Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 Articles & Other Documents: Featured Article: Why Does Pakistan Have World's Fastest-Growing Nuclear Program?

1. Ex-IAEA Official Adds Weight to Syria Atom Suspicion 2. Iran's First Nuclear Power Plant 'Goes Operational', State Radio Claims 3. China Denies It Is Conduit for North Korea-Iran Weapons Trade 4. N. Korea on 'Dead-End Road' unless It Denuclearizes: Envoy 5. Pakistan's Fourth Nuclear Reactor Has India Worried 6. Delhi Jittery about Pakistan’s Tactical Nukes 7. India may Expand Nuclear Program, Says Top Adviser 8. Medvedev Warns of New Cold War Era 9. U.S. Missile Defense in Europe 'Real Threat' to Russia - General Staff 10. New Trident Fleet Cost will top £25bn 11. NNSA Releases Strategic Plan, Goals for the Next Decade 12. Life Span of U.S. Nuclear Weapons will Increase under Plan 13. More than 30 Cities Lose Antiterror Funds 14. Interpol Stands Up Nuclear Counterterrorism Unit 15. Why Does Pakistan Have World's Fastest-Growing Nuclear Program? 16. Stocking Up on Nuclear Bombs 17. Pakistan’s Answer to Cold Start? 18. The US Has Exposed Its Real Intentions 19. Nuclear Safety

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.

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 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.

United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

The Star – Malaysia Ex-IAEA Official Adds Weight to Syria Atom Suspicion By Fredrik Dahl Tuesday, May 17, 2011 VIENNA (Reuters) - Satellite images and other information indicate Syria was building a covert atomic reactor when Israel bombed the site in 2007, a former senior U.N. nuclear inspector said on Tuesday. Olli Heinonen, who stepped down as deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2010, made his remarks at a time when some argue that Damascus may soon be referred to the U.N. Security Council over the issue. Now a senior fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, he said "satellite imagery, procurement, and infrastructure information tend to point (in the) direction that the destroyed building at Dair Alzour was, indeed, a nuclear reactor at an advanced state of construction." In an email to Reuters, he said, however, that Syria had not "engaged in any substantial discussion" about Dair Alzour. Israeli warplanes wrecked the desert site in September 2007 and Syria has allowed IAEA investigators to visit it only once, in June 2008, rejecting repeated requests for further visits. Western diplomats expect the Vienna-based IAEA to use stronger language in its next quarterly report on Syria which is due later this month, possibly by saying it believes the facility was a reactor under construction. The United States and its European allies are expected to seize on this finding to push for a decision at the June 6- 10 meeting of the IAEA's governing board to send the file to the U.N. Security Council -- a move last used against Iran in 2006. The move would reflect growing frustration in the West over Syria's stonewalling of an IAEA probe into Dair Alzour, which U.S. intelligence reports said was a nascent North Korean-designed reactor intended to make bomb fuel. Preparations for a possible U.S.-led move by the IAEA's 35-nation governing board coincide with a Syrian crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrations. Western diplomats in Vienna insist the two issues are separate. "There is a general feeling that there has been a stalemate in the Syrian case for too long and therefore something has to be done," one European ambassador accredited to the IAEA said. "It is a dramatic step," he said about the possibility that the Syria nuclear case would be handed over to the Security Council, which may debate the issue or take other action. Syria, an ally of Iran, denies ever having a nuclear weapons program. It has suggested uranium traces uncovered at Dair Alzour after a one-off IAEA visit came with Israeli munitions used in the attack. The agency has dismissed this as unlikely. SOME COUNTRIES SCEPTICAL Diplomats said the IAEA -- which in earlier reports said there were indications nuclear activity may have taken place at Dair Alzour -- was unlikely to make a definitive, final assessment due to a lack of further access to the site. "They can say that according to everything they know there is a high probability, or that they assume, it was a nuclear reactor," one Western official said. Western diplomats say Syria's refusal to allow U.N. inspectors follow-up access to Dair Alzour risks undermining the IAEA and the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that underpins its work to prevent the spread of atom bombs, if nothing is done.

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

The board has the power to refer countries to the Security Council if they are judged to have violated IAEA rules designed to make sure atom technology is not diverted for military aims. A majority vote in favor would be needed for this step. "I think it will be feasible to get a decision to refer the issue to the Security Council," the Western official said. The European ambassador said some countries on the IAEA board may not back such a decision. He expected Russia and China, which last month resisted a Security Council condemnation of Syria's clampdown on demonstrators, to abstain in any vote. One developing country diplomat said that whatever Syria did at Dair Alzour it was now in the past, unlike the Iran case. "To send it to the Security Council it has to be a threat to international peace and security," said the diplomat. "Do you have any proof they are doing it right now?" Editing by Maria Golovnina http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/5/17/worldupdates/2011-05- 17T202802Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-570762-1&sec=Worldupdates (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Daily Mail – U.K. Iran's First Nuclear Power Plant 'Goes Operational', State Radio Claims By Daily Mail Reporter 19th May 2011 Iran faced global condemnation today after it defied safety warnings and launched the country's first nuclear power plant. Western countries including the United Kingdom and the U.S. have for years feared the controversial plant could be used to develop nuclear weapons. The country has in recent times been locked in a tense stand-off over its nuclear intentions, with its leaders refusing reveal its plans. But they have now been branded 'troubling' after they defied calls to join safety programs and instead continue with the launch of the Bushehr nuclear plant. Iranian Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Salehi confirmed yesterday that the country's only nuclear plant had become operational. 'As we have previously announced, Bushehr power plant has reached the criticality stage (and) it has been successfully launched,' Salehi said according Iran FM. The criticality stage, or fission process, allows the atoms to split by themselves in a chain reaction without interference from operators. The process is expected to last some two months, during which period the plant will generate around 40 per cent of its power capacity. 'We assure the (Iranian) nation that safety has the final say in Bushehr power plant,' Salehi added. He said that modern technologies that were used in the construction of the plant have ensured that it is 'amongst one of the safest in the world'. 'We assure the (Iranian) nation that safety has the final say in Bushehr power plant,' he added.

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Construction of the Bushehr plant began in 1975 by several German companies. But work was halted when the U.S. imposed an embargo on hi-tech supplies to Iran after the 1979 Islamic revolution. Russia signed a contract with Iran to complete the construction in 1998. However, building work was postponed several times amid technical and financial challenges and pressure from the United States. The start-up of Iran's existing plant at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf began this month only after years of delays.

The project quickly ran into a new setback just a few weeks ago, when engineers had to remove 163 fuel rods after damage was discovered at one of the reactor's main cooling pumps.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sought to ease concerns in the wake of the Fukushima accident, telling Spanish state television that 'all safety rules and regulations and the highest standards have been applied' to Bushehr's construction. But critics are unconvinced. 'Iran's decision to start up Bushehr without joining the Convention on Nuclear Safety is troubling,' says Glyn Davis, the chief U.S. envoy to the IAEA. 'Especially in light of the Fukushima accident, we believe it's of paramount importance that (IAEA) member states avail themselves of every opportunity to improve the safety of their nuclear facilities.' A Russian diplomat last week confirmed that the plant was predicted to be operational 'within a few weeks'. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said: 'We are keeping up with the schedule, which was adjusted by request of Iranian partners. I can confirm that it (the full operation) is a matter of few weeks.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1388571/Irans-nuclear-power-plant-goes-operational-state-radio- claims.html?ito=feeds-newsxml (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Oregon Herald China Denies It Is Conduit for North Korea-Iran Weapons Trade Reuters Tuesday, May 17, 2011 BEIJING — China rejected Wednesday reported allegations by U.N. diplomats that it was a trans-shipment point for banned nuclear missile technology between North Korea and Iran. U.N. diplomats said in the report, obtained by Reuters over the weekend, that North Korea appeared to have been exchanging ballistic missile technology and expertise with Iran in violation of Security Council sanctions. The report did not identify China, but said North Korean-Iranian missile trade went via a country neighboring North Korea, which diplomats at the United Nations told Reuters was China. "I completely deny such a view," Assistant Chinese Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue told reporters at a briefing. He did not elaborate. Hu's response was stronger than those of Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu Tuesday. In a faxed statement, she did not outright deny the report by a U.N. panel. But she said the document did not have the authority of the Security Council and said China scrupulously upheld punitive U.N. measures against North Korea. China blocked Tuesday the publication of the U.N. expert panel's report that suggests North Korea and Iran have been sharing ballistic missile technology in violation of U.N. sanctions, diplomats said.

