal in their skepticism of diplomacy, their concerns echoed by a growing chorus in Congress. Fifty-nine senators now back the latest proposed U.S. sanctions package, which they say would increase the pressure on Iran to make concessions and fully dismantle — not simply slow down — the entire nuclear program. The count takes sanctions proponents closer to being able to push a bill through Congress and override even a presidential veto. The House overwhelmingly supports additional economic pressure on Tehran. No sanctions vote is expected imminently. Congressional aides said top proponents such as Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Chuck Schumer of New York were waiting for the best opportunity to push the issue, with much of the focus now on building a stronger coalition. Some Senate aides cited early February as the earliest possibility. The legislation under consideration would blacklist several Iranian industrial sectors and threaten banks and companies around the world with being banned from the U.S. market if they help Iran export any more oil. The provisions would take effect if Tehran violates the interim deal or lets it expire without a final agreement. Several sanctions advocates said nothing this weekend changed their minds. "If Iran is committed to comprehensively addressing its nuclear program, there is no reason such legislation shouldn't be welcomed," said Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., the House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman. Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., who co-drafted the bill, said new sanctions were needed to "ensure this process leads to the peaceful dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program." Another declared supporter, Sen. Bob Casey, D-Penn., cited Iran's past record of negotiating in bad faith and its U.S.-declared status as the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, but said he'd consult with American intelligence and the administration on how to advance national security interests. Significant opposition in the Senate remains. Influential Democratic such as Dianne Feinstein of California and Carl Levin of Michigan have backed the administration's call for a pause to new sanctions while international inspectors gauge Iran's adherence to the deal. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid held off a vote during defense bill negotiations before Christmas and hasn't signaled when the issue might reach the floor. Congressional aides said they expected little-to-no movement among legislators as a result of this weekend's implementation agreement. The administration briefed Congress on some of the details Monday, participants in the conference call said. Obama will meet Senate Democrats to discuss priorities for 2014 on Wednesday night, officials said, and Iran is likely to come up. With the Senate likely to hold off on action for at least the next couple of weeks, Iran will get some time to show even its most hardened detractors that its attitude has changed after years of ignoring U.N. Security Council demands over its nuclear program, export of weapons to countries such as Syria and ballistic missile development. If Tehran proves its compliance to international inspectors, it would strengthen the case for patience and perhaps even ease some of the distrust between the United States and Iran dating back to the 1979 Islamic Revolution and subsequent U.S. embassy hostage crisis. If Iran cheats or denies monitors the promised access, it will provide ammunition to critics who've said all along that Tehran cannot be trusted. Such an event would strengthen calls for more sanctions. Beyond the Obama administration's opposition, other governments are also wary about seeing years of diplomacy undermined by a rush to new U.S. sanctions. The interim agreement forbids new nuclear-related sanctions by the United States, but is ambiguous about what the suspended measures currently being debated would mean. Iran's foreign minister has said the sanctions would kill negotiations, and its parliamentarians have threatened to respond in kind. http://www.ajc.com/news/ap/top-news/iran-nuke-deal-doesnt-end-debate-over-sanctions/ncmcY/

Los Angeles Times – Los Angeles, CA New Iran Agreement Includes Secret Side Deal, Tehran Official Says By Paul Richter January 13, 2014 WASHINGTON – Key elements of a new nuclear agreement between Iran and six world powers are contained in an informal, 30-page text not yet publicly acknowledged by Western officials, Iran’s chief negotiator said Monday. Abbas Araqchi disclosed the existence of the document in a Persian-language interview with the semiofficial Iranian Students News Agency. The new agreement, announced over the weekend, sets out a timetable for how Iran and the six nations, led by the United States, will implement a deal reached in November that is aimed at restraining Iran’s nuclear ambitions. When officials from Iran and the world powers announced that they had completed the implementing agreement, they didn’t release the text of the deal, nor did they acknowledge the existence of an informal addendum. In the interview, Araqchi referred to the side agreement using the English word “nonpaper,” a diplomatic term used for an informal side agreement that doesn’t have to be disclosed publicly. The nonpaper deals with such important details as the operation of a joint commission to oversee how the deal is implemented and Iran’s right to continue nuclear research and development during the next several months, he said. Araqchi described the joint commission as an influential body that will have authority to decide disputes. U.S. officials have described it as a discussion forum rather than a venue for arbitrating major disputes. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday that the text of the implementing agreement would be released to lawmakers. He said the six parties were weighing how much of the text they could release publicly. Asked late Monday about the existence of the informal nonpaper, White House officials referred the question to the State Department. A State Department comment wasn’t immediately available. A State Department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, denied later Monday that there was any secret agreement. "Any documentation associated with implementation tracks completely with what we've described," she said. "These are technical plans submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency," the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency. "We will make information available to Congress and the public as it becomes available," Harf said. Ray Takeyh, an Iran specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations, said Iran and the other six countries may have written the nonpaper to record understandings that they didn’t want to release publicly. The governments may plan to release “just a short text, with broad principles and broad strokes,” Takeyh said. The Nov. 24 deal between Iran and the six powers – the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany -- aims to freeze Iran’s nuclear progress for six months. During that period, the two sides will try to negotiate a longer-term deal aimed at ensuring that Tehran’s nuclear program remains peaceful. The agreement has come under fire in Iran and the United States from critics who contend it is harmful to their side. In his interview, Araqchi touched on the sensitive issue of how much latitude Iran will have to continue its nuclear research and development. U.S. officials said Sunday that Iran would be allowed to continue existing research and development projects and with pencil-and-paper design work, but not to advance research with new projects. Araqchi, however, implied that the program would have wide latitude.

