(CPC) Outreach Journal #1104

USAF Counterproliferation Center (CPC) Outreach Journal

Issue No. 1104, 28 February 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: Defense Intelligence Agency: “ANNUAL THREAT ASSESSMENT”. Statement Before the Senate Armed Services Committee, United States Senate, 11 February 2014, by Michael T. Flynn, Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Director, Defense Intelligence Agency. 34 pages http://www.dia.mil/Portals/27/Documents/News/2014_DIA_SFR_SASC_ATA_FINAL.pdf Gen Flynn’s testimony begins first with an assessment of Afghanistan, where the Department of Defense (DoD), the IC, DIA, and our coalition partners remain actively engaged supporting military operations against the threat of al‐ Qa’ida and other anti‐government of Afghanistan forces, transition to global threats, and conclude with an overview of other regional challenges.

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

Return to Top U.S. NUCLEAR WEAPONS 1. Missile Officers' Nuke Test Scores Fell Flat during Alleged Cheating 2. Nuclear Triad to Survive Hagel Cuts in Pentagon Spending

U.S. ARMS CONTROL 1. Silo Reduction Impact Study to START, Despite Warnings 2. Ex-Russian Officer: U.S. Has Violated Arms Control Pact 'Numerous' Times

HOMELAND SECURITY/THE AMERICAS 1. Budget Seeks Missile Fixes, Future Technology 2. US Must Closely Watch China's Defence Technology: David Shear 3. Faster Anthrax Detection Could Speed Bioterror Response and Save Millions in Decontamination Costs, MU Study Finds

ASIA/PACIFIC 1. China: 'Shuttle Diplomacy' with Koreas Aimed at Denuclearization 2. Chinese Influence Over North Korea Waning 3. Japan to Return Weapons-Grade Plutonium U.S. Provided during Cold War 4. N. Korea Fires 4 Short-Range Ballistic Missiles 5. China Wants Explanation of Japan Nuclear Stockpile Issue No.1104, 28 February 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 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama

EUROPE/RUSSIA 1. Updated Strategic Missile Troops to Protect Russia from possible Nuclear Wars 2. Russia Plans $55.3Bln Expenditure On Aerospace Defense by 2020

MIDDLE EAST 1. Final Nuclear Deal with Iran by July, top US Negotiator Says 2. Chemical Arms Watchdog Split on Syria Delays 3. Discussing Iran’s Ballistic Missiles Could Undermine N. Talks 4. Steinitz after Meeting US’s Top Iran Negotiator: Israel Reserves Right to Act Independently 5. Iran Needs Missiles to Deter Enemies: Leader’s Advisor 6. Syria Agrees New April Target to Remove Chemicals: Diplomats 7. Iran Has Resumed Work at Suspicious Military Base 8. Sources: UN Nuclear Agency Opted Against Sensitive Iran Report 9. Arak Heavy Water Reactor 85 Percent Completed, Iranian MP Says 10. FM: Iran’s Nuclear Program to Remain Intact 11. Iranian Missile Capacity Remains Expected for Next Year: U.S. Commander

INDIA/PAKISTAN 1. Hydraulic Snags Led to Night Trial Failure of Agni-I Missile 2. Senior Official: Pakistani Leaders to Retain Nuclear-Arms Authority in Crises

COMMENTARY 1. Preventing Nuclear Terrorism 2. The Threat to America’s Nukes 3. Chuck Hagel's Nuclear Exemption 4. Iran Missile Progress, US New Bête Noire 5. The Dangerous Degradation of the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal

The Omaha World Herald – Omaha, NE Missile Officers' Nuke Test Scores Fell Flat during Alleged Cheating By Robert Burns, Associated Press (AP) February 22, 2014 WASHINGTON (AP) -- Last summer, when dozens of nuclear missile officers allegedly cheated on exams, test scores were among the lowest of the year, according to Air Force records obtained by The Associated Press. That is the opposite of what might be expected if answers were being shared as widely as officials allege. Body Copy: Were they inept cheaters? Was there, in fact, no sharing of answers during that period? Were test questions so difficult that even the cheating by some failed to produce higher-than-usual scores for the group as a whole? The Air Force isn't saying. It notes that tests are not identical each month, and thus score "variances can be expected." The facts of the tainted testing are still under investigation by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. It ranks as the worst such scandal in the history of the intercontinental ballistic missile force and is among a series of security lapses and slip-ups that have plagued the ICBM corps over the past year. The missteps prompted Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to launch two probes of the entire nuclear force to find root causes for leadership lapses and other problems steps Hagel deemed necessary to restore public confidence.

Issue No.1104, 28 February 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 Hagel says he believes the nuclear force remains secure and reliable but says "something is wrong." The alleged cheating has been described as a symptom of mismanagement by commanders who have given too much weight to monthly test scores in determining which launch officers get promoted. More broadly, it reflects a degree of turmoil inside a force responsible for 450 nuclear-tipped Minuteman 3 missiles that stand launch-ready in underground silos in Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado and Nebraska. The alleged cheating was uncovered in January during an Air Force investigation of illegal drug use. Two officers questioned in that probe happened to be members of the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont., and at least one stands accused of having transmitted test answers to colleagues via text message. The exam in question, known as a T-1, is given monthly and is meant to test knowledge of classified procedures for targeting and launching the Minuteman 3s, the nation's only land-based nuclear missile. Over the course of a year, the tests cover different segments of a long list of launch tasks. In addition to these and other written proficiency tests, missile launch officers undergo classroom instruction and routine training on launch simulators; most do 24-hour shifts "on alert" in underground launch control centers about eight times a month with a team of two officers responsible for 10 missiles. The Air Force has focused its investigation on Malmstrom, where officials say the cheating took place during late summer. Notably, in the months after the cheating allegedly ended, scores at Malmstrom improved dramatically. Neither of these patterns relatively weaker scores during the period of alleged cheating, and much improved results later seems to fit with the scenario described by Air Force officials in January when they announced the cheating investigation. Brian Weeden, who served on Minuteman 3 crews at Malmstrom in 2000-04, said that while he is not privy to inside information about the investigation, one possible explanation for weaker overall scores in August and September is that the test questions for cheaters and noncheaters alike may have been more difficult than usual. "I saw that happen in my time," he said. Or, Weeden said, the weaker-than-expected results might reflect a slump in the quality of instruction prior to those tests. Initially the Air Force said 34 officers assigned to the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom were implicated; that later was raised to 92. All have been taken off launch duty, creating a shortage that has been filled in part by temporarily augmenting Malmstrom with 10 launch officers each from ICBM bases in North Dakota and Wyoming. About 40 of the 92 are alleged to have transmitted or received test answers; the rest are accused of knowing but not reporting it. Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force's top general, told reporters on Jan. 15 that "the indications are that this compromise that we're aware of happened in the August-September timeframe." A spokesman, Lt. Col. Brett Ashworth, said it's not clear whether the cheating was only in August or only in September, or in both months. Test results obtained by the Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act suggest a different scenario. All three of the squadrons that operate the Minuteman 3 force at Malmstrom had average or weaker-than-usual T- 1 test scores in August-September. Of the 44 members of the 10th Missile Squadron tested in August, for example, 79 percent recorded perfect scores. That was about the norm during the spring and summer months of 2013 but well below most other months. In September the squadron had 42 percent perfect scores the weakest of any month in 2013. Perfect scores are not required; to pass the test an officer needs to get 90 percent correct, meaning he or she could not miss more than three out of 30 questions. Only one failing grade in the Malmstrom wing was recorded out of 2,181 T-1 tests completed during 2013.