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

"On the issue of denuclearisation on the Korean peninsula, the Chinese position is crystal clear," Hu said. "We have nothing to hide." Jiang said the U.N. report "does not represent the position of the Security Council, and nor does it represent the position of the relevant Security Council sanctions committee." Statements that China was the trans-shipment site for banned cargo were anonymous accusations, said Jiang. "I am not willing to make any comment about such claims from anonymous sources," she said. "But I can tell you that China is conscientious and responsible in enforcing Security Council resolutions." If the U.N. report is true, it could underscore U.S. concerns that China is not applying enough resources to detect and stop North Korea's illicit nuclear trade. China is North Korea's only major ally, and its economic and diplomatic support has been important in shoring up its otherwise isolated neighbor. China also buys large amounts of oil from Iran, which is largely shunned by the West. But China has also pressed North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions, and has supported Security Council resolutions that condemned North Korea for its nuclear tests and authorized sanctions. The report was submitted to the Security Council last week by a U.N. Panel of Experts, a group that monitors compliance with U.N. sanctions imposed on North Korea after it conducted nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009. The U.N. sanctions included a ban on trade in nuclear and missile technology with North Korea, as well as an arms embargo. They also ban trade with designated North Korean firms and demand asset freezes and travel bans on some North Koreans. But analysts have said China has failed to enforce rigorously the U.N. decisions. Reporting by Sui-Lee Wee; Editing by Ken Wills and Robert Birsel http://www.oregonherald.com/news/show-story.cfm?id=250797 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Yonhap News – South Korea May 18, 2011 N. Korea on 'Dead-End Road' unless It Denuclearizes: Envoy By Lee Haye-ah SEOUL, May 18 (Yonhap) -- North Korea will remain on the wrong path unless it abandons its nuclear weapons program, the top U.S. envoy to Seoul said Wednesday, urging the communist state to work toward a peaceful and denuclearized Korean Peninsula. "Without denuclearization, North Korea is on a dead-end road. That's about as clear as I can be right now," U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Kathleen Stephens said at a debate hosted by the Kwanhun Club, a fraternity of senior Korean journalists. "There really is a choice here to be made and ... there are actions that North Korea could take to demonstrate it is making a choice towards moving towards everything being possible as outlined" in a 2005 denuclearization agreement, she said. The agreement, signed within the framework of the six-party talks involving the two Koreas, Japan, China, Russia and the U.S., committed Pyongyang to dismantle all its nuclear programs. In return, the isolated and impoverished state was promised normalized relations with the U.S. and Japan, a permanent peace treaty with South Korea, and large amounts of economic and energy aid.

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Implementation of that pact has been stalled over a series of provocations by the North that started with two test nuclear explosions in 2006 and 2009, and peaked with two deadly attacks on a South Korean warship and border island last year. Despite such incidents, North Korea has in recent months said it would like to resume the six-party negotiations that have been deadlocked since December 2008 and even discuss its newly revealed uranium enrichment program within that forum. The ambassador was speaking as Stephen Bosworth, U.S. special representative for North Korea policy, is in Seoul to meet South Korean officials over the resumption of the six-way talks and possible food aid to the North. "As we've said repeatedly, we would like to see action from North Korea, not just words," Stephens said, declining to name the specific actions Pyongyang should take to prove its willingness to denuclearize. "You want to give a little room for the kind of action that would demonstrate a seriousness of purpose." "Words are important, but action also shows the seriousness of purpose, and we would like to see actions by North Korea that would demonstrate its commitment to implementing the 2005 Joint Statement of Principles," she added. On the possibility of direct dialogue between the U.S. and North Korea, she said it would largely depend on developments in inter-Korean relations. "We also are prepared to engage bilaterally, but I think we've been very clear that we want to see first and foremost an improvement in the atmosphere of North-South." http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2011/05/18/84/0401000000AEN20110518006800315F.HTML (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Times of India – India Pakistan's Fourth Nuclear Reactor Has India Worried By Sachin Parashar, Tamil News Network (TNN) May 19, 2011 NEW DELHI: Pakistan is focusing on building low-yield, tactical nuclear weapons which it can use in case of skirmishes at the border with India. After disclosures that Pakistan is building its fourth reactor at the Khushab military facility, fresh estimates made by security and intelligence officials here suggest that Pakistan now has the capability to add 8-10 such weapons in its kitty every year. The figure is likely to go up considerably once the new reactor becomes operational in less than two years. Latest satellite images revealed recently that Pakistan has expedited work on the fourth reactor, a plutonium producing facility. The news is a surprise, if not shock, to the government here. Its belief, based on assessment by top scientists, was that Pakistan was unlikely to undertake this sort of expansion as it did not have enough uranium. Pakistan is internationally acknowledged to have a nuclear arsenal of 100 weapons but the recent focus on low- yield, also known as tactical, weapons has become a source of worry for India. Former chief of joint intelligence committee S D Pradhan, who has closely followed Pakistan's nuclear-weapon program, says Pakistan's desire for such weapons is one of the main reasons for the acceleration of its nuclear program. "They are following the Chinese model of having low-yield nuclear weapons. Pakistan believes these weapons will provide it a flexible response in case of an escalation with India and allow it to dominate," says Pradhan.

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Officials and experts believe Pakistan will use it only in the case of any incursion made by Indian forces into Pakistani territory or what is known as India's cold start doctrine. In the event of another Mumbai-like terrorist attack, there is going to be real pressure on India to mount such an incursion and strike some of the terror camps. Indian officials said the manner in which Pakistan has carried out work on the fourth reactor, of which there was no trace as late as 2009, suggest a constant supply or uranium and that this could only have been made possible by China. "The cost involved is too high and then, of course, the amount of uranium required. It's too much for Pakistan to achieve without support from China," said a senior government official. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Pakistans-fourth-nuclear-reactor-has-India- worried/articleshow/8427229.cms (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Times of Bombay – India Delhi Jittery about Pakistan’s Tactical Nukes May 20, 2011 Pakistan’s Nuclear program has been Uranium based. The Chinese Nuclear program is Plutonium based. Pakistan‘s Uranium based program was based on enriching Uranium using Gas Centrifuges–cheaper technology which none of the other Atomic powers had used before. After perfecting the larger Uranium based devices, now Pakistan has begun to miniaturize its weapons using Plutonium based bombs. Delhi is a bit jittery about Pakistan’s nuclear program that focuses on “low-yield, tactical nuclear weapons.” These Plutonium based weapons would be used to decimate Bharat’s “Cold Start” strategy that banks on rapid movement and deployment of Bharati forces. Pakistan’s fourth reactor at the Khushab military facility is problematic for Bharat. This stops Delhi from invading Pakistan. Pakistan has the capability to add at least eight to 10 such weapons each year. Apparently the Pakistan are following the Chinese model of owning low-yield nuclear weapons. These tactical nukes are the “Cold Start” buster mechanism which will provide the Pakistani military a flexible response in case of an escalation with India and allow it to dominate. Once Khushab is up to speed, Pakistan will be able to produce 35 Plutonium based tactical nuclear weapons per year. Pakistan is known to have a nuclear arsenal, however the quantity of the weapons has baffled Delhi. According to The Times of India, “the current focus on low-yield (tactical) weapons has India worried”. Bharati defense officials know that these weapons will be used by Pakistan “in case of an incursion made by Indian forces into Pakistani territory”. Delhi under domestic constraints has threatened Pakistan several times–the tactical nukes keep them at bay. With the OBL incursion, Pakistan has been forced to consider other options. One of the options is to disperse the older weapons deeper into Pakistan and diversify their locations. Another strategy is to miniaturize the weapons, so that they can be holed up in caves, and underground structures, away from praying satellite images. With CIA spies running rampant in Pakistan–the miniaturized weapons will deter a large scale attack either by Bharat or any other country. Senator’s personal guarantee written in his blood not withstanding, Islamabad is not taking any chances. If it weren’t for Pakistani nukes and Islamabad’s ability to deliver them, Pakistan would have ended up like Iraq. This is not the only time that Abdali, Babur, and Hataf have saved the land of Pakistan from being carpet bombing. China is upgrading Pakistan’s radar system with something that is akin to the Soviet S-400 fully automated tracking, zoning and targeting enemy aircraft. The incursion into Abbottabad has opened the eyes of the PAF–which is now also relying on human intel and plain old-fashioned monitoring in addition to electronic surveillance during peace time.