FARS News Agency – Iran Tuesday, January 14, 2014 President Rouhani: East, West Bow to Iran’s Power, Resistance TEHRAN (FNA) - Iranian President Hassan Rouhani welcomed the Sunday agreement between Iran and the world powers on the start of the implementation of the Geneva nuclear deal, and said endorsement of the deal by the Eastern and Western powers showed that they have bowed to the country’s might, power and resistance. “The Geneva agreement means the big powers’ surrender to the great Iranian nation; the Geneva agreement means the global acceptance of Iran’s peaceful nuclear technology acquired through the young scientists’ efforts and sacrifices; the Geneva agreement means breaking the barrier of sanctions which were unjustly imposed on the dear and peace-loving Iranian nation,” Rouhani said, addressing a large number of people in the Southwestern city of Ahwaz on Tuesday. He promised the Iranian people to defend their rights and interests in interactions with the other countries and adjust Tehran’s relations with foreign states based on the interests of the Iranian nation. On November 24, Iran and the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany) sealed a six- month Joint Plan of Action to lay the groundwork for the full resolution of the West’s decade-old dispute with Iran over its nuclear energy program. In exchange for Tehran’s confidence-building bid to limit certain aspects of its nuclear activities, the Sextet of world powers agreed to lift some of the existing sanctions against Tehran and continue talks with the country to settle all problems between the two sides. Iran's senior negotiator and Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araqchi told the media on Sunday evening that "the (Geneva) deal will be put into effect on January 20”. Araqchi elaborated on his negotiations with EU foreign policy deputy chief Helga Schmidt, and said, "Finally we finalized the agreement between us and the Group 5+1 on how to implement the first step of the Joint Plan of Action, and the two sides came to a single interpretation on how to put the agreement into effect." Following the announcement on Sunday, US President Barrack Obama said he would veto the anti-Iran sanctions bill if Congress passes such legislation. "Imposing additional sanctions now will only risk derailing our efforts to resolve this issue peacefully, and I will veto any legislation enacting new sanctions during the negotiation," Obama said.

FARS News Agency – Iran Tuesday, January 14, 2014 Deputy FM: Iran, IAEA to Continue Talks on February 8 TEHRAN (FNA) - Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are due to hold their next round of meeting in Tehran on February 8, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araqchi announced on Tuesday. “Based on the agreements, the negotiations will be held in Tehran on February 8,” Araqchi told FNA, adding that the meeting was due to be held on January 21 and was delayed until early February. Elsewhere, he said Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton should have a meeting before the Geneva nuclear deal can come into effect on January 20. Araqchi said the meeting was originally scheduled to be held after the final agreement on the implementation of the Geneva agreement was endorsed by Tehran and the world powers on Sunday evening, but was posponed. He said there have yet been no consultations on the date and venue of the Zarif-Ashton meeting, but added that the two top diplomats will certainly meet between the Geneva deal comes into force. Araqchi said that the meeting between Zarif and Ashton will possibly be made in the next few weeks on the sidelines of an international gathering, including the high-profile Munich Security Conference or Davos economic meeting. Yet, he said the two may meet in Tehran, and said "Iran welcomes" Ashton’s visit to Tehran if she decides to take such a trip. Ashton announced on Monday that she would visit Tehran in the coming weeks. “It is my intention to visit Iran in the coming weeks,” she said in a joint press conference with Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheikh Sabah al-Hamad al-Sabah in Kuwait City. Ashton’s remarks came after Iran and the six world powers agreed to start implementing the Geneva interim nuclear deal on January 20 and fulfill their undertakings simultaneously and on a single day. On November 24, Iran and the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany) sealed a six- month Joint Plan of Action to lay the groundwork for the full resolution of the West’s decade-old dispute with Iran over its nuclear energy program. In exchange for Tehran’s confidence-building bid to limit certain aspects of its nuclear activities, the Sextet of world powers agreed to lift some of the existing sanctions against Tehran and continue talks with the country to settle all problems between the two sides. Then after almost a month of experts talks between Iran and the sextet, Araqchi told the media on Sunday evening that "the (Geneva) deal will be put into effect on January 20”. Araqchi elaborated on his negotiations with EU foreign policy deputy chief Helga Schmidt, and said, "Finally we finalized the agreement between us and the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, France and Britain plus Germany) on how to implement the first step of the Joint Plan of Action, and the two sides came to a single interpretation on how to put the agreement into effect." http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13921024000649 Issue No.1098, 17 January 2014 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Center| Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CPC Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 23 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Return to Top