National Journal Global Security Newswire Nuclear Triad to Survive Hagel Cuts in Pentagon Spending By Elaine M. Grossman February 24, 2014 U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Monday said the nation would keep its air-land-sea approach to the nuclear arsenal, despite new Pentagon spending cuts. "We ... preserve all three legs of the nuclear triad," he said in a lengthy statement at a Defense Department press conference, mostly devoted to conventional-warfare preparedness. "We'll make important investments to preserve a safe, secure, reliable and effective nuclear force." Speaking alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, the defense secretary laid out a series of reductions he said were necessary for maintaining military readiness and rebalancing the force structure to address future threats. The Air Force's A-10 close air support aircraft and the U-2 surveillance plane were notable casualties of the spending overhaul, though each of the planned weapons retirements could face pushback from Congress. The defense secretary also is looking to cut Army personnel numbers and cap a new class of Navy warships. Hagel did not rule out that the Pentagon might yet introduce spending reductions in the coming fiscal years to today's elements of the nuclear triad: Navy submarine-based Trident D-5 ballistic missiles; Air Force B-2 and B-52 bomber aircraft; and Air Force Minuteman 3 ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. However, as part of maintaining all three legs of the nuclear triad, he said the Pentagon plans to continue investing in the development of a Long Range Strike bomber to ultimately replace today's nuclear- and conventionally armed strategic-range aircraft. "The forces we prioritize can project power over great distances and carry out a variety of missions more relevant to the president's defense strategy, such as homeland defense, strategic deterrence, building partnership capacity, and defeating asymmetric threats," Hagel told reporters. "They're also well suited to the strategy's rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region, to sustaining security commitments in the Middle East and in Europe, and our engagement in other regions." The Pentagon late last week acknowledged that it had directed the Air Force to examine the environmental consequences of decommissioning some Minuteman 3 missiles under the terms of the New START arms-control Issue No.1104, 28 February 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 4 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama agreement, despite a congressional prohibition against spending on such an assessment. Lawmakers from key nuclear-basing states have opposed cuts to the missile force and included the ban on conducting an environmental impact study in fiscal 2014 spending legislation. "This is the first time in 13 years" that the Pentagon will present to Capitol Hill a defense budget that is not on a war footing, Hagel said. "It is a different time. It is a different situation." Whether Congress would accept the proposed spending changes was unclear, Hagel said, but he asserted that the Pentagon must put forth what it determines to be the budget priorities most appropriate for U.S. national security objectives. The Pentagon is expected to submit its fiscal 2015 budget request to Congress next week. http://www.nationaljournal.com/global-security-newswire/nuclear-triad-to-survive-hagel-cuts-in-pentagon- spending-20140224 Return to Top

Minot Daily News.com Silo Reduction Impact Study to START, Despite Warnings By DAN RUDY, Staff Writer, Minot Daily News February 22, 2014 In a media release given Friday afternoon, Department of Defense spokeswoman Cynthia O. Smith confirmed that the department had recently requested the Air Force to begin an environmental assessment, which will collect information on the effects of eliminating no more than 50 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile silos from Minot Air Force Base, Malmstrom AFB in Montana, and Francis E. Warren AFB in Wyoming. The three bases each maintain about a third of the country's Minuteman III arsenal of 448. Smith explained that the decision was made as part of the effort to comply with the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty signed with Russia and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 2010. The agreement sets a deadline of Feb. 2018 for further limiting the two countries' nuclear weapons armaments following the expiration of the landmark START I agreement in 2009. The Department of Defense statement comes after Senators Heidi Heitkamp and John Hoeven of North Dakota joined their Montana colleagues in submitting a letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on Thursday, expressing their strenuous opposition to any attempt by the Department of Defense to proceed with just such an assessment. Congressman Kevin Cramer followed suit Friday morning with a letter of his own expressing the same sentiment, adding that such a move could "significantly damage the morale of airmen working on this crucial mission." The Air Force recently has been addressing the problems of low morale perceived among missile wing personnel, haphazard procedural shortcuts and a test-cheating scandal that had led to the suspension of 92 officers by Jan. 30. The legal bone of contention is Section 8128 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, which prohibits defense funding from going toward "any environmental impact analysis related to Minuteman III silos that contain a missile," which is a first step toward making silo reductions. In their letters, the senators and congressman sought an immediate response from the defense secretary, with "an assurance that such an unnecessary and seemingly illegal move will not be carried out." The legislators had issued their letters after receiving reports that were confirmed Friday the Department of Defense had instructed the Air Force to proceed with the assessments on its ICBM sites, despite the legislative proscription.

Issue No.1104, 28 February 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 5 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama "I don't think they can," Hoeven responded in a telephone interview. "We put right in statute that they're not allowed to use funds to go forward. We'll see what their response is. Hopefully, they'll respond 'OK we recognize that it's the law,' and so they stand down. If not, then we would have to take next steps, and we would have to determine what those are, to make sure they follow the law." The department's decision comes as part of the nuclear force restructuring made necessary by the terms of New START. Under that treaty's terms, both the United States and Russia have set a deadline of Feb. 5, 2018, by which to reduce their nuclear arsenals to 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments; 1,550 nuclear warheads on said delivery systems; and a total limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed delivery systems. Current as of Sept. 2013, figures provided by the State Department confirmed the U.S. has 809 deployed launchers, 1,688 warheads, and a total of 1,015 deployed and non-deployed delivery systems. This includes the 448 deployed Minuteman III missiles, of which the 91st Missile Wing based at Minot AFB has 150. The next update to the data is scheduled for release in March. The 5th Bomb Wing also stationed there has 26 B-52H Stratofortress bombers, which under the terms of the treaty are individually counted as delivery systems. To be in compliance with New START, the United States will need a further reduction of 109 deployed launchers, 138 warheads, and 215 deployed and non-deployed launchers. However, the treaty gives both signatories flexibility in deciding how to structure their nuclear forces, and where those reductions are ultimately made. "The U.S. has a ways to go," said Tom Collina, research director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, a nonpartisan group dedicated to furthering public understanding of and support for effective arms control policies. With only four years left to act, the military will have to make some timely decisions in order to make those reductions on time. "It's really up to the Pentagon how to decide," Collina figured, with reductions that will have to be made across the board. "Part of that is to look at the ICBM fields," Collina continued. "What we don't want are services or different sectors playing favorites." New START was ratified Dec. 22, 2010, with support from senators of both parties. Heitkamp and Hoeven both have taken office since then, and have worked in opposition to the treaty's terms as compromising the country's nuclear defenses. "I'm opposed to it," Hoeven said of the treaty. "I signed a letter along with other incoming senators expressing opposition to the New START treaty. So I was opposed to it, I would have voted against it." As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, he had helped author the provision in the recently adopted Consolidated Appropriations Act blocking the Department of Defense from conducting its impact study. Collina considered it unfortunate that legislators would try to hinder New START, and warned that a failure on America's part to meet its treaty obligations could have significant diplomatic repercussions. "Russia's already there," Collina explained, having already reduced its armaments below the treaty's requirements with the expectation that America likewise will do so. "I don't think that's the issue," Hoeven said on the subject. "It's not an issue of not living up to the terms of the treaty, it's about how you structure your forces." The senator believes the ICBM armament ought to be retained as a deployed asset, but that cuts elsewhere would be sufficient to comply with New START. "We can still meet the requirements," said Hoeven, though adding "I don't think we should make those reductions." A response by Hagel to the senators' letter is yet to be seen.

National Journal Ex-Russian Officer: U.S. Has Violated Arms Control Pact 'Numerous' Times By Global Security Newswire Staff February 26, 2014 A former Russian nuclear commander said U.S. antimissile tests that use medium-range targets have technically breached a bilateral accord "numerous" times. "Formally, they violate the [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces] Treaty," said retired Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin, the onetime head of Russia's strategic missile forces, at a press conference. "But as a military man I understand that they are not deploying the weapons. They are creating target missiles, which they are only using at missile-defense testing grounds. They are not going to add them to their arsenals." "A violation is there, but in essence it is not the kind of violations that should worry Russia," Interfax on Wednesday quoted Yesin as saying. The former general was responding to U.S. media reports on Washington's concerns that Russia's trial firings of a new ground-launched cruise missile constituted a breach of the 1987 arms control pact, which bans both former Cold War rivals from possessing, developing or testing any missile with ranges between 300 and 3,400 miles. The U.S. violations "were a lot more numerous" than those Moscow is being accused of, Yesin said. "We started voicing these claims to the United States," he said, "way before 2008," when the Russian tests that raise compliance issues are believed to have begun. Yesin said he was not familiar with the specific missile that is the source of recent U.S. concerns. Any issues that either nation has with the other's compliance with the bilateral accord are being handled through diplomatic avenues, he said. "The Russian foreign and defense ministries did not side-step this problem. But it is being tackled by way of diplomacy, without media coverage," Yesin said. Some Republican lawmakers have called on the Obama administration to formally declare Russia in breach of the INF accord. One reason the administration is thought by experts to have refrained thus far from taking such a public step is that it could cause Moscow to withdraw entirely from the pact. The United States is not within striking distance of any other nuclear weapon state's intermediate-range missiles. Russia, however, could potentially be targeted by multiple nations with medium-range nuclear weapons, including China or India. http://www.nationaljournal.com/global-security-newswire/ex-russian-officer-u-s-has-violated-arms-control-pact- numerous-times-20140226 Return to Top