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530 http://www.timesofbombay.com/?p=873 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Sydney Morning Herald – Australia India may Expand Nuclear Program, Says Top Adviser By Matt Wade May 21, 2011 INDIA could expand its nuclear arsenal to ensure a ''minimum deterrent'' if other nuclear powers increase their stockpile of warheads, an architect of the country's nuclear weapons program says. Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, a former president and a key player in India's controversial 1998 nuclear test, said his nation needed weapons of mass destruction because ''strength respects strength''. ''Nuclear weapons spread to our borders, our neighbours were all getting nuclear weapons so we needed them,'' he said in an interview with the Herald. ''On all sides around us, other nations had nuclear weapons so we have them for deterrent, for self defence.'' Dr Kalam said India only wanted a ''minimum deterrent'' and was not in competition with its nuclear-armed neighbours Pakistan and China. However, when asked whether the stockpile of warheads needed for a minimum deterrent should rise if other countries increased their nuclear weapons capacity, Dr Kalam said: ''Yes, the deterrent is always reviewed with reference to the world situation.'' India is estimated to have 60 to 80 nuclear weapons. Some analysts say Pakistan has the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world. There are fears this will force India to increase its stockpile and trigger a fresh nuclear arms race in the volatile south Asia region. A former CIA officer and south Asia expert, Bruce Riedel, has warned Pakistan is close to overtaking Britain to become the world's fifth biggest nuclear weapons state and is on track to overtake France to become No.4 behind the US, Russia and China by the end of the decade. Mr Riedel believes India has held back so far, but predicts Delhi will come under increasing pressure to produce more warheads if Pakistan's stockpile continues to grow. The Australian government bans uranium exports to India because it is not a signatory to the nuclear non- proliferation treaty. But Dr Kalam, who is here as a guest of Sydney University, has urged Australia to co-operate with India in the development of nuclear reactors that use thorium instead of uranium to produce electricity. ''Australia has got tremendous reserves of thorium, a future material for replacing uranium,'' he said. ''It is cost- effective and [produces] less radiation … India and Australia can work together in building a thorium-based nuclear reactor for the world market.'' India is trying to develop a thorium-based nuclear reactor but Dr Kalam said this would ''take some time''. Dr Kalam, who was the principal scientific adviser to the government before serving as president from 2002 to 2007, enjoys rock-star status in India. An expert in missile technology, he was instrumental in the weaponisation of the nuclear program and also contributed to the space program. The University of Sydney awarded Dr Kalam his 41st honorary doctorate yesterday. http://www.smh.com.au/world/india-may-expand-nuclear-program-says-top-adviser-20110520-1ewq8.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Sydney Morning Herald – Australia

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Medvedev Warns of New Cold War Era By Maria Antonova , Agence France-Presse (AFP) May 19, 2011 President Dmitry Medvedev has warned of a new Cold War era if Russia and the West failed to agree on missile defence, in the first major news conference of his presidency. Despite the startling warning to the United States and Europe, Medvedev confounded expectations he would use the event on Wednesday to finally announce if he intends to seek a new Kremlin mandate in 2012 elections. Russia is increasingly worried about US plans to build missile defence facilities in ex-Communist Eastern Europe and is also offended that NATO appears to have shunned its proposals for a joint missile defence shield. Medvedev told reporters that the US decision to push ahead with construction of the missile defence system despite Russia's objections will force Moscow "to take retaliatory measures - something that we would very much rather not do." "We would then be talking about developing the offensive potential of our nuclear capabilities," Medvedev warned. The Russian leader also reiterated an earlier threat to pull out of the new START disarmament agreement that entered into force this year if the missile shield is deployed and operated without the Kremlin's input. "This would be a very bad scenario. It would be a scenario that throws us back into the Cold War era." The United States insisted it viewed Russia as a partner on security issues rather than a threat. "We have been consistent and clear for many years now that our missile defence cooperation in no way is directed at Russia," State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters. "And in fact we want to cooperate on missile defence with Russia and we have been quite clear on that," Toner added. Moscow has been fighting NATO plans to deploy a system the West sees as a means of protection from nations such as Iran but Russia believes could potentially be deployed against its own defences. Medvedev on Wednesday demanded a legally-binding assurance from the United States that this will never happen - a safeguard that Moscow says Washington is refusing to give. NATO has thus far invited Russia to voice its concerns in formal meetings but refused to provide Moscow with a formal role in the shield's operation that it seeks. "We would like to see missile defence develop under clear rules," Medvedev said in the first broad-ranging press conference of his three-year presidency. The news conference, at a technology hub on the outskirts of Moscow, was broadcast live on Russian state television. Medvedev stood, US presidential style, alone at a lectern against the backdrop of the Russian flag. Hundreds of reporters attended the news conference, in a major event for Medvedev who so far has only spoken to the press alongside foreign leaders or in small scale briefings. Seeking to show his confidence, Medvedev chose each question apparently at random from journalists in the audience, many of whom concentrated on local issues. But despite intense speculation that he wants to stand for a new presidential term instead of Prime Minister Putin, Medvedev refused to say if he intended to seek a new mandate in 2012.

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

"This kind of decision has to be made when all the conditions are right, when it has the final political effect," Medvedev said. "This does not mean that this can last forever... As I said in the interview to your Chinese colleagues, this decision will come fairly soon," he said, referring to a recent interview with Chinese television. Medvedev said it was wrong for rulers to stay in power for too long, although he made these comments in reference to Russia's powerful regional governors whom he has reshuffled drastically in the last years. "No-one stays in power for ever. And if anyone has that kind of illusion then they will end badly," said. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/medvedev-warns-of-new-cold-war-era-20110519-1etvi.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

RIA Novosti – Russian Information Agency U.S. Missile Defense in Europe 'Real Threat' to Russia - General Staff 20 May 2011 U.S. plans for a missile defense system in Europe will pose a genuine threat to Russia's nuclear deterrence capability if they are carried out in full, a General Staff official said on Friday. "The situation completely changes with the realization of the third and fourth stages of the missile defense," said Lt. Gen. Andrei Tretyak, head of the General Staff Main Operations Directorate. "Four hundred interceptor missiles on 40 warships and a missile site in Poland. This is a real threat to our strategic nuclear forces." Russia has never had any plans to deploy missile defense elements outside its borders, he said. President Dmitry Medvedev warned on Wednesday that Russia would have to build up its nuclear capability if NATO and the United States failed to reach an agreement with Moscow on European missile defense cooperation. Medvedev and U.S. President Barack Obama are expected address the missile defense issue in late May at the G8 summit in Deauville, France. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Monday that Moscow was concerned by the United States' refusal to provide legally binding guarantees that its European missile defense system would not be directed against Russia. Moscow has warned it might pull out of the new START Treaty. Russia and NATO agreed to cooperate on the so-called European missile shield during the NATO-Russia Council summit in Lisbon in November 2010. NATO insists there should be two independent systems that exchange information, while Russia favors a joint system. Russia is opposed to the planned deployment of U.S. missile defense systems near its borders, claiming they would be a security threat. NATO and the United States insist that the shield would defend NATO members against missiles from North Korea and Iran and would not be directed at Russia. MOSCOW, May 20 (RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/russia/20110520/164133194.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