The Daily Star – Lebanon Iran, IAEA Talks Postponed amid Nuclear Deal Preparations By Mohammad Davari January 14, 2014 TEHRAN: Negotiations for transparency of Tehran's nuclear drive with the UN nuclear watchdog have been postponed until February while Iran and world powers prepare to implement a landmark nuclear deal, officials said Tuesday. Talks with International Atomic Energy Agency experts, which are also examining long-standing allegations of past nuclear weapons research by Tehran, were originally scheduled for January 21 in the Iranian capital. But "the next round of talks has been postponed to February 8 as preparations are underway for (implementation) of the steps agreed in Geneva," Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Reza Najafi, told the ISNA news agency. Najafi was referring to the deal Iran and the so-called P5+1 group agreed in the Swiss city in November that will temporarily curb Tehran's nuclear drive in exchange for modest sanctions relief. An IAEA spokeswoman in Vienna, Gill Tudor, confirmed to AFP the date of the new round. In the meantime, Iranian nuclear officials said IAEA experts will visit Tehran on January 18 to prepare the implementation of the Geneva deal that is to come into full effect two days later. Under the accord, Iran must limit its enrichment of uranium to five percent for six months and begin to neutralise its stockpile of uranium purified to 20 percent, a few technical steps short of weapons-grade material. These steps need to be monitored and validated by IAEA inspectors. In Vienna, Tudor did not comment on the experts' possible visit to Iran, but said "the necessary preparations will be made for implementation" of the deal with the P5+1 group (Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany). On November 11, Iran and the IAEA agreed a framework deal that included six practical steps that Tehran would take by February 11. The first was a short visit to the heavy water plant at the unfinished Arak reactor that took place on December 8, when all of the IAEA's "technical objectives" were met, according to the Vienna-based agency. The second is a visit to the Gachin uranium mine in southern Iran -- off-limit to IAEA inspections since 2005 -- that is yet to be arranged but must take place before the February 11 deadline. The others include providing information on future research reactors, identifying sites designated for new nuclear power plants, as well as clarification on Iranian statements regarding additional enrichment facilities and laser enrichment technology. The IAEA talks are running in parallel with the P5+1 negotiations, and seek to increase transparency on Iran's ongoing nuclear activities and shed light on its past efforts of alleged weaponisation of its drive. Western powers and Israel suspect Iran's nuclear programme is masking military objectives. Tehran has repeatedly denied that charge, countering that the Islamic republic only seeks peaceful applications of the technology. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Jan-14/243997-un-nuclear-agency-to-meet-on-iran-pact- jan-24.ashx#axzz2qO2jlyWm Return to Top

The Times of Israel – Israel Issue No.1098, 17 January 2014 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Center| Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CPC Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 24 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Hard-liners in Iran Oppose ‘Poisoned’ Nuclear Deal Iranian moderates and reformers welcome agreement, which will curb uranium enrichment in exchange for partial easing of sanctions By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press (AP) January 14, 2014 TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran’s reformers and moderate conservatives welcomed an agreement Monday between Iran and six world powers on how to implement a nuclear deal struck in November, saying it will shore up Iran’s sanctions-hit economy. Hard-liners however inside the Islamic Republic remain opposed. The six-nation group — the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany — and Iran agreed to start implementing the terms of the historic interim deal from January 20. That will start a six-month clock for a final deal to be struck over Tehran’s contested nuclear program. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of the parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said that enforcing the deal opens new windows for Iran and paves the way for expanding its economic dealings with the outside world. “By enforcing the deal, there will be some openings for Iran’s economy and restrictions will be eased,” said Boroujerdi, a moderate conservative. “Economic sanctions will reduce and the way will be paved for expansion of economic activities.” Iran’s hard-liners have called the deal a “poisoned chalice,” challenging moderate President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif with the task of trying to convince skeptics that they are not compromising on key issues of national sovereignty. Speaking in Beirut, Zarif said that the issue has more to do with a lack of trust inside Iran than the nuclear program itself. “There is a very serious confidence deficit vis-a-vis the west in Iran. Our people believe that our peaceful nuclear program has been dealt with in a totally unfounded way,” Zarif said. “Hopefully once we resolve this issue we can move forward with better confidence.” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, has supported Iran’s nuclear negotiating team, calling them “sons of the revolution” and “our own children.” Prominent political analyst Sadeq Zibakalam said the accord has boosted Iran’s regional might. “By implementing the deal, tensions between Iran and the West will be eased and the Islamic Republic’s regional stance will be boosted. It will also nullify efforts by Israel and some of Iran’s Arab neighbors to isolate Iran,” he said. Zibakalam said both Rouhani and Obama have to fight an uphill task with hard-liners who seek to undermine the process. “We should not ignore efforts by extremists both in Iran and the US to sabotage the process. They are those who benefit from a crisis and will increase pressures on the government as of now. Hardline Congressmen and pro- Israel lobby groups will do the same in the US,” he said. Hardline Iranian cleric Mohammad Reza Ashtiani on Monday told local officials in Qom, a holy city 130 kilometers (80 miles) south of Tehran, that the terms of the deal was not appropriate. “They are going to give us part of our own money as if we are indebted,” the semiofficial Fars news agency quoted him as saying. Hard-liners say the agreement “practically tramples on Iran’s enrichment rights.”