DoD Buzz.com Issue No.1104, 28 February 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 7 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Budget Seeks Missile Fixes, Future Technology By Brendan McGarry Tuesday, February 25th, 2014 The U.S. Defense Department’s top weapons buyer said the proposed defense budget for fiscal 2015 will seek funding for missile-defense improvements and advanced technology programs. Frank Kendall, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, said the spending plan — to be released March 4 as part of the federal budget submission to Congress — will include money for fixing the so- called Ground-based Midcourse Defense System made by Chicago-based Boeing Co. “We are going to be taking an initiative in the budget to address some of those problems,” he said during a conference on the defense budget Tuesday at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. The event was hosted by Credit Suisse and McAleese & Associates, a Sterling, Va.-based consulting group. “We’ve got to fix those,” he added. “We’ve got to get some more reliable systems.” The Pentagon maintains rocket-like interceptors in silos at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., to shoot down incoming threats such as nuclear missiles. An interceptor launched from Vandenberg during a July 5 test missed its target over the Pacific Ocean, becoming the latest to do so. Afterward, some lawmakers criticized the Pentagon’s plans to spend more than $1 billion to expand the fleet of interceptors to 44 from 30. At the time, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., chairman of the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, cited among his concerns the system’s record of hitting targets in only 8 of 15 attempts; the high cost of testing, which runs about $215 million per exercise; and the fact that many of the interceptors aren’t operational. On Tuesday, Kendall the interceptors have failed in part because they were designed and fielded too quickly, without the proper system engineering. “We’re seeing just a lot of bad engineering, frankly, and it’s because there was a rush, there was a hurry to get something out,” he said. “Just patching the things we already have is probably not going to be adequate.” Kendall also said the budget will include continued funding for cutting-edge research and development projects. He noted that most of the force today uses weapons and equipment that were built in the 1980s — and that the World War II-era military relied in part on systems that were designed before the war. He said U.S. military technological superiority “isn’t guaranteed,” echoing comments he made in recent testimony on Capitol Hill. “We’ve got to stop the presumption that we’re superior and we have a wide margin of superiority,” he said. “It’s not true anymore.” Speaking about Chinese modernization recently with someone on the Hill, Kendall said the individual remarked that China can’t build a nice car. Kendall said, “We’ll, they’re building really good missiles and really good electronic warfare stuff and working on some pretty good airplanes, and they’re building some space-control capabilities that seem to be quite effective, and they’re competing with us economically.” Programs targeted for R&D funding include a next-generation jet engine, new rotary-wing aircraft and a successor to the Army’s canceled Ground Combat Vehicle, Kendall said. The planned $1 billion investment in the new jet engine would lead to a formal engineering, manufacturing and development program within a few years, he said. The Pentagon plans to unveil a $496 base budget, which excludes war funding, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced on Monday as part of a preview of the spending plan. The five-year budget would be $115 billion more than levels required under automatic budget cuts known as sequestration, but $113 billion less than what it expected last year for the same period. http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/02/25/budget-funds-missile-fixes-future-technology/ Return to Top

University of Missouri – Columbia, MO Press Release Faster Anthrax Detection Could Speed Bioterror Response and Save Millions in Decontamination Costs, MU Study Finds By Jeff Sossamon and Paige Blankenbuehler February 26, 2014

The Korea Herald – Seoul, South Korea China: 'Shuttle Diplomacy' with Koreas Aimed at Denuclearization February 24, 2014 Last week's rare back-to-back visit by a senior Chinese diplomat to both Koreas was aimed at easing tension and promoting denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula, China's foreign ministry said Monday, calling the visit "shuttle diplomacy." Foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying made the comments two days after China's Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin wrapped up his three-day visit to South Korea, immediately after a four-day trip to North Korea. The highly unusual trip to both Koreas came shortly after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry discussed with Chinese leaders in Beijing specific ideas to revive the long-stalled six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear programs. "This time, Vice Foreign Minister Liu visited the DPRK (North Korea) and the ROK (South Korea) as part of shuttle diplomacy," Hua told reporters during a regular press briefing. The priority of Liu's visits was "working to ease tension on the peninsula, to prevent previous tension and promote the process of denuclearization," Hua said, adding his visit "was well received by both the DPRK and the ROK." "China will continue to work with relevant parties to uphold regional peace and stability and properly settle the Korean nuclear issue," Hua said. "We hope that all relevant parties will work toward the same goal with China for this end."

The Washington Free Beacon – Washington, D.C. Chinese Influence Over North Korea Waning Communication between the two countries has nearly disappeared By Reuben F. Johnson February 24, 2014 BEIJING—The People’s Republic of China (PRC) remains the chief benefactor of the neighboring Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, but as North Korea’s dependence on China increases, China’s influence over the country appears to be decreasing. U.S. envoy for the DPRK Glyn Davies traveled to Beijing the week of Jan. 26 in order to try to convince the Chinese to put pressure on the North to abandon its nuclear weapons and missile programs. However, Washington may be less than satisfied with the willingness or ability of the PRC to affect change in the DPRK’s behavior. Being the “iron lung” that keeps the North from collapsing—as one Beijing-based analyst of the DPRK described it—in the form of food aid, energy assistance, and political support does not translate into a more authoritative Chinese say in the country’s affairs. Observers of Pyongyang in China say the North Korea is becoming a “closed box” in terms of understanding who is in charge and how decisions are being made by the leadership. “No one here really knows what is going on in the DPRK,” said one analyst. “And there is increasing skepticism that this young kid (current dictator, Kim Jong-un) is really calling the shots. Meanwhile, the linkages that the PRC used to have with the North have almost all disappeared and there are almost no opportunities to re-engage along some other level.” Military ties between the two communist states that dated back to the Korean War are virtually gone. That older generation of military leaders who fought alongside one another and continued to cooperate long after the war was over has gradually died off. There is very little engagement and even less trust today within the current generation ranks of the two military establishments. The December 2013 purging and execution of Kim’s once all-powerful uncle Jang Song-thaek caught Beijing completely off-guard. The ousting of Jang also underscored the lengths to which the regime in Pyongyang will go to keep the PRC guessing and otherwise in the dark about what is really happening inside the closed state. Beijing lost the one individual in the DPRK leadership with which it had a close, working relationship. Jang also had control over the growing businesses along the border with PRC that are located in the DPRK’s special economic zones. Chinese intelligence had missed – or chose to ignore – the warning signs that Jang’s downfall was imminent. Jang had been the primary point of contact in relations between Beijing and Pyongyang. He was trying to promote a reform of the North’s economy similar to what the PRC tried to sell to the previous DPRK dictator, the late Kim Jong-il. On his 2006 visit to the PRC the elder Kim was given a VIP tour of what had been accomplished in Shanghai – harnessing government resources to build a showcase city for international business and allowing free-market Issue No.1104, 28 February 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 11 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama mechanisms to operate, but with the hardline political control of a communist police state still in charge at the top. Beijing had hoped Kim would try something similar in the DPRK and put the nation on a path to prosperity. Jang acted as a regent and consigliore once the younger Kim assumed leadership. Jang tried approaching a North Korean version of the Chinese model for economic development, but the vengeful nature in which Jang – along with members of his family – have been eradicated suggests his attempts at reform were unsuccessful. Following Jang’s execution, South Korean news outlets cited intelligence sources in Seoul stating that “extensive executions have been carried out for relatives of Jang Song-Thaek,” and that “all relatives of Jang have been put to death, including even children.” The executions of Jang’s family members reportedly included Jang’s sister, Jang Kye-sun, her husband Jon Yong-jin, who was the ambassador to Cuba, and ambassador to Malaysia Jang Yong-chol, who is a nephew of Jang, along with his two sons. One source said some members of the family were shot at point-blank range with a pistol in front of others if they resisted being forced out of their apartments. “What governments like the PRC fear more than anything else is unpredictability and/or instability,” said a colleague based in Beijing. “Not having a pulse on what is happening in Pyongyang makes the Chinese communist leadership very anxious because anything can happen with little or no warning: another nuclear test or missile launch or – even worse – a breakdown in the control by the authorities that could lead to an implosion of the regime.” http://freebeacon.com/chinese-influence-over-north-korea-waning/ Return to Top