The Guardian – U.K. New Trident Fleet Cost will top £25bn Defence secretary Liam Fox announces new funding but says Lib Dems will oversee review into 'alternatives'

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

By Richard Norton-Taylor and Allegra Stratton Wednesday, 18 May 2011 The cost of a new fleet of Trident nuclear missile submarines could more than double to £25bn by the time they are built, the defence secretary, Liam Fox, told MPs. The figure was released as the Ministry of Defence announced significant new funding for a new Trident system even though, at the Lib Dems' behest, a final decision is not due to be taken until after the next general election. The figure does not include the price of warheads, the running costs, and the bill for leasing Trident missiles from the US. In a concession to the Liberal Democrats, Fox announced that officials will draw up a study into alternative ways of delivering nuclear weapons. However, he made it clear that, in his view, only ballistic missiles on Trident-class submarines could provide the UK with a "minimal credible nuclear deterrent". He told the Commons: "The continuous at-sea deterrent is the ultimate guarantee of our national security … We do not know how the international environment will change over the next 50 years, and we cannot dismiss the possibility that a direct nuclear threat to the UK might emerge." Fox announced that a further £3bn will be allocated to designing a new fleet of nuclear missile submarines, in addition to the £900m already spent. The new fleet of Trident submarines would be powered by a nuclear propulsion system known as the Pressurised Water Reactor 3, Fox said. He suggested that, despite the study into "alternatives", a decision to go ahead with a "like for like" Trident replacement – strongly backed by Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the head of the navy – had already been taken. Louise Edge, of Greenpeace's disarmament campaign, said: "Just a week ago, Nick Clegg argued that his party had stopped the key Conservative policy of replacing the Trident nuclear weapons during this parliament, and that this was a key win for the Lib Dems."

She added: "Today's bullish announcement by the defence secretary, committing billions of pounds to ploughing ahead with new Trident submarines, suggests Clegg's been sold a pup."

Fox said the cost of the new submarines would remain between £11bn and £14bn at prices set in 2006 – the date the previous Labour government released its assessment. However, while he said there had been no "cost growth" in the programme, he told MPs that by the time the submarines entered into service, the cost could rise to as much as £25bn when inflation was taken into account. The MoD confirmed in a report published on its website that "outturn prices" for new Trident submarines would total £25bn.

Fox insisted: "Policy remains that a minimum nuclear deterrent based on the Trident missile delivery system and continuous at-sea deterrence is right for the UK." But he added that officials in the Cabinet Office would now "review the costs, feasibility and credibility of alternative systems" in a study "overseen" by Nick Harvey, the Lib Dem armed forces minister. Fox dismissed one alternative favoured by the Lib Dems – the possibility of placing nuclear warheads on cruise missiles – as more expensive and needing more submarines than a Trident ballistic missile system.

Harvey said: "We will examine alternative ways we can provide a nuclear deterrent. Academics have said that there is also no other part of the military that we have that goes on patrol 24/7. This is expensive. So we now need to come up with a variety of different options."

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

A Lib Dem source said that with civil servants now assigned to develop alternatives, it would be much more likely that the report would command greater respect and his party would not be accused of drawing up plans on the "back of a fag packet", as it had been in the past. Sir Menzies Campbell, former Lib Dem leader and defence spokesman, said the report on alternatives should be published. Fox replied that "most" of the Cabinet Office report would not be. In 2007, the Commons voted in favour of renewing Trident, with the then Labour government relying on Conservative support. In the Commons on Wednesday, the shadow defence secretary, Jim Murphy, said uncertainty over potential nuclear weapons in North Korea and Iran showed why replacing Trident was important. He told MPs: "Britain's independent deterrent has been the cornerstone of our peace and security over half a century. As long as there are other countries with such capability, it is right the UK retains an independent nuclear deterrent." http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/18/new-trident-fleet-funding (Return to Articles and Documents List)

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Press Release NNSA Releases Strategic Plan, Goals for the Next Decade May 18, 2011 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) today released its new 2011 Strategic Plan, which details how NNSA will invest in the future, build the nuclear security enterprise required to implement President Barack Obama’s nuclear security agenda and enhance global security, and continue to improve the way it does business. As we work to build “OneNNSA,” a single integrated enterprise that is organized to successfully complete the NNSA mission, the 2011 Strategic Plan will serve as an outline of NNSA’s goals for the next decade and a guide for its planning, programming, and budgeting processes. In a message included in the Strategic Plan, Administrator Thomas D’Agostino writes: “We are building on the Nation’s renewed commitment to nuclear security. To enhance global and national security, the NNSA is strengthening its ability to ensure that we have the people, tools, and information required to address the broader set of national security needs, including renewal of our facilities. We will execute our mission with the high level of safety, security, ethical, fiscal, and environmental responsibility the Nation expects.” Last week, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced the release of its own 2011 Strategic Plan, which highlights DOE’s emphasis on catalyzing the timely, material, and efficient transformation of the nation’s energy system and securing U.S. leadership in clean energy technologies; maintaining a vibrant U.S. effort in science and engineering as a cornerstone of our economic prosperity with clear leadership in strategic areas; enhancing nuclear security through defense, nonproliferation, and environmental efforts; and, establishing an operational and adaptable framework that combines the best wisdom of all Department stakeholders to maximize mission success. The new NNSA Strategic Plan outlines the Administrator’s vision for how we will build “OneNNSA,” and how the nuclear security enterprise will implement the mission areas highlighted in the DOE Strategic Plan, including stockpile stewardship, nuclear nonproliferation, counterterrorism and emergency response, and powering the nuclear Navy. It highlights Administrator D’Agostino’s five key goals for NNSA and includes select initiatives to make those goals a reality. The five goals are: 1. Reduce nuclear dangers; 2. Manage the nuclear weapons stockpile and advance naval nuclear propulsion; 3. Modernize the NNSA infrastructure;

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

4. Strengthen the science, technology, and engineering base; and, 5. Drive an integrated and effective enterprise. http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/pressreleases/2011strategicplan51811 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Post Life Span of U.S. Nuclear Weapons will Increase under Plan By Walter Pincus May 18, 2011 A new, 10-year strategic plan for the U.S. nuclear weapons complex demonstrates that as the size of the arsenal shrinks because of a new arms control treaty with Russia, the effectiveness and life span of the United States’s weapons will increase. Among the “select initiatives” listed by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) in an update released Wednesday of its 2004 strategic plan are life-extension programs for two nuclear missile warheads and one type of bomb. Life extension for the W-76, the most numerous nuclear warhead in the U.S. stockpile, was initially approved in 2000. At first only 800 were to be refurbished, but the Bush administration raised that number to 2,000; the number now being refurbished is classified. The program will not be completed until 2018, according to the plan. An initiative listed for completion by 2017 is a study for extending the life by some 30 years of the B-61 nuclear bomb. Some current B-61 models are strategic and carried by B-52 and B-2 stealth bombers, and other versions are tactical, carried by U.S. and NATO fighter planes based in Eu6rope. While the NNSA paper does not reveal costs associated with these programs, a Government Accountability Office report this month, first disclosed by Hans M. Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists, puts the estimated expenditure for the B-61 program at $4 billion through 2022, when the program is scheduled to be completed. The goal is to combine several B-61 models into one, which will have varied explosive power and a very low yield, thus saving nuclear material, according to the GAO. The plan hails the dismantlement of older nuclear weapons as “tangible evidence of the U.S. commitment to move toward a world free of nuclear weapons,” a goal articulated by President Obama. But the NNSA reports that it will not be until 2022 before it expects to have taken apart all the nuclear systems retired before 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/life-span-of-us-nuclear-weapons-will-increase-under- plan/2011/05/18/AFY0en6G_story.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Boston Globe More than 30 Cities Lose Antiterror Funds By Associated Press May 20, 2011 WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security has notified more than 30 cities across the country that they are losing antiterrorism funding from the federal government.