The Los Angeles Times – Los Angeles, CA Obama Administration Releases to Lawmakers Iran Nuclear Deal Text By Paul Richter January 16, 2014, WASHINGTON – Facing congressional demands for more details, the Obama administration Thursday released to lawmakers the nine-page text of world powers’ latest nuclear deal with Iran. It sent the document, which lays out how the group will carry out a temporary plan to cap Iran’s nuclear program, to a secure room at the Capitol. Though it is unclassified, it will be available for review only by lawmakers and senior aides with security clearances. Also released was a public version scrubbed of sensitive details at the request of the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, U.S. officials said. Most of its contents had been previously released. “It is the preference of the IAEA that certain technical aspects of the technical understandings remain confidential,” said Jay Carney, the White House press secretary. He described the agreement as “essentially instructions for the IAEA for how they carry out” the Nov. 24 deal. The six world powers have been negotiating with Iran to try to work out a deal that will ensure that Tehran’s sprawling nuclear program does not reach nuclear weapons capability. Many countries believe that Iran is seeking such capability, despite its denials. The preliminary deal will take effect Monday, beginning a six-month period during which the administration will try to negotiate a longer-term deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program. During the bargaining, which may be extended to a year, Iran will freeze portions of its nuclear program and will be granted some temporary relief from the tough international sanctions that have hamstrung its economy. The negotiations with Iran have set off an intense political struggle in Washington. Whereas the administration insists that the negotiations offer the best hope for halting the nuclear program and avoiding war, critics say they could allow Iran to secretly edge forward to the threshold of bomb-making capability. Some lawmakers, fearful that the administration and its partners may have been too lenient with Iran, have pushed for as much disclosure as possible. Their concerns were heightened this week when Iran’s chief negotiator, Abbas Araqchi, told reporters in Iran that his country and the six powers had reached informal agreements on some points that wouldn’t be made public.

The Diplomat – Japan Change At Pakistan's Nuclear Strategic Plans Division: Cause For Concern? Pakistan’s long-term Strategic Plans Division head retired – are its nukes safe? By Ankit Panda, The Diplomat January 14, 2014 In 2009, the New York Times’ David Sanger wrote that “In the second nuclear age, what happens or fails to happen in Kidwai’s modest compound [the SPD] may prove far more likely to save or lose an American city than the billions of dollars the United States spends each year maintaining a nuclear arsenal that will almost certainly never be used.” So who is this Kidwai fellow anyway? Amid all the major leadership changes in Pakistan last year, Lieutenant General Khalid Kidwai’s departure hardly struck a chord with the mainstream media. As I wrote then for The Diplomat, Kidwai was unlike any other individual in the Pakistani military establishment – he stuck around at the heart of Pakistan’s strategic nuclear weapons program from the Chagai nuclear tests all the way through Musharraf’s tenure as President, into the final days of 2013. With Kidwai’s retirement, an important human constant was removed from the core of the Pakistan nuclear program. So what exactly did Kidwai do that makes his departure warrant concern of any sort? Kidwai has formally headed Pakistan’s secretive Strategic Plans Division (SPD) since 2000. The SPD manages the operation, maintenance, and security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons stockpiles. Kidwai stood at the heart of it all over his 15 year career, receiving wide praise from Pakistan’s civilian and military establishment alike. He formally retired in 2007, but has received 12 extensions since then, allowing him to continue to serve as head of the SPD. The Nation claims that Kidwai holds the record for the longest career in Pakistan’s strategic defense establishment. Kidwai’s role didn’t end there. He was Pakistan’s chief adviser on nuclear matters and consulted for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif during his first term, for Musharraf during his tenure, for Zardari thereafter, and for Sharif during his second term. He was also an interlocutor for U.S. defense officials – he constantly assured the United States that Pakistan’s nukes were safe under his watch, and that Pakistan was not a state proliferator of nuclear weapons or nuclear materials. His interactions with the United States caused controversy between him and A.Q. Khan – the infamous Pakistani nuclear scientist who sold nuclear secrets to unsavory actors in Iran and North Korea. Few analysts have reflected on what Kidwai’s departure could entail for Pakistan’s strategic nuclear weapons. Michael Kugelman is one of the few. In a piece for The National Interest, Kugelman examines Kidwai’s tenure in