The Japan Times – Tokyo, Japan Japan to Return Weapons-Grade Plutonium U.S. Provided during Cold War Kyodo February 26, 2014 Japan plans to return, at the request of Washington, plutonium provided by the United States for research purposes during the Cold War, government sources said Tuesday. The government wants to be seen contributing to nuclear nonproliferation, the sources said. The Obama administration asked for the plutonium back as part of a drive to strengthen nuclear security. The two governments aim to work out the details by the third nuclear security summit, scheduled for March 24 and 25 in the Netherlands, the sources said. At the summit, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe plans to cite the agreement as a specific measure taken by Japan to help nonproliferation, they said. The plutonium is kept for use as nuclear fuel at the Japan Atomic Energy Agency’s fast critical assembly in Tokai, Ibaraki Prefecture. The facility is designed to study characteristics of fast reactors. Some of the plutonium, which totaled 331 kg at the end of 2012, was produced in Britain, according to the Cabinet Office. While Tokyo has told Washington it will comply with the request, Japan wants the fuel be replaced with lower- grade plutonium to continue the research effort, the sources said. The United States has been pressing Japan to return the plutonium since the first nuclear security summit was held in 2010, at the initiative of President Barack Obama. Japan initially resisted, citing the need to research fast reactors, the sources said.

Yonhap News Agency – Seoul, South Korea N. Korea Fires 4 Short-Range Ballistic Missiles February 27, 2014 North Korea fired what appeared to be four short-range ballistic missiles off its southeast coast Thursday, South Korean officials said, in a suspected reaction to U.S.-involved military exercises in the South that Pyongyang condemns as a rehearsal for invasion. The missiles were fired from the Gitdaeryeong area on the North's southeastern coast toward the sea beginning at 5:42 p.m., a South Korean defense ministry official said, adding that the South has strengthened vigilance and readiness against additional missile launches and other possible provocations. The missiles were believed to be part of the Scud series, officials said. "We first believed they were an improved version of the KN-02 ground-to-ship missile, but we now believe they are Scud series missiles, as they have a range of more than 200 km," a government source said. If confirmed, it would be the North's first firing of a Scud missile since July 4, 2009. The North has three types of Scud missiles -- the Scud B with a range of 300 km, the Scud C with a range of 500 km and the Scud D with a range of 700 km. Another military official said, however, that more analysis is needed to determine the exact type of the projectiles, saying it could also be an improved version of the KN-02 or a new type of artillery bigger than 300 mm. President Park Geun-hye was immediately briefed on the situation by her national security chief Kim Jang-soo, her spokesman Min Kyung-wook said. Kim took care of the situation after canceling his planned participation in an official banquet for the visiting crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Min said. Thursday's firings came as South Korea and the United States have been conducting annual joint military exercises that Pyongyang has condemned as a rehearsal for invasion of the communist nation. On the first day of the Key Resolve drills earlier this week, the North briefly violated the tense western sea border three times. "The North is believed to have fired short-range ballistic missiles in time for the Key Resolve exercises," a military official said. The launches also came as inter-Korean relations have shown signs of improvement, with the two sides holding reunions of families separated since the Korean War for the first time since 2010, and the South offering aid to help fight a livestock disease in the communist nation. Experts estimate that North Korea has some 700 Scud missiles and about 200 Rodong medium-range missiles with a range of about 1,300 kilometers. The regime has also pursued the development of long-range missiles that can fly as far as the U.S. mainland. In late 2012, the North successfully put a satellite into orbit aboard a long-range rocket. Pyongyang claimed the launch was part of a peaceful space program, but the outside world believes it was a disguised attempt to develop long-range missiles.

Global Times – Beijing, China China Wants Explanation of Japan Nuclear Stockpile Xinhua, February 28, 2014 By Agencies A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said on Friday that China still wants Japan to explain its nuclear stockpile to the world. Spokesman Qin Gang was commenting on media reports that Japan will comply with a US request to return plutonium provided for research during the Cold War, but refuses to clarify the issue of highly enriched and weapons-grade uranium. Qin said that highly enriched and weapons-grade uranium, as well as plutonium are sensitive nuclear materials. Any supply-demand imbalance of such sensitive materials is a nuclear security and proliferation risk. China maintains that the Japanese government should answer the question of how much uranium of concern there is in Japan, the government should then explain the use and supply-demand situation. "We continue to urge the Japanese government to take a responsible attitude and explain itself to international community," Qin said. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/845398.shtml Return to Top

The Voice of Russia – Moscow, Russia 28 February 2014 Updated Strategic Missile Troops to Protect Russia from possible Nuclear Wars By Ilya Kramnik The Strategic Missile Troops (RVSN) stand out among all other kinds of armed forces for their destination: never to fight being constantly ready for war, the most real and most terrible of all possible wars - the global nuclear missile war. Ruthless logic of nuclear deterrence, which has not been canceled yet, makes us to constantly maintain the Strategic Missile Troops in fighting trim. Today, the RVSN, along with other parts of the nuclear triad, are being gradually updated. But what will they look like in 2020? Betting on mobility The fact that in the post-Soviet era, the RVSN remained one of the very few elements of the military machine maintaining combat readiness is the merit of the country's leadership, which managed to evaluate possible consequences of a "failure" in this field. However, speaking about the specific components of the combat power of the modern RVSN, it is worth noting that today's upgrade of the potential of this important branch of the armed forces is largely due to the Moscow Institute of Thermoengineering and the Votkinsk plant, the developer and manufacturer of intercontinental missiles "Topol", "Topol-M" and "Yars" respectively. When serial production of the "Topol-M" silo-based version was launched in 1997, it was already supposed that these missiles and the "Yars" missiles created on their basis (both silo-based and mobile modifications) will Issue No.1104, 28 February 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 become the basis of the combat power of the RVSN. And it were mobile complexes that were considered to be the most promising ones, although by the end of the 80-ies, silo launchers reached the highest degree of perfection and excellent self-protection. Capable of protecting the rocket hanging inside even from a nearby nuclear explosion, they had no guarantee of protection against a direct hit of a precision-guided munition on a silo door; and in the 90-ies, the possibilities of such munitions were convincingly and widely demonstrated. However, single warhead missiles (and the "Topol-M" in both silo-based and mobile modifications carries only one charge) did not guarantee an unacceptable damage, especially in case of a combination of a first strike on the part of a "potential enemy" and announced deployment of the missile defense system, which will be capable of intercepting carriers spared after such a blow. The "Yars" became a response to this challenge as it combines mobility with multiple warheads (according to available information, this missile has four warheads). Combined with penetration aids, it guarantees that at least some of the warheads will reach the addressee. The Teykovsky division, which two regiments were rearmed with the mobile "Topol-M" missiles and two others – with the "Yars", became the first body of troops fully equipped with new systems. 36 launchers and more than 70 warheads – this is enough for exterminating tens of millions of people. At the same time, in today's conditions, it is not the power of the Strategic Missile Troops expressed in the number of potential victims that is important, but combat readiness of the existing capacities and their self-protection. The increased importance The importance of mobile complexes in the arsenal of the RVSN increased many times after the START III signed by Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev had lifted restrictions on the areas of basing and deploying mobile complexes. The impossibility to predict, from which point of a huge operational area a launch will be committed, significantly hampers its timely detection and interception. Thus, today, mobility is becoming a much more reliable protection than thousands of tons of fortified concrete and tens of centimeters of armour steel of launch silos. In the next 10 years, the "Yarses" must completely replace the Soviet-built "Topols" in the arsenal of the RVSN. If this task is solved, it will be possible to say that the minimum program of maintaining combat readiness of the RVSN in the conditions of the US missile defence system’s deployment is carried out. The maximum program now depends not only on the funds allocated to the strategic nuclear forces. Despite their mobility, these systems also require protection. And today, the matter concerns the creation of protected areas securely covered by the aerospace defense system, within which mobile missile complexes will be fully protected against a sudden first strike. 190 - 200 "Yarses", which should be delivered by 2020, are just enough to replace 170 RS-12M "Topol" missiles produced in the 80-ies and early 90-ies in the arsenal of the RVSN and ensure a sufficient number of training launches. In addition, according to experts, about 20 R-36M2 missiles of the latest series will live up to 2020 in the structure of the Strategic Missile Troops. They will be replaced in 2020-2025, apparently, by new types of missiles. Of course, 70 "Topol-M" missiles produced in 1997-2011 will remain in service; part of them will be, obviously, used for launches in the framework of works aimed at increasing their assigned life. Is it a bet on silo-based missiles? However, not all agree with the prospect of withdrawing liquid-fuelled missiles from the structure of the RVSN; and this disagreement has opened doors for a project of a new liquid-fuelled missile. This missile designed to replace the RS-20 "Voevoda" will be put into production by the end of this year. Earlier, it was reported that the new missile will be added to the armoury of the RVSN in the second half of the decade. The beginning of manufacturing and testing the missile in 2013 should allow to adhere to this deadline. Impressions of power

RIA Novosti – Russian Information Agency Russia Plans $55.3Bln Expenditure On Aerospace Defense by 2020 28 February 2014 MOSCOW, February 28 (RIA Novosti) – Russia’s military will invest 2 trillion rubles ($55.3 billion) in building up its aerospace defense weapons over the next six years, defense officials said Friday.