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

The department said yesterday that money for the Urban Areas Security Initiative grants has been cut by about $170 million as part of a larger budget cut that eliminated more than $780 million in grant money from the latest federal budget. The budget cuts mean that only 31 high-threat urban areas, including New York and Washington, will still receive grants this year. Boston is still eligible for the funding through the Department of Homeland Security’s Urban Areas Security Initiative grant program, but Providence will lose it. Senator Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent and chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said Connecticut stands to lose about half of the Homeland Security money its cities have received in recent years. He said Bridgeport and Hartford, which received a combined $5.5 million last year, are among the cities being cut from the program. Texas is taking the largest hit, with Austin, El Paso, and San Antonio no longer eligible to receive millions in funding. Combined, the cities received more than $14.5 million in federal funding last year. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/05/20/more_than_30_cities_lose_antiterror_fun ds/ (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Global Security Newswire Interpol Stands Up Nuclear Counterterrorism Unit Thursday, May 19, 2011 Interpol on Wednesday said it has a established a unit to take on terrorism threats involving nuclear, radiological and other unconventional materials (see GSN, Sept. 28, 2010). The Radiological and Nuclear Terrorism Prevention Unit "crucially will expand the world police body’s antibioterrorism activities to take in chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive (CBRNe) threats by using an integrated approach that leverages international partnerships and expertise across all sectors," according to an Interpol release (see GSN, Feb. 24, 2010). The update acknowledges the dangers that weapons of mass destruction pose to the 188 nations that participate in Interpol, organization Secretary General Ronald Noble said during a conference in Lyon, France, on preventing nuclear and radiological terrorism. “Only one week after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States was struck once again with the ‘anthrax case’, in which a single individual with scientific knowledge and access to the right biological strain was able to murder five people, injure 17 and temporarily shut down the entire mail system of the United States for an estimated loss of $1 billion, while terrorizing other countries in the process,” he said. The primary goal of the event and of the new unit, Noble said, is “to build police capacity globally, to prevent the next bioterrorist attack. This objective requires police to have at its side the public, private and scientific sectors together as one in order to successfully address the whole threat spectrum." One database developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Interpol and other organizations lists in excess of 2,500 incidents linked to the illicit movement of nuclear and radiological materials, the Interpol release states. The updated counter-WMD effort at Interpol "will combine intelligence analysis via global information sharing, capacity building and training, and will also provide operational support through the deployment of specialized teams," the organization said (Interpol release, May 18).

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530 http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110519_4421.php (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Christian Science Monitor OPINION/Analysis Why Does Pakistan Have World's Fastest-Growing Nuclear Program? Pakistan is stockpiling weapons-grade nuclear material, and accelerating construction of a nuclear plant that can produce plutonium. What's behind the nuclear surge? May 17, 2011 By Andrew Bast, NewsweekDailyBeast Even in the best of times, Pakistan’s nuclear-weapons program warrants alarm. But these are perilous days. At a moment of unprecedented misgiving between Washington and Islamabad, new evidence suggests that Pakistan’s nuclear program is barreling ahead at a furious clip. According to new commercial-satellite imagery obtained exclusively by Newsweek, Pakistan is aggressively accelerating construction at the Khushab nuclear site, about 140 miles south of Islamabad. The images, analysts say, prove Pakistan will soon have a fourth operational reactor, greatly expanding plutonium production for its nuclear-weapons program. “The buildup is remarkable,” says Paul Brannan of the Institute for Science and International Security. “And that nobody in the U.S. or in the Pakistani government says anything about this—especially in this day and age—is perplexing.” Unlike Iran, which has yet to produce highly enriched uranium, or North Korea, which has produced plutonium but still lacks any real weapons capability, Pakistan is significantly ramping up its nuclear-weapons program. Eric Edelman, undersecretary of defense in the George W. Bush administration, puts it bluntly: “You’re talking about Pakistan even potentially passing France at some point. That’s extraordinary.” Pakistani officials say the buildup is a response to the threat from India, which is spending $50 billion over the next five years on its military. “But to say it’s just an issue between just India and Pakistan is divorced from reality,” says former senator Sam Nunn, who co-chairs the Nuclear Threat Initiative. “The U.S. and Soviet Union went through 40 years of the Cold War and came out every time from dangerous situations with lessons learned. Pakistan and India have gone through some dangerous times, and they have learned some lessons. But not all of them. Today, deterrence has fundamentally changed. The whole globe has a stake in this. It’s extremely dangerous.” It’s dangerous because Pakistan is also stockpiling fissile material, or bomb fuel. Since Islamabad can mine uranium on its own territory and has decades of enrichment know-how—beginning with the work of nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan—the potential for production is significant. Although the White House declined to comment, a senior U.S. congressional official who works on nuclear issues told Newsweek that intelligence estimates suggest Pakistan has already developed enough fissile material to produce more than 100 warheads and manufacture between eight and 20 weapons a year. “There’s no question,” the official says, “it’s the fastest-growing program in the world.” The White House appears to have made a tacit tradeoff with Islamabad: for your cooperation in Afghanistan, we’ll leave you to your own nuclear devices. What has leaders around the world especially worried is what’s popularly known as “loose nukes”—nuclear weapons or fissile material falling into the wrong hands. “There’s no transparency in how the fissile material is handled or transported,” says Mansoor Ijaz, who has played an active role in back-channel diplomacy between Islamabad and New Delhi. “And the amount—they have significant quantities—is what’s so alarming.”