The Fiscal Times – New York, NY OPINION/Article US Nukes: Now It’s Our Turn to Catch Up to the Russians By David Francis, The Fiscal Times January 10, 2014 America’s nuclear arsenal, an afterthought to most after the Cold War, are badly in need of upgrades that could cost up to a trillion dollars over the next 30 years in order to keep pace with nuclear powers like Russia and China, experts said. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel made a rare visit to a nuclear weapons facility in Wyoming, the first time a DOD chief has visited a nuclear installation since 2008. His visit was a reminder of the country’s vast and largely unnoticed nuclear infrastructure. For the most part, this infrastructure has been left untouched since the end of the Cold War nearly 20 years ago. According to Michaela Dodge, an analyst of defense and security policy at the Heritage Foundation, the United States has not been actively trying to develop nuclear weapons since. But rivals like Russia and China have active nuclear programs and have been developing new nuclear technology for the last two decades.

Hans M. Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists says even if the Russians and the Chinese have not caught up to the United States, the American nuclear infrastructure is badly in need of upgrades. “There’s infrastructure, the factories that built this stuff, Cold War facilities are being replaced by modern facilities. This is causing problems because it’s very expensive to build. The administration is struggling to afford these things,” he said. “All these investment points have peaked and come together. You have investments needed in all of these systems. We have to build a whole new generation of nuclear submarines. At some point we’ll have to replace the land-based missiles. They’re planning to build a new fleet of bombers.” “The delivery systems, the factories, the warhead life extension programs that are planned, within the next decade, they are in the range of $215 billion,” Kristensen continued. “After that it will continue to increase even more. These are enormous investments.” The Congressional Budget Office estimated that spending level could go even higher. In a December 2013 report to Congress, CBO estimated that upgrade over the next decade would cost $335 billion. Kristensen said that it’s difficult to determine how much the government actually spends on the U.S. nuclear weapons program because agencies that support it are spread across government. “I’ve seen studies argue that over the last 3 to 4 years, we spent something in the order of $10 to $30 billion,” he said. “Within the next three decades, the U.S. is projected to spend a trillion dollars on weapons to modernize and maintain nuclear forces.” Undefined mission All of this spending is happening without a clear nuclear strategy for the future. Kristensen said that most of U.S. nuclear planning is done with Russia in mind. Hostile countries like North Korea and Pakistan don’t have the capability to strike the United States. “Russia is the only country that has an enormous nuclear force that could threaten the existence of the United States,” he said.

Air Force Times.com OPINION/Op-Ed Op-Ed: Morale Is High in Nuclear Force By Lt. Col. Anita A. Feugate Opperman January 11, 2014 The article concerning trouble in the intercontinental ballistic missile community [“ ‘Burnout’ in the nuclear force,” Dec. 2] mischaracterizes the atmosphere within the community as one of malaise and “burnout.” As a former missile squadron commander, I can tell you that impression of the missile force is inaccurate. The problem stems from a Rand study, commissioned by the Air Force, to look objectively at the quality of life of the entire ICBM force — security forces, missile maintenance, missile field chefs and facility managers, not just ICBM combat crew members. The study was a way to find processes we could change that would have a positive impact. Shortly after the study results came out, the 20th Air Force commander, who oversees the nation’s three ICBM wings, directed us to ensure we were protecting each airman’s time off. Admittedly, I did not do a good job of ensuring our personnel were only asked to perform official duty on days they were already scheduled to work. It should not have taken a two-star general to come up with this simple, no-cost solution that gave my squadron members more time with their families. That being said, the attitudes I saw every day for the two years of my command were crew members, facility managers and chefs enthusiastic about their jobs. I was impressed with their proficiency and desire to do the best they could each and every missile field tour. Missile field work often feels unnoticed and unappreciated by Americans and sometimes even the Air Force. Because of this, I always enjoyed bringing a group out to tour the missile alert facility, not only to help educate average Americans and Congress members on the mission, but to give squadron members a chance to show off what they do so well. There is nothing like having a tour group eat an MAF meal. Tater tots and hamburgers never tasted so good. Our chefs, often in their first assignments, are eager to cook their signature dish. Facility managers used every visit to display what they had done to keep the MAF neat, clean and as much a home away from home as possible. They use their spare time and money decorating the MAFs in space-related themes such as Star Wars. ICBM crew members understand America expects a great deal of them — with perfection as the standard. Thus, I take issue with the suggestion in the article that perfection is unrealistic. Our crew members are entrusted with the most deadly weapon on Earth. They understand it is their job to get it right every time.