The Times of Israel – Jerusalem, Israel Final Nuclear Deal with Iran by July, top US Negotiator Says Wendy Sherman tells Israeli press the only measure of success is an accord that keeps Iran from ever getting nuclear arms By Times of Israel staff and Associated Press (AP) February 22, 2014 The United States is committed to reaching a final deal with Iran by July which would ensure Tehran will never be able to produce nuclear weapons, Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman said Saturday. Speaking in Jerusalem, the top US negotiator in the ongoing negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 world powers said there was only one measure of success, “and that is if an agreement means that Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon and that the international community will have assurance in the exclusively peaceful nature of a nuclear program in Iran.” The US, she said, was looking for “concrete actions” by Iran, and she intended to tell Israeli leaders that a comprehensive agreement would not be “about what we believe, it is about what we see, what can be verified, what can be monitored.” Sherman arrived in Israel from the latest round of talks between world powers and Iran in Vienna and spoke to reporters in Jerusalem. The undersecretary said the US had begun “tough negotiations” that will continue through July, by which time she hopes the sides will reach a comprehensive agreement. “We have set a framework and a timetable for the negotiations, but this is a very complex negotiation and I very much look forward to the talks I will have here in Israel,” she said. Sherman expressed appreciation for the “input, ideas, points of view” she has received from Israeli leaders during her visits between summits. “Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don’t agree, but what is critical is to have that input as we move forward to ensure the security of Israel and the security of the United States and the security of the world,” Sherman said. The sides are set to reconvene in Vienna on March 17, after having met in the Austrian capital earlier this week. The talks are designed to build on a first-step deal reached in November that commits Iran to initial nuclear curbs in return for some easing of sanctions. The deal can be extended by mutual consent after six months.

Daily News Egypt – Cairo, Egypt Chemical Arms Watchdog Split on Syria Delays The US rejected a Damascus request for a 100-day extension to an end-May deadline for it to ship out the totality of its chemical arms Daily News Egypt February 22, 2014 AFP – The executive council of the Hague-based watchdog tasked with destroying Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal failed Friday to reach agreement on what to do about Damascus’s delays, because of divisions between Syria’s allies and the west. Different sources close to the talks at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said China, Iran and Russia wanted flexibility over the timetable, but the United States and the European Union insisted on being strict. So far, just 11% of Syria’s 1,200 tonnes of dangerous chemicals have been taken out of the country. The US rejected a Damascus request for a 100-day extension to an end-May deadline for it to ship out the totality of its chemical arms, according to one source. “The Syrian government continues to put its energy into excuses, instead of actions,” said the US representative in the OPCW, Robert Mikulak. The anti-proliferation chief in Britain’s foreign office, Philip Hall, said: “Two weeks on, there has been no substantial progress in removing chemicals from Syria. “Our concern is growing that the 30 June deadline for the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons will not be met. Syria’s commitment to that date is in question.” Under an agreement brokered by Russia and the US last year, all of Syria’s chemical weapons were to be destroyed by June 30 this year. Damascus signed on to the deal to avert US military strikes in the wake of deadly chemical attacks outside Damascus blamed by the West on President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. The plan calls for the chemicals to be taken from Syria’s main port Latakia by Western warships to a US vessel which will break them down using hydrolysis, a process expected to take 90 days. But western diplomats in the OPCW last month expressed frustration at repeated delays to the process, and the UN Security Council on February 6 called on Syria to move faster. Syria has said it does not have the right material to transport the chemicals and that it has been hampered by the security situation in the war-torn country.

FARS News Agency – Iran Sunday, February 23, 2014 Discussing Iran’s Ballistic Missiles Could Undermine N. Talks TEHRAN (FNA) - The insistence of US officials on bringing the issue of ballistic missiles to the agenda of nuclear talks is just a scenario written by Israeli AIPAC and their supporters in senate designed for sinking interim nuclear deal, an analyst said. Gareth Porter in an article for Consortium news said that “the Obama administration’s insistence that Iran discuss its ballistic missile program in the negotiations for a comprehensive nuclear agreement brings its position into line with that of Israel and US senators who introduced legislation drafted by the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC aimed at torpedoing the negotiations.” He added that as history showed us, the Iranian officials wouldn’t accept any other issue but nuclear program to be discussed and from another side introducing ballistic missiles issue is not necessary for making sure that Iran’s nuclear program is just for peaceful purposes, as it is the aim of current talks. He said that despite US officials’ remarks, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif cautioned that imposing the ballistic missiles issue on the agenda would violate Iran’s red line. “Nothing except Iran’s nuclear activities will be discussed in the talks with the (six powers known as the G5+1), and we have agreed on it,” Zarif said. Porter continued that contrary to irrelevant remarks of US officials, it is not stipulated in the “Joint Plan of Action”, sealed on 24 Nov. between Iran and G5+1, to talk about ballistic missiles. “The Joint Plan of Action refers only to addressing the UN Security Council resolutions, with a view toward bringing to a satisfactory conclusion the UN Security Council’s consideration of this matter and the formation of a Joint Commission which would work with the IAEA to facilitate resolution of past and present issues of concern,” he said. In another part of the article he underlined that the demand for negotiations on Iran’s missile program originated with Israel, both directly and through Senate Foreign Relations Committee members committed to AIPAC’s agenda. Talks on a permanent Iran nuclear accord opened last Tuesday with the US pressing Tehran to agree the deal should encompass caps on its expanding ballistic missile capabilities, a demand strongly rejected by the Iranian negotiators. The dispute is the latest in a growing number of issues that divide Washington and Tehran in the talks which followed an earlier fruitful round of negotiations in Geneva in November. "They have to deal with matters related to their ballistic missile program," The Wall Street Journal quoted White House Spokesman Jay Carney as saying. But Iran says the missiles are part of its defense establishment and beyond the limits of nuclear talks. In any case, the issue of whether Iran's ballistic missile capabilities will be on the agenda already has exposed a rift between the Americans and Iranians, the report said.