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

That Osama bin Laden was found in a Pakistani military community, and that the country is home to such jihadi groups as Lashkar-e-Taiba, only heightens concerns. “We’ve looked the other way from Pakistan’s growing program for 30 years,” says Sharon Squassoni, a director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. What we’re facing, she says, is “a disaster waiting to happen.” A Defense Department official told Newsweek that the U.S. government is “confident that Pakistan has taken appropriate steps toward securing its nuclear arsenal.” But beyond palliatives, few in Washington want to openly discuss the nightmare scenario of terrorists getting hold of nuclear material or weapons. “The less that is said publicly, the better,” says Stephen Hadley, national-security adviser to President George W. Bush. “But don’t confuse the lack of public discussion for a lack of concern.” The bomb lends the Pakistanis a certain diplomatic insouciance. Nukes, after all, are a valuable political tool, ensuring continued economic aid from the United States and Europe. “Pakistan knows it can outstare” the West, says Pakistani nuclear physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy. “It’s confident the West knows that Pakistan’s collapse is too big a price to pay, so the bailout is there in perpetuity. It’s the one thing we’ve been successful at.” Pakistani leaders defend their weapons program as a strategic necessity: since they can’t match India’s military spending, they have to bridge the gap with nukes. “Regretfully, there are several destabilizing developments that have taken place in recent years,” Khalid Banuri of Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division, the nuclear arsenal’s guardian, wrote in response to Newsweek questions. Among his country’s concerns, Banuri pointed to India’s military buildup and the U.S.’s -civilian nuclear deal with India. “Most Pakistanis believe the jihadist scenario is something that the West has created as a bogey,” says Hoodbhoy, “an excuse, so they can screw us, defang, and denuclearize us.” “Our program is an issue of extreme sensitivity for every man, woman, and child in Pakistan,” says former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, adding that the nukes are “well dispersed and protected in secure locations.” When asked whether the U.S. has a role to play in securing the arsenal, Musharraf said: “A U.S. role to play? A U.S. role in helping? Zero role. No, sir. It is our own production … We have not and cannot now have any intrusion by any element in the U.S.” To guard its “strategic assets,” Pakistan employs two Army divisions—about 18,000 troops— and, as Musharraf drily puts it, “If you want to get into a firefight with the forces guarding our strategic assets, it will be a very sad day.” For now, the White House appears to have made a tacit tradeoff with Islamabad: for your cooperation in Afghanistan, we’ll leave you to your own nuclear devices. “People bristle at the suggestion, but it follows, doesn’t it?” says Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, formerly the CIA’s chief officer handling terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. “The irony is that the U.S. presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the money we’re giving them to fight terrorism, could inadvertently aggravate the very problem we’re trying to stop. After all, terrorism and nukes is the worst-case scenario.” With this fourth nuclear facility at Khushab coming online as early as 2013, and the prospect of an accelerated nuclear-weapons program, the U.S. is facing a diplomatic dilemma. “The Pakistanis have gone through a humiliation with the killing of Osama bin Laden,” says Nunn. “That’s never a time to corner somebody. But with both recent and preexisting problems, we are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe. Both sides need to take a deep breath, count to 10, and find a way to cooperate.” With Ron Moreau in Islamabad and Fasih Ahmed in Lahore Andrew Bast is a senior articles editor for the international edition of Newsweek. He has reported from four continents for several newspapers, including The New York Times, and now writes about global security. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/0517/Why-does-Pakistan-have-world-s-fastest- growing-nuclear-program (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Daily Pioneer – India OPINION Stocking Up on Nuclear Bombs May 18, 2011 By Manvendra Singh Pakistan has just tested a tactical battlefield support missile as antidote to India’s ‘Cold Start’ doctrine: It will use nuclear arms on its own soil! On the day Prime Minister Manmohan Singh presided over a full Nuclear Command Authority conference, news from across the border was of a shriller sort. And it was a voice not heard in a very long time. The timing of these two developments could not have been more curious, for they reflected two contrasting sets of rules, and vividly different predicaments. One didn’t speak, while the other couldn’t help but speak of the self. In a very real way the two events amply echo the realities of the two countries. Among those attending the NCA conference were the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister, the National Security Adviser, the head of the Defence Research and Development Organisation, and the chiefs of Army, Navy and Air Force. While they reviewed the preparedness, as they always do, of the Indian nuclear weapons systems, they also discussed two pending programmes. The indigenous nuclear-powered submarine, Arihant, and the delayed Agni V ballistic missile system were the focus of deliberations, or so said sources to an English daily. Plain and simple. And a bit boring and predictable too. There wasn’t anything to get energised or exercised about in the story. But then India has just been through a series of State elections, so tea and elections/politics is the staple of the Indian mind. The news from Pakistan, on the other hand, comes via the pages of Newsweek. It now has a Pakistani edition as well. But that is not the point of the curious sense of timing between the two neighbours who are constantly squabbling. It was in fact the hidden Doctor all over again. After years of silence on matters nuclear, but prolific in lecturing Pakistanis about all that ails the country, AQ Khan has opened his mouth on matters of nuclear policy. He rails against the West, of course, is dismissive of India, obviously, and thinks Pakistan has been let down by its incompetent and ignorant rulers, quite. Quite the international pariah, AQ Khan chose the strangest moment to open his mouth on a subject that has made him earn for his country the dubious sobriquet of ‘Walmart of proliferation’. His televised ‘confession’ for having run a nuclear smuggling ring to North Korea, Iran and Libya, was a moment of utter shame for Pakistan — now, of course, beaten to television ratings by the Osama bin Laden outing. Why he chose the heat of May to bring more temperature to bear on Pakistan is as perplexing as what he says in the signed article, headlined “I saved my country from nuclear blackmail”. Some nuggets are incomparable, and must be shared. “For a country that couldn’t produce bicycle chains to have become a nuclear and missile power within a short span — and in the teeth of Western opposition — was quite a feat,” he writes. The genesis of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, needless to say, is rooted in India’s curiously worded “peaceful nuclear explosion” of 1974. He is oblivious of the genesis of Pakistan’s programme. But at this stage that lapse can be ignored. He then goes on to declare a nuclear weapon could have sustained the logic of the two-nation theory vis-à-vis Bangladesh when he says, “If we had had nuclear capability before 1971, we would not have lost half of our country — present-day Bangladesh — after disgraceful defeat.” There is, of course, nothing in this about what prompted the Bangladeshi people to rise and demand their separation from an idea that had clearly run its course. It also does not address the basic issue of whether nuclear weapons prevent conflict. They clearly didn’t over Kargil, and that was as conventional a conflict as any. That it doesn’t prevent defeat is another matter altogether. AQ Khan was still in Government when Kargil happened in 1999, still perched high in national ratings.

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

AQ Khan then goes on a rant about the Pakistani leadership letting the country down. “What pains me is that we gave Pakistan nuclear capability for its self-esteem and deterrence against adversaries. With our sovereignty thus secure, I urged various Governments to concentrate on development to raise the people’s standard of living. Unfortunately, successive incompetent and ignorant rulers never bothered to work on the greater national interest. We are far worse off now than we were 20, or even 40, years ago when we were subjected to embargoes.” Put aside, for a moment, that all former officials take refuge in rant when they are no longer posterboys. And all claim infinite wisdom to cure all national ailments. But the moot point is to wonder why Pakistan is “far worse off now” than it was all those glorious decades ago! What has Pakistan’s leadership done to its own people, to its own institutions, since those decades of embargoes? How was life under embargoes better than one without such shackles? Strange is the logic of the man, and stranger still is the thinking of those within Pakistan that has brought this miserable state upon the country. The timing gets more curious when international reports about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme point to a degree of enhancement not seen anywhere in the world. The current Newsweek as well as the highly regarded Arms Control Today point to a nuclear arsenal expansion that is quite at odds with Pakistan’s current and mid-term national security threats. At the current pace of growth of its nuclear weapons inventory, Pakistan would soon have the fourth largest arsenal, overtaking France. The new reactors at Khushab will give Pakistan greater opportunities at making Plutonium and, therefore, smaller warheads. A bigger bang for the buck as militaries like to claim. But there is a catch, and it makes for an intriguing story. Arms Control Today writes about a tactical battlefield support ballistic missile with a 60 km range that was tested on April 19. This missile is claimed to be an antidote to India’s ‘Cold Start’ military doctrine. But if this argument is taken to its logical conclusion, as the very clever Pakistani analyst Ejaz Haider has, it would mean Rawalpindi would use nuclear weapons on its own soil since ‘Cold Start’ entails a quick thrust into Pakistan, etc, by the Indian Army/Air Force. To develop a weapon that would be used primarily on your own landmass begs many questions, one of which AQ Khan alludes to: “A country needs sufficient weapons to be stored at different places in order to have a second-strike capability. But there is a limit to these requirements.” The question, therefore, is who sets the limits, just as who sets the agenda. Answers quite possibly lie in the timing of AQ Khan’s self-promotion article. Why now? http://www.dailypioneer.com/339467/Stocking-up-on-nuclear-bombs.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Friday Times – Pakistan OPINION May 18, 2011 Pakistan’s Answer to Cold Start? Tactical nuclear weapons are too risky a response to India's inoperative doctrine. Islamabad should consider other options first By Rodney W Jones Taking out Osama bin Laden in the high-drama Operation Geronimo eclipsed the media coverage of Pakistan's nuclear NASR missile test on April 19. The test signals a change in military policy and should be debated thoroughly in Pakistan, although the domestic circle of technically informed nuclear critics is regrettably miniscule. A test is not a deployment decision, though this one evidently leans that way. The NASR missile test was advertised as Pakistan's latest response to India's Cold Start doctrine, which is itself provocative. Cold Start envisions limited conventional warfare by India beneath Pakistan's strategic nuclear