The Times of India – India OPINION/Commentary The Nuclear Nightmare Can terrorists get their hands on an N-bomb in Pakistan? The Bhatkal scenario sounds fanciful but there is no denying that South Asia is a risky flashpoint. By Manil Suri January 12, 2014 Last week, the captured Indian Mujahideen leader Yasin Bhatkal revealed he had asked his Pakistani boss for a "small nuclear bomb" to detonate in Surat. "Anything can be arranged in Pakistan," his boss is reputed to have replied. What if such a terrorist nuclear device were, indeed, to go off in Surat? Anything acquired from the Pakistani arsenal would not be "small" but rather, comparable to the 15 kiloton Hiroshima bomb. The death toll would be significantly higher due to Surat's greater population density, and because a ground detonation can lead to radioactive fallout. A less catastrophic scenario might involve a homemade "dirty" bomb, using radioactive material appropriated from medical equipment. Although the physical damage would now be quite localized, the resulting panic and outrage might again outstrip anything seen in previous terrorist attacks. In either case, India would be faced with the same difficult question: how to react? So far, India's policy on terrorism has been one of restraint: the response has never been a full-scale military attack, aimed at inflicting sufficiently costly losses to make Pakistan abandon its policy of tolerating terrorist groups. The reason is pragmatism: Pakistan, which has significantly weaker conventional military power, has set a low threshold for the use of nuclear weapons in case it is overwhelmed by India in a conventional war. With enough nuclear warheads to wipe each other out, India and Pakistan are in a classic configuration of mutually assured destruction. The danger of nuclear escalation has made the cost of starting even a conventional war too high, no matter what the provocation. But what if the provocation itself was nuclear, like an atomic device exploding in Surat, or even a dirty bomb? What government would be able to adhere to a policy of restraint in the face of the frenzied calls for revenge sure to follow? If India retaliated in kind, with even the most limited nuclear action, the experience with NATO war games shows that the end result would probably be a full scale nuclear exchange. With 100 detonations (about half the current combined arsenal), not only would several million Indians and Pakistanis be instantly killed, but atmospheric soot would precipitate a worldwide nuclear famine, causing up to two billion additional starvation deaths. Clearly, the only viable option is to never have to find out the Indian response. Could the terrorist acquisition of a nuclear bomb indeed be "arranged" in Pakistan? Over the years, the international community has repeatedly focused on the security of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, with the US providing substantial aid to enhance

The Hill – Washington, D.C. OPINION/Congress Blog The Smart Choice on the B61 By Stephen Young January 13, 2014 With the debate over the omnibus spending bill wrapping up, one of the last questions may have been funding for the life extension program for the B61 nuclear-armed gravity bomb, since Senate appropriators made a significant cut in a program that the House fully funded. The Senate’s position should prevail, and here’s why. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), with support and money from the Pentagon, is proposing to spend some $10 billion to extend the life of roughly 400 B61s while consolidating the bomb’s four variants into one. While acknowledging that this is a good deal of money for a relatively small number of weapons, supporters state that the current approach is the “lowest cost option that meets military requirements.” Claiming that it will be more expensive, they reject an alternative option that, while meeting military requirements except consolidation, would make fewer changes to the warhead. But that claim is based on a particular window of time, from now through roughly 2032, that includes a second life extension program for the alternate B61 approach, but not the second one for the preferred approach, which is also in the plans. Under the current approach, the planned life expectancy of the updated B61 will be only 20 years. In early planning, the NNSA considered a life extension of 30 years, but cut it to 20 years to save money. As a result, under the NNSA plans, the new B61 will undergo a second life extension starting in less than 10 years after the first one is complete. The less expensive approach might only last ten years, so its next update would occur sooner, but both will require a second update to extend their life beyond 20 years. So the lower cost of the preferred option results from picking a 20 year window in time. Moreover, given the potential for future reductions in the number of B61 bombs, the second life extension program may involve fewer than 400 weapons, so spending less money now to update all 400 makes sense.