The Jerusalem Post – Israel Steinitz after Meeting US’s Top Iran Negotiator: Israel Reserves Right to Act Independently Netanyahu: Iran believes it can "realize its plan to be a nuclear threshold state." By HERB KEINON 24 February 2014 Israel reserves the right to assess the Iranian situation and make the necessary decisions independently, Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said Sunday after emerging from some five hours of talks with Wendy Sherman, Washington's top Iran negotiator. "Israel reiterated and made clear its position that an agreement with Iran must include dismantling its ability to progress toward a nuclear weapon," Steinitz said, using code for Israel's long-standing position that the world needed to insist that Iran dismantle all it's uranium enrichment capabilities. This position clashes with that of the world powers currently negotiating with Iran, which is now seemingly willing to allow Iran some enrichment capability. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu made the same point publicly at the opening of the weekly cabinet meeting, saying he was concerned Iran believed it could "realize its plan to be a nuclear threshold state, with an enrichment capability that it thinks cannot be touched, and with the ability to develop both nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles, which it is continuing to work on unhindered." "This combination of enrichment, weapons and launch capabilities, means that Iran is, in effect, receiving everything and giving almost nothing," he said. "That is the current situation." Netanyahu said that the long-term agreement now being negotiated between the P5+1 (the US, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany) and Iran cannot be allowed to render permanent this current state of affairs. The long term agreement, he said, must "dismantle the Iranian ability to either produce or launch nuclear weapons, and this has yet to be achieved, and without the insistence of the major powers, it will not be achieved." Sherman, the US Under Secretary of State who led Washington’s delegation to the recent talks in Vienna, briefed Steinitz and National Security Council head Yossi Cohen and staff members from various other government and intelligence agencies on the Vienna talks. Steinitz said the dialogue with Sherman dealt in "great detail" with diplomatic, intelligence and technical aspects of the Iranian nuclear program, and was part of Israel's ongoing strategic dialogue with the US. Sherman has made it a practice of coming to Jerusalem after every round of talks with the Iranians to immediately brief Israel. She made clear Saturday night, however, that she does not agree with Israel's position that Iran must not be allowed any uranium enrichment capability, saying Iran might be allowed a "limited" nuclear program "that addresses practical needs." "I would like there to be zero enrichment," she said. "I would like there to be no Issue No.1104, 28 February 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 20 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama facilities, I would like there not to be an indigenous program. I would like many things in life. But that does not mean I will get them." Sherman will also be briefing officials in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates this week, states which are as concerned as Israel at the prospect of Iran gaining nuclear capabilities. Over the last two weeks Netanyahu has once again stepped up the rhetoric against Iran's nuclear program, saying that the country has not altered any of its aggressive policies. This is expected to be the item on the top of his agenda when he is scheduled to meet US President Barack Obama in Washington next Monday. http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Steinitz-after-meeting-USs-top-Iran-negotiator-Israel-reserves-right- to-act-independently-342347 Return to Top

Tehran Times – Tehran, Iran Iran Needs Missiles to Deter Enemies: Leader’s Advisor Political Desk Wednesday, February 26, 2014 TEHRAN – Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior advisor to Iran’s Supreme Leader, has said that the Islamic Republic needs missiles, which can increase the country’s deterrence strength in order to deal with possible military threats. In an interview with ISNA published on Tuesday, Velayati, who is also the director of the Strategic Research Center of the Expediency Council, also said that Iran will never pose a threat to the security of any country. The countries which are “casting greedy eyes on Iran” must be aware of the fact that the Islamic Republic will not remain silent in the face of any act of aggression and will not seek permission from other countries to defend itself, he added. On February 11, Iran test-fired a laser-guided surface-to-surface and air-to-surface missile named Bina (Insightful) and the new generation of a long-range ballistic missile. U.S. officials have said that Iran’s ballistic missile program should be addressed as part of a comprehensive nuclear deal between Iran and the major powers, which is meant to end the decade-long dispute over Tehran’s nuclear program. However, Iran has announced that it has no intention of discussing its ballistic missile program with the major powers. “The Islamic Republic of Iran’s defense issues are neither negotiable nor subject to compromise. They are definitely among our red lines in any talks,” Abbas Araqchi, the Iranian deputy foreign minister and a chief negotiator, told Iranian state television recently. http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/114335-iran-needs-missiles-to-deter-enemies-leaders-advisor Return to Top

The Daily Star – Beirut, Lebanon Syria Agrees New April Target to Remove Chemicals: Diplomats Reuters February 26, 2014 BEIRUT/UNITED NATIONS: Syria has agreed a new timetable to remove its chemical weapons by late April after failing to meet a deadline to ship out the arsenal earlier this month, diplomats said on Wednesday. Under a U.S.-Russian deal reached after a chemical weapons attack killed hundreds of people around Damascus last year, President Bashar al-Assad's government should have handed over 1,300 tonnes of toxic chemicals by Feb. 5 for destruction abroad. Issue No.1104, 28 February 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 21 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama But only three cargoes have been shipped out of the country so far, barely 10 percent of the total stockpile declared to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) overseeing the process along with the United Nations. Amid growing international frustration at the slow pace of progress, Syria last week submitted a new 100-day plan to remove the remaining chemicals, which would have set a target of late May or early June for completion. But the OPCW said the work could be done quicker, despite fighting between Assad's forces and rebels seeking his overthrow. Diplomats said the latest timetable would see Syria committing to transport most of the remaining chemicals to its Mediterranean port of Latakia by April 13, from where they would be shipped out for destruction. Consignments from two sites where security was precarious would be delivered to Latakia by April 27, they said. The diplomats also said two more shipments were expected to leave Latakia port on international vessels by the weekend. "There's likely to be some movements in the next few days," a senior Western envoy said. "This is something on which the Russians are continuing to keep up the pressure on the regime." "This process is going forward, it hasn't been completely derailed." No OPCW spokesman declined to comment. Assad agreed to destroy his chemical weapons following global outrage over a sarin gas attack in August last year. The world's deadliest chemical attack in 25 years, it drew a U.S. threat of military strikes which was dropped after Assad - who blamed rebels for the attack - pledged to give up chemical arms. The latest timetable appears to be a compromise between Damascus and Western powers who said last week that the shipment of the chemicals could be completed by the end of March. The United States has sent the MV Cape Ray, a ship outfitted with special equipment to neutralize the worst of Syria's chemicals at sea, and says it will need 90 days to complete the destruction. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Feb-26/248575-syria-agrees-new-april-target-to-remove- chemicals-diplomats.ashx#axzz2uT7Q8x8r Return to Top

Defense One.com Iran Has Resumed Work at Suspicious Military Base By Diane Barnes, Global Security Newswire February 26, 2014 Iran has resumed activities at an installation believed by some specialists to have housed nuclear-arms studies, says a Washington analytical group. A Jan. 30 satellite photograph shows new movements at Iran's Parchin base following an apparent lull in large- scale operations at the site, according to a Tuesday assessment by the Institute for Science and International Security. The facility remains off-limits to International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors who suspect it may have once hosted a structure capable of accommodating atomic-relevant detonation experiments, as well as potential work on a "neutron initiator" to trigger nuclear blasts. The think tank said that debris and possible construction supplies have appeared close to the suspected detonation chamber's former housing, as well as near an edifice on the northern edge of the Parchin complex.

The Jerusalem Post – Jerusalem, Israel Sources: UN Nuclear Agency Opted Against Sensitive Iran Report Report - to have been prepared last year - would almost certainly have angered Iran and complicated efforts to reach nuclear deal. By Reuters 27 February 2014 VIENNA/UNITED NATIONS - The UN nuclear watchdog planned a major report on Iran that might have revealed more of its suspected atomic bomb research, but held off as Tehran's relations with the outside world thawed, sources familiar with the matter said. Such a report - to have been prepared last year - would almost certainly have angered Iran and complicated efforts to settle a decade-old dispute over its atomic aspirations, moves which accelerated after pragmatic President Hassan Rouhani took office in August. According to the sources, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has apparently dropped the idea of a new report, at least for the time being. There was no immediate comment from the IAEA. The sources said there was no way of knowing what information collected by the agency since it issued a landmark report on Iran in 2011 might have been incorporated in the new document, although one said it could have added to worries about Tehran's activities. As relations rapidly improved, Iran struck an interim nuclear deal with six world powers in November which Israel denounced as an "historic mistake" as it did not require Tehran to dismantle its uranium enrichment sites. One source said probably only Israel, which is believed to be the Middle East's sole nuclear-armed state, would criticize the IAEA for not issuing a new report in the present circumstances. Iran and the world powers hope to reach a final settlement by July, when the interim accord expires, although they acknowledge this will be an uphill task. A decision not to go ahead with the new document may raise questions about information that the United Nations agency has gathered in the last two years on what it calls the "possible military dimensions" (PMD) to Iran's nuclear program. Tehran says the program is peaceful and denies Western allegations that it is seeking to develop the capability to make bombs.