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530 threshold in punitive retaliation for subconventional (terrorist) attacks on India originating in Pakistan. Since India and Pakistan went nuclear in close succession in May 1998, two such major attacks deep in India have been inflicted by Lashkar-e-Taiba. The first one on India's parliament on December 13, 2001, and then the more spectacular and lethal LeT assault on India's commercial capital Mumbai in November 2008. For India's defence community, the Indian army's Cold Start concept represents a possible way to deter covert aggression. Since India's threat of nuclear retaliation neither deters non-state actors nor covert warfare, the Indian army believes its readiness to conduct limited ground and air war operations that punish Pakistan but stop well short of threatening its survival could achieve that deterrence. Cold Start envisions quick Indian military thrusts into Pakistan before the international community can get involved. Under the nuclear overhang, this construct is exceedingly dangerous. It is also logically flawed, since the initiator of conventional war across borders cannot unilaterally control escalation. With little geographic depth but still locally formidable ground and air defences, Pakistan will not be passive in defence but will rather react with escalatory, punitive manoeuvres of its own. Pakistani military planners evidently believe the NASR missile system will close a nuclear deterrence gap that has been opened up by the Indian doctrine. Pakistan formerly relied on the credibility of its strategic nuclear assets and its nuclear posture option of "first use" to checkmate any major conventional war designs by its larger and better endowed neighbour. Indeed, that posture still effectively deters India contemplating any all-out war against Pakistan. But India's Cold Start options - recently restyled as "proactive defence" strategies - tend to challenge the credibility of Pakistan's nuclear deterrence posture as it relates to limited conventional war. Ostensibly, Pakistan's answer to the gap is to fill it with a tactical nuclear weapon (TNW) system that would operate in the rear of its front lines on the battlefield. Bear in mind that both India and Pakistan formerly claimed to eschew TNWs. What should be made of Pakistan's unveiling of NASR? What is it? Is it really nuclear? How will it operate? Will it really close the apparent deterrence gap? If deployed, what new dangers may it harbour in its own right? What are the downsides? Does Pakistan not have meaningful alternatives? The press release on the NASR missile (also designated Hatf-9) test said: "[The NASR Weapon System] has been developed to add deterrence value to Pakistan's Strategic Weapons Development programme at shorter ranges. NASR, with a range of 60km, carries nuclear warheads [emphasis added] of appropriate yield with high accuracy, [and] shoot and scoot attributes. This quick response system addresses the need to deter evolving threats." This system is probably a four-tube adaptation of a Chinese-design multiple rocket launcher (MRL), possibly the A- 100 type, on an eight-wheeler truck, capable of carrying four, ready-to-fire 20-foot ballistic missiles of about 300mm (11.8 inch) diameter. A ballistic missile differs from a rocket by having its own guidance system (probably inertial) and spring-out fins that adjust course during flight for targeting accuracy. MRLs typically have 10- to 20- tube launch racks of smaller bore. The truck-launcher otherwise may be a Chinese knock-off of the Russian 300mm Smerch MRL system sold to India. Taken at face value, the press release implies that Pakistan has either developed or acquired nuclear warheads small enough to fit inside a missile whose diameter probably is just under 12 inches, and possibly of relatively low yield. Technical experts will have their own questions about whether Pakistan has been able to do this by itself. Pakistan probably produced significant quantities of weapons-grade plutonium only after the May 1998 tests, is not believed to have test-detonated any nuclear weapons since, and any professional military is averse to using untested weapons. Plutonium allows for lighter weapons than uranium, but an implosion assembly with a diameter under 12 inches would be a real feat. That said, Lt Gen (r) Khalid Kidwai's presence at the test and association with the press release would give the nuclear assertion more than ordinary credence. Kidwai has been in charge of organising Pakistan's nuclear command and control system and overseeing nuclear weapons development since 1999. If this system is actually nuclear and if it is actually deployed in crises near the Indian border, it is bound to have its own deterrent effect on unilateral Indian employment of limited conventional war actions across the border, especially offensive operations with ground forces. This would include a deterrent effect on employment of the

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530 fast-moving integrated battle groups (IBGs) from a "standing (cold) start" - if and when they are actually built. Some enhanced deterrence in this specific sense cannot be denied, although how stable that deterrence would be is another issue. The parallels are not exact, but this initiative resembles NATO's reliance on TNW systems in the European Cold War corridor. Those systems were intended to provide a combination of trip-wire and nuclear warfighting capability. Their real function was to virtually guarantee escalation to the strategic nuclear level, and thereby provide a broad-spectrum nuclear deterrence at conventional as well as strategic levels. The NATO nuclear states, one must add, were happy to shed the ground based TNW systems and their naval counterparts entirely, leaving a handful of air-delivered systems, soon after the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact collapsed. But a number of basic questions cry out for examination: Is this added level of nuclear deterrence necessary? Is implementing it worth the downside risks? Can Cold Start threats be checked by other means? Or better yet, can India's threats be reduced by another approach - by threat reduction policies that lie within Pakistani hands? First, is another layer of nuclear deterrence necessary to meet Cold Start? Conclusions drawn from Azm-e-Nau III exercises (held in 2009-10) suggest that Pakistan's conventional defences alone are fully capable of repelling or flaying the quick but shallow penetrations Cold Start envisages, especially with tactical advances based on six years of study of Cold Start theory. Besides, the Indian Army's ability to generate Cold Start IBG formations - equipment acquisition, forward facilities, restructuring of the Holding Corps, training, etc - is incomplete and moving forward at a glacial pace. The concept is not operational yet. The Indian army, air force and navy have not bought on to it doctrinally, and the civilian government has not endorsed it as policy. It would be unfair to say it is merely a hollow threat, but Pakistan's conventional modernisation has kept pace and will continue to. Is implementing a battlefield TNW capability worth the downside risks? The tradeoffs of trying to enhance nuclear deterrence at the battlefield level are huge. Command and control and certain safety requirements for battlefield nuclear weapons are far more demanding, given that this system would have to be pre-deployed and combat- ready to deter fast-takeoff Cold Start operations. The NASR system will also have a distinct signature (even if camouflaged), with each launcher truck accompanied by a radar/C3 and a trans-loader vehicle, and would be a high priority for detection and preemptive conventional air attack. NASR systems that actually are nuclear- equipped will pose the classical "use them or lose them" dilemma. They may be sucked into warfighting and start the nuclear escalation spiral. India's response need not be TNWs, but could be tactical use of strategic weapons. Moreover, India's NFU declaratory policy can be reversed with a single Pakistani nuclear detonation, whether low- yield or not, and regardless over whose territory it occurs. Can Cold Start threats be reduced or reversed by other means - or by an approach that lies in Pakistani hands? This one is a tough sell in Pakistan after decades of building itself up as a national security state, but now may be the last best time to face it squarely. Cold Start and limited war ideas get their appeal as a response to Pakistani subconventional warfare operations which originally were focused in Kashmir but since 2001 have gone deep into India's heartland. It may be true that many in India have no love lost for Pakistan and India has in the more distant past been guilty of subconventional warfare against Pakistan too, and not only in the rebellion that led to Bangladesh. But it is not India's disposition today to subvert or break up Pakistan, apart from the few hawks today who call for reviving India's covert warfare capabilities as a strategic instrument. Rather, India has an interest in regional as well as domestic stability and space to maximise its economic growth. Cold Start posturing would fold up fast if the provocation of subconventional warfare were stopped. Obviously this does not mean peace would break out all over, and Pakistan surely would continue to maintain its conventional defences and strategic deterrent for the foreseeable future. But the risks of conventional war and nuclear escalation would obviously be reduced and stability probably would take hold and widen. There are a multitude of other reasons for Pakistan arresting extremism on and emanating from its own territory - these are seamlessly connected forces now - and Pakistan could count on a lot of support if that became a dedicated and not just a rhetorical objective. The internal threats have taken Pakistan's security so far south, it will undoubtedly take a prodigious and sustained effort to reverse them and restore domestic order to an acceptable