The Washington Post OPINION/Fine Print With Cold War Long Over, it’s Time to Show some Fiscal and Nuclear Courage By Walter Pincus January 13, 2014 The Obama administration missed a chance to take a bold step to save money Thursday when Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel visited F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming. It is home to the 90th Missile Wing, where an estimated 150 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles are on 24-hour alert. If ever there was a costly relic of Cold War spending that needs a dramatic overhaul it’s the U.S. strategic nuclear deterrent, a program with a price tag of $355 billion or more over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Of that amount, some $89 billion will be used to modernize or replace the current intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and bombers, and add a new air-launched cruise missile. Operating costs for nuclear forces this fiscal year are $18 billion, but with modernization efforts just beginning, taxpayers should add another $10 billion a year in costs, according to the CBO report. Under the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) that goes into effect in 2018, the United States and Russia will have 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads, more than half on 24-hour alert, deployed on 700 long-range delivery systems — the ICBMs, SLBMs, and bombers. Issue No.1098, 17 January 2014 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Center| Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CPC Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 33 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Why so many — and ready to be fired — other than that has been the case for years? For example, why does the United States have two Air Force officers in giant capsule-like underground bunkers buried some 30 feet below ground, sometimes working 12-hour stretches in Minuteman III launch control centers, like those near F.E. Warren Air Force Base? Down there, they control 10 intercontinental ballistic missiles, each with a warhead roughly 20 times more powerful than the one that destroyed Hiroshima, ready for firing within minutes of a confirmed order through the chain of command from President Obama. There are 44 other underground launch control centers located across the northern Midwest. For 50 years not one of the U.S. ICBMs has been launched at an enemy target. They played their role in the Cold War, as Hagel pointed out during his talk at Warren AFB. “There are many things that have kept the world from a World War III, but I do think America’s strong nuclear deterrent, second-to-none, has done as much to keep peace in the world since World War II as any one thing.” Having prevented what he called “the big war,” Hagel said it was time “we look at the new challenges and threats that face the world today.” He mentioned cyber as “a huge threat,” and although he didn’t say it, terrorism also must be on his mind. What he also didn’t mention, however, was fear of a massive first strike capable of knocking out the U.S. nuclear deterrent, the danger that was posed by the now nonexistent Soviet Union. The Soviets, in fact, allegedly justified the need in the first place for the U.S. nuclear triad of deployed land-based and sub-based ICBMs and bombers. Hagel did refer indirectly to the troubles that have dogged the nuclear force structure in the past two years as its central role in Pentagon planning has receded since the Soviet Union’s collapse. In Wyoming, he told the troops, “Sometimes I suspect you feel maybe that no one cares or no one’s paying attention to you, but we are, and also to re-emphasize how important your mission is, how important your work is, how we depend on your professionalism and how you do your work.” That same day two Air Force missile officers — whose job it is to sit in those underground launch centers — were implicated in a narcotics investigation and lost their access to classified information. An unpublished Rand Corporation study done between December 2012 and February 2013 found that those in the nuclear missile force “have low job satisfaction and often feel job-related ‘burnout.’” The study, first disclosed in November by the Associated Press, also found that courts-martial in the ICBM force were 129 percent higher than the Air Force as a whole in 2011, on a per-capita basis, and 145 percent higher in 2012. In May, the Air Force temporarily disqualified 17 officers from their duties controlling ICBMs at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota after they received a D rating during an inspection. Then in October was the embarrassment caused by the firing of Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, commander of the 20th Air Force and responsible for the three wings of U.S. ICBMs. An Air Force inspector general’s report described him during a Moscow trip as being publicly drunk, socializing with women and being rude to his hosts. Despite problems among the U.S. strategic nuclear force personnel, questions about the role of nuclear deterrence in the age of growing cyber and terrorist threats, and current budgetary pressures in defense spending, Hagel did not propose that the Obama administration would seek to reduce further the new START level of deployed warheads, cut the number of stockpiled warheads or eliminate one leg of the triad. Instead, he said, “We’re going to invest in the modernization that we need to invest in to keep that deterrent stronger than it’s ever been.” He pointed specifically to “completion of a new study to determine the follow-on ICBM to the current Minuteman III. So we are continuing to invest our focus and our time and our effort in this — in this nuclear deterrent strategy.” The administration had an opportunity to lessen the attraction of nuclear weapons by unilaterally lowering numbers, de-alerting some deployed systems and asking other nuclear powers to do the same. That’s a far cry from Global Zero, a distant goal both Obama and Hagel have supported. Most Americans — and most nations —

The Voice of Russia – Russia OPINION/Article 15 January 2014 Will China's New Supersonic Warhead Bust US Missile Shield? China has tested an ICBM hypersonic warhead. It follows from the test results that China may deploy its ICBMs with these kinds of warheads in the foreseeable future, says an expert with the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, Vassily Kashin. The testing of the ICBM hypersonic warhead is the first practical achievement of a large-scale programme to create hypersonic weapons, a programme that China is translating into life. China has been engaged in developing hypersonic cruise vehicles for several years. In July 2012, the Chinese media reported the commissioning in China of a unique high-speed wind tunnel capable of testing model aircraft at speeds of up to Mach 9. Now China has reported the flight test of a hypersonic cruise vehicle. The basic questions that arise in this context are how the new technology will influence the Chinese nuclear strategy and what other hypersonic weapon projects China is carrying out. Russia first said it had successfully tested a hypersonic warhead in 2005 to add to stability of its strategic nuclear forces in the face of the US missile defence system. Signs are Russia was the first to obtain a deployable warhead of this kind. China is several years behind, but following the Russian road. But China's recent test shows that Beijing may deploy its ICBMs with hypersonic warheads in the foreseeable future. None of the existing missile defence systems can bring down a hypersonic glide vehicle, so once China starts deploying such warheads, it will boost the reliability of its nuclear forces. The development of the hypersonic warhead may be related to the building of China's new heavy intercontinental ballistic missile in an effort that became known last year. Hypersonic warheads are heavier than their predecessors, so their use calls for the creation of a new more powerful missile. It is safe to assume that the People's Republic of China is following Russia's and US suit and will not limit itself to the development of hypersonic technologies in the interests of its strategic nuclear triad. The United States is known to consider the use of its non-nuclear hypersonic weapons in the future Prompt Global Strike systems. Russia is also engaged in manufacturing non-nuclear hypersonic weapons. Once China gets its non-nuclear hypersonic weapons, it will be in a position to much more effectively counter the US carrier strike forces. China is making progress in manufacturing very powerful high-speed missiles to kill enemy aircraft-carriers, one such missile being the DF-21D anti-ship missile, which China has already made. The moment China obtains a more manoeuvrable hypersonic cruise missile to attack carrier forces, the aircraft-carrier defence system is dead, and the concept of world fleet development should be revised. In the 21st century, hypersonic weapons will prove an indispensable appanage of a military superpower that China is turning into before our very eyes. Still, there is quite a way to go from the first tests to the actual deployment of new weapon systems, so we will hardly see the results of the efforts in question before 2020.