Issue No.1104, 28 February 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 The sources, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue, suggested the more recent material concerned extra detail about alleged research and experiments that were covered in the November 2011 report. A new report would probably have included "updated information on PMD" which could have "reinforced the concern" about Iran, one said. The IAEA's dossier in November 2011 contained a trove of intelligence indicating past activity in Iran which could be used for developing nuclear weapons, some of which it said might still be continuing. Iran rejected the allegations. It helped Western powers to step up the sanctions pressure on Iran, including a European Union oil embargo imposed in 2012, showing the potential significance of a decision on whether to publish the IAEA's findings. Since then the agency has said it obtained more information that backs up its analysis in the 2011 document, which detailed allegations ranging from explosives testing to research on what experts describe as an atomic bomb trigger. Other issues it wants Iran to address are alleged detonator development, computer modelling to calculate nuclear explosive yields, and preparatory experimentation that could be useful for any atomic test. It says the "overall credible" information in the 2011 dossier - contained in an annex to a wider quarterly report - came from member states, believed to include Western powers and Israel, as well as its own efforts. One source said it was believed that the Vienna-based IAEA had received more information on suspicions of nuclear yield calculations, but it was not known to what extent this would have made it into a new report on Iran. IRAN SAYS CLAIMS BASELESS "The agency has obtained more information since November 2011 that has further corroborated the analysis contained in that annex," it said on Feb. 20 in a regular quarterly report on Iran's nuclear program. It has been investigating accusations for several years that Iran may have coordinated efforts to process uranium, test explosives and revamp a missile cone in a way suitable for a nuclear warhead. Iran says such claims are baseless and forged. The sources said that last year's planned report would probably have amounted to a wider review of the Iranian nuclear file, including PMD and other outstanding issues. They said the idea was raised internally when the IAEA's long-running efforts to get Iran to cooperate with its investigation appeared completely deadlock in mid-2013. But with a new leadership in Tehran trying to end its international isolation, Iran and the IAEA agreed last November a step-by-step transparency pact to help allay concerns about the atomic activities. This was sealed shortly before the breakthrough deal between Tehran and the six powers - the United States, Russia, France, Germany, Britain and China. In follow-up talks on Feb 8-9, Iran agreed for the first time to address one of many PMD issues in the 2011 report, regarding so-called exploding bridge wire detonators, which can have both civilian and military applications. "While other experiments with possible military dimensions must be addressed and soon, progress on the bridge wire detonators issue would be an important first step toward resolving these issues," said the Arms Control Association, a US research and advocacy group, in a Feb. 26 analysis. But it remains uncertain when and how the IAEA will be able to look into more sensitive areas, including long- sought access to the Parchin military base southeast of Tehran, where it suspects explosives tests that could be used for nuclear bomb development took place a decade ago, a charge Tehran denies. The IAEA inquiry is separate from, but still closely linked to, the wider diplomacy to end the years of standoff over the nuclear program that has raised fears of a Middle East war.

Trend – Baku, Azerbaijan Arak Heavy Water Reactor 85 Percent Completed, Iranian MP Says By Umid Niayesh, Trend February 27, 2014 Baku, Azerbaijan -- Iran's Arak Heavy Water Reactor is now 85 percent complete, Vice-Speaker of the Parliament Mohammad Hassan Aboutorabi Fard said, Iranian Donya-e-eqtesad newspaper reported on Feb. 27. The MP went on to say that in the past the western powers wanted Iran's nuclear sites to be closed. Meanwhile today they have accepted their loss negotiating with Iran on the issue. "Some 19,000 Iranian centrifuges are spinning and the Arak heavy water reactor is 85 percent complete,' he remarked. Iran's heavy water production plant and reactor which remains under construction is located near the city of Arak. The U.S. and the EU are concerned that the facility could be used to produce plutonium which can be used to fuel a nuclear weapon as an alternative to highly enriched uranium. Iran says its atomic programme is peaceful and the Arak reactor is intended to produce isotopes for cancer patients.

FARS News Agency – Tehran, Iran Friday, February 28, 2014 FM: Iran’s Nuclear Program to Remain Intact TEHRAN (FNA) - Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif announced that Tehran will continue its peaceful nuclear energy program and will not close any of its facilities. "I can tell you that Iran’s nuclear program will remain intact and we will not close any program,” the Iranian foreign minister told reporters in New Delhi on Thursday. Meantime, he underlined that Tehran is ready to do anything necessary to prove that its nuclear program is peaceful, and said, “I hope that a final nuclear agreement would be reached between Tehran and the six world powers by the end of July.” Last Thursday, Iran and six world powers agreed on an agenda for negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program. The talks will continue in Vienna next month. This indicates an early step forward in the elusive search for a settlement of the decade-old dispute, even though the sides remain far apart on how to resolve it and both Iran and the United States have publicly stated it may not be possible to reach a final agreement. Negotiators from Iran and the Sextet of the world powers met in Vienna on February 18-20 to hammer out an agenda for talks on a final deal to the standoff over Tehran's nuclear activities. A senior US state department official earlier said about the second day of talks on Wednesday, "Today's discussions, which covered both process and substance, were constructive and useful."

National Journal Iranian Missile Capacity Remains Expected for Next Year: U.S. Commander By Diane Barnes, Global Security Newswire February 28, 2014 Iran is still believed capable of fielding a long-range ballistic missile that could hit the United States by next year. "The prediction or the assessment of 2015 remains, from my understanding," the top U.S. nuclear-combat commander said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday. Strategic Command head Navy Adm. Cecil Haney said the current estimate tracks with what the top U.S. intelligence official, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, said last year. However, Haney this week declined to publicly elaborate on the potential threat in response to questions from Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), noting that details remain classified. In an analysis last year, the Defense Department said Iran would require assistance from nations such as China, North Korea or Russia, if Tehran is to meet that estimated date for flight-testing. The strategic commander's comment came a week after the United States and five other countries concluded their first round of talks with Iran on potentially lifting international sanctions against the Middle Eastern nation in return for long-term restrictions on its nuclear activities. Despite agreeing on an agenda for future negotiations, Washington and Tehran appeared to remain at odds over whether new discussions could examine the possibility of limiting Iran's ballistic-missile operations. In response to Ayotte's questions, Haney said a proposed East Coast missile-defense site would provide "additional capability" against any Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile threat. However, he added that technical problems with the Ground-based Midcourse Interceptor must still be addressed, as the possible new defensive site would rely on this technology. "We have to invest in priorities [in] order to work to get our sensing and discrimination right, as well as getting our kill vehicle also performing to spec," he said. http://www.nationaljournal.com/global-security-newswire/iranian-missile-capacity-remains-expected-for-next- year-u-s-commander-20140228 Return to Top

The New Indian Express – Chennai, India Hydraulic Snags Led to Night Trial Failure of Agni-I Missile By Hemant Kumar Rout Issue No.1104, 28 February 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 27 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama 23rd February 2014 BALASORE -- Even as the defence authorities are tight-lipped on the reasons of the failure of surface-to-surface medium range ballistic missile Agni-I night trial, sources attributed it to metallurgical malfunction and snags in the hydraulic system. Sources said after an abortive mission on February 18, the 700-km range missile was to be test-fired from Wheeler Island off the Odisha coast next evening. But the strategic forces command (SFC) was forced to postpone the test for indefinite period due to some technical glitches in the missile system. Initially while it was learnt that the faults in ‘not-up-to-the-mark’ Indian inertial navigation system (INS) led to postponement of the first night user trial of the nuclear capable missile, a scientist associated with the mission pointed fingers at manufacturing faults in the missile. Talking to ‘The Express’, he said manufacturing and metallurgical faults triggered hydraulics problems in the missile system thereby forcing the armed forces authorities to put off the trial only 18 seconds prior to the test schedule. Hydraulics help open the wings and fins in the missile system. The wings and fins were not being opened that day. Sensing further trouble, the mission was postponed. However, the scientists have been asked to rectify the faults and make the mission ready for trial within next one year. “The armed forces would definitely not want to take further risk. The body of the missile has to be changed as the metallurgical malfunction could lead to another fiasco. Besides, the INS has also to be checked properly,” he added. Meanwhile, the team Akash is readying for another trial of the surface-to-air missile on Monday. After the trial, three more would be carried out in next couple of weeks. Sources informed that the armed forces were preparing to go for a fresh trial of 2000-km range ballistic missile Agni-II in March second week. http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/Hydraulic-Snags-Led-to-Night-Trial-Failure-of-Agni-I- Missile/2014/02/23/article2073033.ece#.Uwqvt_ldXYg Return to Top

National Journal Senior Official: Pakistani Leaders to Retain Nuclear-Arms Authority in Crises By Elaine M. Grossman, Global Security Newswire February 27, 2014 Pakistan's top leaders would not delegate advance authority over nuclear arms to unit commanders, even in the event of crisis with India, a senior official says. The revelation might slightly ease global concerns about Pakistani nuclear arms being detonated precipitously in any future combat, though plenty of potential hazards appear to remain. "The smallest to the largest -- all weapons are under the central control of the National Command Authority, which is headed by the prime minister," according to the high-level Pakistani government official, speaking to reporters Tuesday on condition of not being named. The longtime worry has been that Pakistani military units might be tempted to use battlefield nuclear weapons as a last resort. One possible scenario for such a move might be if Pakistani troops are in danger of being overwhelmed in any future war against India, which has a larger and more capable conventional army.