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530 level. It would be best if Pakistan did not lock itself into yet another form of enhanced risk and security fatigue with TNWs. The writer is President, Policy Architects International, Reston, VA, USA http://www.thefridaytimes.com/13052011/page7.shtml (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Pakistan Observer – Pakistan OPINION Thursday, May 19, 2011 The US Has Exposed Its Real Intentions By Asif Haroon Raja India had waged a war in 1947 to annex princely state of Kashmir and prevent it from acceding to Pakistan. But for valiant response action of Pak Army and Azad forces, India would have gobbled up whole of it. Indian forces invaded Pakistan in 1965 without formally declaring war so as to destroy Pak armed forces but could not do so. Within six years Pakistan was once again invaded but after sufficiently weakening it from within through subversion and signing a treaty with former Soviet Union. As a consequence, Pakistan was broken into two. Pakistan’s nuclear program which commenced in 1976 was meant to save itself from further truncation. It remained under heavy fire of Indo-US-western media campaign. It came under US scrutiny when it was in its infancy in 1979. Relentless efforts were made to restrain Pakistan from pursuing this program. Not only the author of the program ZA Bhutto was made a horrible example, Pakistan was put under sanctions by Jimmy Carter in 1979. USA and the west created a barrier around Pakistan to prevent it from obtaining fissile materials for its nuclear program from anywhere. Determined to preserve its sovereignty and integrity, Pakistan had to perforce make a cut on its other needs and procure its nuclear requirements from the international black market on exorbitant prices. But for Afghan war against the Soviets, it might have become exceedingly difficult for Pakistan under Gen Zia to make the program reach its logical end. Likewise, Pakistan’s missile program was also subjected to intense pressure and it was alleged that China and North Korea were secretly helping it in constructing ballistic missiles. After becoming a strategic partner of USA and Israel in early 1990s, India has been trying hard to get Pakistan declared a failed and a terrorist state involved in cross border terrorism in Indian held Kashmir and in nuclear proliferation. Pakistan nuclear program was demonized and given the name of Islamic bomb. Fears were expressed that it may not be passed on to radical Arab states like Libya for use against Israel. Indian and Israeli air force jointly planned to destroy Kahuta Plant through a surprise surgical strike and on few occasions came close to it. Luckily there were no Mir Jafars within our ranks at that time and the whole nation was united behind the nuclear program and as such nefarious designs of our enemies couldn’t succeed. It was owing to nation’s unity which gave heart to Nawaz Sharif to give a tit for tat response to Indian nuclear tests in May 1998 despite heavy pressure from USA an UK. Pakistan was put under another set of sanctions which were withdrawn only when Pakistan under Gen Musharraf agreed to do as told to do in the aftermath of 9/11. With it, the era of erosion of Pakistan’s sovereignty commenced. 9/11 gave an opportunity of the century to India to use terrorism as a card to penalize Pakistan. In concert with other powers, India made use of Afghan soil to unleash biggest psychological operations and covert war against Pakistan in world’s history to weaken Pakistan from within. Twice the entire Indian military might came on Pakistan’s border to launch a decisive war. In 2004-05, AQ Khan Network was demonized and Pakistan pressured to open up its nuclear sites for inspection by UN inspectors or IAEA. Hoax of this network was played up to present Pakistan as an irresponsible and nuclear proliferation state so as to deny civilian nuclear deal to Pakistan as was offered to India in 2006.

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Pakistan was not excused even when Dr AQ made an apology to the nation for passing deigns of obsolete P-5s to Iran and Libya and Pakistan took adequate measures to prevent such a recurrence. The US then started drumming up safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear program alleging that security measures were inadequate and in the backdrop of increasing strength of militants, likelihood of nukes falling in wrong hands couldn’t be ruled out. The US think tanks and media kept playing the theme of ‘wrong hands’ despite Pakistan taking extraordinary measures to safeguard its nuclear sites and the IAEA as well as US inspecting teams expressing their satisfaction. Emphasis was on having Pak-US joint protection teams. The US media then came up with fanciful tales about the US Special Forces swooping in to take away the nukes just before they could be pinched by militants. Different scenarios were discussed and war gamed. It was in this timeframe that Indian Army Chief Gen Kapoor came out with India’s Cold Start doctrine and tried to frighten Pakistan that a viable solution to Pakistan’s nuclear strength has been found which would render its deterrence valueless. Award of civilian nuclear deal to India by USA and allowing it free access to Nuclear Suppliers Groups was meant to bolster Indian nuclear capability and to weaken Pakistan’s deterrence. 146700 troops of Pak Army and paramilitary forces are deeply embroiled in fighting own people in troubled north- western regions since 2002. Pakistan has lost $68 billion in fighting US dictated war on terror and its economy has gone bankrupt. In terms of human losses, 3579 military persons and 33000 civilians have fallen victim to terrorism and yet there is no end in sight. In the aftermath of Raymond Davis incident followed by Operation Neptune Spear in Abbottabad, Pak-US relations have dipped low and Pakistan’s sacrifices gone down the drain. Pakistan has been charge sheeted on several counts. 102500 US-NATO troops based in Afghanistan are looking for an opportunity to step into FATA under the plea of hot pursuit operations or to dismantle alleged sanctuaries of militants. In order to disable or steal Pak nukes, a huge network of CIA undercover operatives and Blackwater elements are secretly operating in Pakistan. These elements in cahoots with anti-Pakistan militant groups will intensify terrorist attacks including group attacks for which training is imparted by US-Indian military trainers in Afghanistan. An impression will be built that these are reprisal acts to avenge Osama’s death. Sensitive installations including nuclear sites will be targeted to scare the world that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal has become unsafe. This fear had been drummed up in 2007-08 and reached a crescendo in first quarter of 2009 till such time Operation Rah-e-Rast was launched on 28 April and the hype was defused. The story lost its punch after highly successful operations in Bajaur, Buner, Dir and Swat and later in South Waziristan in October 2009 which broke the back of foreign aided militants. The spin doctors then started playing another story that sympathisers of Taliban working within nuclear facilities might steal nukes and hand them over to the militants. The old tape has again been switched on in the aftermath of controversial death of OBL on 02 May. The first song has been sung after an interval of about two years by Sunday Express on 15 May 2011. It says the US troops will be deployed in Pakistan if the country’s nuclear installations are threatened by terrorists out to avenge the killing of OBL. It says the plan will be activated without President Zardari’s consent. Obama would order troops to parachute in to protect key nuclear missile sites which would include Sargodha having an airbase and battery of 80 missiles. The newspaper claims that the plan has been approved by Obama. Alex Neill has stated that the US trust in Pakistan’s abilities is extremely low. He added if Obama can persuade the Congress that placing US troops at the installations is necessary to protect US citizens from possible nuclear attack, then that’s what he will do. The US leaders repeatedly lied that they have no ill-designs against Pakistan’s nuclear program. They have at last come out in the open and exposed their real intentions. The writer is a retired Brig and a defence analyst. http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=92969 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

The Nation – Pakistan OPINION/Editorial Nuclear Safety May 20, 2011 The dismissal by NASCOM chief and nuclear and missile scientist Dr Samar Mubarikm and of any fears about the safety of our atomic arsenal comes none too soon, for the US media has lurched to that angle of the stories appearing about Osama Bin Laden’s murder on May 2 in Abbottabad. This has come from two developments: the first Senator John Kerry’s visit to Pakistan, and his expression of concern; and then the commissioning of a plutonium reactor at Khushab, which, according to US media, makes Pakistan capable of adding 20 nuclear weapons a year. Dr Mubarikmand’s statement contains nothing new, and merely covers the old ground of Pakistan having ensured the safety of its arsenal by an effective command and control system. It should put paid to the fears that the West claims it has, of militants taking control of the nuclear arsenal and using it against them. This ignores not only Pakistan’s repeated assurances that its nuclear deterrent is too safe to pass into the wrong hands. Though the West has indulged in an orgy of speculation ever since Pakistan went nuclear in 1998, there is no truth to these idle speculations. The West refuses to contemplate the possibility that a Third World country like Pakistan, and a Muslim country to boot, could develop a nuclear weapon, leave alone control it. The West also has no answer to the indubitable fact that, apart from its right to develop indigenously whatever technology it wished, including for nuclear weapons, India has not only developed nuclear weapons, but immediately used them to threaten Pakistan. If Pakistan had not tested its nuclear deterrent at that juncture, the consequences for peace would have been extremely damaging. The Pakistani nuclear deterrent, instead of being any kind of threat, is a guardian against Indian adventurism. It is for this reason that Pakistan finds the USA’s preferential treatment of India not just galling and appalling. The refusal by the USA to give Pakistan a civilian nuclear accord has left Pakistan unaided in the throes of an energy crisis. India has been rewarded for proliferating, probably because the USA looks to it to protect its interests against China. The report about the Khushab reactor merely rehashes old material about alleged Pakistani proliferation. Pakistan must not accept those charges. http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Editorials/20-May-2011/Nuclear- safety (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Issue No. 908, 20 May 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530