National Interest.com OPINION/Commentary Some Bombs Can Be Tossed By Steven Pifer January 15, 2014 I read Adam Lowther and Hunter Hustus’s January 2 reply to me, “Don’t Toss the Bomb,” with great interest. But they fail to make a persuasive case against my points in “Fewer Nukes Don’t Mean More Danger.” The United States has substantial room to reduce its nuclear arsenal, without risk to U.S. or allied security interests. Lowther and Hustus write that my recent piece compares apples and oranges when relating the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal to that of third countries. It is unclear why they make such an assertion. My article suggested that the United States and Russia each reduce to no more than 2,000-2,500 total nuclear weapons, of which 1,000 would be deployed strategic warheads, down from the 1,550 deployed strategic warheads allowed each side by the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). The article compared the resulting U.S. total nuclear arsenal (2,000-2,500) against the total nuclear arsenals of France (300) and China (250)—the third and fourth largest nuclear weapons states—and concluded that the United States would have around eight times as many weapons as any third power. That is an apples-to-apples comparison. Contrary to Lowther and Hustus’s claim, the total U.S. arsenal size would allow for a significant hedge against unforeseen developments. Under the proposed 2,000-2,500 limit on total nuclear weapons, the United States could maintain 1,000-1,500 non-strategic (tactical) nuclear weapons and non-deployed (reserve) strategic weapons in addition to the 1,000 deployed strategic warheads. This arsenal would allow plenty of slack to meet new challenges. The U.S. military is downloading most of its intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) so that they carry fewer warheads than their maximum capacity. Minuteman III ICBMs will be deployed with a single warhead, even though two-thirds of them can carry multiple warheads. The average Trident II SLBM will carry four or five warheads, although the Trident II has a maximum capacity of eight warheads. The United States could readily add many hundreds of additional strategic warheads to its deployed ICBM and SLBM forces were New START to break down. Lowther and Hustus note that the Cold War is over. No argument here. They also write that the United States must maintain “the capability—and will—to deter multiple adversaries simultaneously.” We agree on that point as well. Deterrence has become more complex with the transition from the binary mutual deterrence relationship that existed between the United States and Soviet Union during the Cold War to one in which Washington faces several possible adversaries armed with nuclear weapons. But Lowther and Hustus fail to answer the real world questions I posed in my December 12 article: Which potential adversary would act differently if the United States had “only” 2,500 nuclear weapons? Would North Korea adopt a more aggressive posture if the United States had just three hundred times as many nuclear weapons as it, instead of five hundred times as many? The answers to these questions are “no one” and “no.” A stockpile of 2,500 nuclear weapons should suffice to deter America’s possible nuclear adversaries: Russia, China, and North Korea. Lowther and Hustus argue that numbers have to derive from strategy. Again we agree. The Joint Chiefs of Staff endorsed the proposal made by President Obama last June in Berlin to lower the New START ceiling of 1,550

ABOUT THE USAF CPC The USAF Counterproliferation Center was established in 1998 at the direction of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Located at Maxwell AFB, this Center capitalizes on the resident expertise of Air University, while extending its reach far beyond - and influences a wide audience of leaders and policy makers. A memorandum of agreement between the Air Staff Director for Nuclear and Counterproliferation (then AF/XON), now AF/A5XP) and Air War College Commandant established the initial manpower and responsibilities of the Center. This included integrating counterproliferation awareness into the curriculum and ongoing research at the Air University; establishing an information repository to promote research on counterproliferation and nonproliferation issues; and directing research on the various topics associated with counterproliferation and nonproliferation. In 2008, the Secretary of Defense's Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Management recommended that "Air Force personnel connected to the nuclear mission be required to take a professional military education (PME) course on national, defense, and Air Force concepts for deterrence and defense." As a result, the Air Force Nuclear Weapons School, in coordination with the AF/A10 and Air Force Global Strike Command, established a series of courses at Kirtland AFB to provide continuing education through the careers of those Air Force personnel working in or supporting the nuclear enterprise. This mission was transferred to the CPC in 2012, broadening its mandate to providing education and research to not just countering WMD but also nuclear deterrence. Issue No.1098, 17 January 2014 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Center| Maxwell AFB, Alabama http://cpc.au.af.mil \ https://twitter.com/USAF_CPC Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7226 37