The Daily Times – Lahore, Pakistan OPINION/Commentary Preventing Nuclear Terrorism Unlike the Cold War period, when both the US and the Soviet Union knew that a nuclear attack from either side would be met with a massive retaliatory strike, conventional deterrence does not work against the terrorist groups By Rizwan Asghar February 25, 2014 On October 11, 2001, exactly a month after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre, President George W Bush was informed by his CIA director, George Tenet, about the presence of al Qaeda-linked terrorists in New York City with a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb. Overwhelmed by paralysing fear that terrorists could have smuggled another nuclear weapon into Washington DC as well, President Bush ordered Vice President Dick Cheney, along with several hundred federal employees from almost a dozen government agencies, to leave for some undisclosed location outside the capital where they could ensure the continuity of government in case of a nuclear explosion in

Issue No.1104, 28 February 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 29 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Washington DC. Although, after subsequent investigations, the CIA’s report turned out to be false, this incident showed that even a false alarm signalling a nuclear attack could lead to a much higher probability of disaster. A nuclear attack in downtown Washington DC has the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of people immediately and wipe the White House, the State Department and many other buildings off the face of the earth, making the 9/11 attacks a ‘historical footnote’. It is evident that the spectre of a terrorist-controlled nuclear weapon is a real threat and is global in scope. Given the potentially disastrous consequences, even a small possibility of terrorists obtaining and detonating a nuclear device justifies urgent action. The most urgent security threat to the world today is the possibility of the stealing of weapons or fissile materials by terrorists. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, hundreds of confirmed cases of successful theft of nuclear materials were reported in Russia. In 1997, General Alexander Lebed, assistant for national security affairs to Boris Yeltsin, revealed that 84 out of 132 special KGB ‘suitcase nuclear weapons’ were unaccounted for in Russia. There are also widespread apprehensions expressed by the international community that militants could steal Pakistan’s nuclear weapons or fissile material. Unfortunately, some incidents of jihadi penetration of Pakistan’s armed forces have further fuelled this perception. In 2001, US officials discovered that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, were in contact with two retired Pakistani nuclear scientists for assistance in making a small nuclear device. Later in 2003, some junior Pakistani army and air force officers colluded with al Qaeda terrorists to attempt to assassinate President Musharraf and enforce sharia in Pakistan. Notwithstanding that the dangers about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons might be highly exaggerated; some genuine concerns arising due to links between terrorists and government authorities must be immediately addressed. Umar Khalid Khurasani, the ameer (head) of the Mohmand Agency chapter of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), also wants to seize nuclear weapons and overthrow the government of Pakistan. Another potential source for the theft of fissile material is more than 130 civilian research reactors worldwide operating with Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU). Most of these facilities have very modest security - in many cases, no more than a night watchman. Unlike the Cold War period, when both the US and the Soviet Union knew that a nuclear attack from either side would be met with a massive retaliatory strike, conventional deterrence does not work against the terrorist groups. In a famous 2007 Wall Street Journal article by Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn (together known as the ‘four horsemen’), it was claimed that, “Most alarmingly, the likelihood that non-state terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weaponry is increasing. In today’s war waged on world order by terrorists, nuclear weapons are the ultimate means of mass destruction...unless urgent new actions are taken, the US soon will be compelled to enter a new nuclear era that will be more precarious, psychologically disorienting, and economically even more costly than was the Cold War.” Any effort by the international community to combat nuclear terrorism should be based on achieving three fundamental objectives: (a) securing all vulnerable stockpiles of nuclear weapons and materials from such risks of falling into terrorist hands;(b) preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries, and (c) replacing all HEU in civilian research reactors worldwide with Low Enriched Uranium (LEU), which cannot be used in making bombs. Countries where the dangers of terrorists stealing nuclear weapons are very high cannot afford to remain in a state of denial for too long. On the international front, immediate steps are needed to be taken to institute a ‘standardised noncompliance mechanism’ to enforce the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)/International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) framework. In the 2015 NPT Review Conference, Article X of the NPT, which allows states to withdraw from the treaty with minimal sanctions, must also be re-examined. According to some nuclear experts, these steps should be accomplished through the UN Security Council. The Security Council must issue a ‘binding resolution’ declaring noncompliance with or withdrawal from the NPT to be a threat to international peace, thus attracting enforcement action by the Security Council under UN Charter Chapter VII. By reducing the number of countries with nuclear weapons or weapons-usable nuclear materials, terrorist groups will have less places to buy or steal these critical components of nuclear terrorism. However, the credibility of these steps will be established only if

Politico Magazine.com OPINION/In the Arena The Threat to America’s Nukes By MICHAEL KREPON February 25, 2014 The wages of austerity are coming due for America’s military. On Monday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced a major downsizing of the U.S. Army. He wants to retire the A-10 Warthog fleet of ground-support aircraft and the venerable U-2 manned spy planes. And he’s cutting the operations of the Navy’s cruiser fleet in half. So far, Hagel has been silent about reductions in nuclear forces, promising to preserve all three legs of the so- called triad — missiles, bombers and submarines — while making “important investments to preserve a safe, secure, reliable and effective nuclear force.” But reductions in nuclear forces are coming: It’s not a question of whether, but when — and how deep. The United States still has more than 5,000 nuclear weapons, all supported by a complex of bases, production facilities and nuclear laboratories likely to cost American taxpayers in excess of $20 billion per year this decade. But nuclear weapons seem anachronistic in the post-Cold War world. They have less military utility than conventional forces, their numbers are far larger than conceivable war plans and their replacement costs are extremely high. Over the past half-century, the boosters of arms control and nuclear deterrence have managed to find common ground, bringing the size of America’s nuclear stockpile down from its Cold War peak of more than 30,000 warheads. All the while, these two camps have kept battling it out, even though their respective goals — ratifying treaties and modernizing America’s creaking nuclear infrastructure — remain linked. Both agendas have become harder to achieve as the Cold War fades into history. And now, this odd, fractious partnership may be breaking up over irreconcilable differences. Tight Pentagon budgets make the old bargain — treaty votes in return for promises to modernize the triad and bomb-related facilities — harder to cut. Nuclear deterrence boosters complain that

Issue No.1104, 28 February 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 31 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama earlier promises haven’t been kept, and arms controllers complain that the price of ratification has become way too high. Besides, no treaties are queued up for the Senate’s consideration. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty fell 19 votes short in 1999 and has been languishing ever since. Senate Republicans have permitted Democratic presidents just one treaty each — John F. Kennedy the Limited Test Ban, Lyndon B. Johnson the Outer Space Treaty, Jimmy Carter the Panama Canal handoff before failing on SALT II, and Bill Clinton the Chemical Weapons Convention before losing the CTBT vote. President Barack Obama got New START, his strategic arms treaty with Russia, in 2010. His prospects for a second treaty look bleak, given the state of partisan rancor on Capitol Hill. Replacing aging warheads, subs, land-based missiles and bombers does not come cheap — perhaps $1 trillion over the next 30 years, according to a report by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Nuclear deterrence backers counter that this amounts to just 3 percent of the Pentagon’s budget. But too many bills are coming due at once. A former head of the U.S. Strategic Command puts it this way: “We’re in a bad place at the worst possible time.” The average age of U.S. warheads now exceeds 20 years. The Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration has proposed five warhead types for major rehabs and life extensions. Designing a replacement for Trident submarines, which carry nuclear-tipped missiles, has been postponed for two years because the Navy’s shipbuilding budget can’t absorb the costs. These subs will now be retired when their hulls are more than 40 years old. The utility of the Air Force’s Minuteman missiles was in question even before reports surfaced of missile crews being bored and cheating on proficiency exams. Then there’s the cost of building new bombers to replace 70-year- old B-52s and supplement 20-year-old B-2s. There’s more: America’s nuclear weapon labs — now rebranded as the “nuclear enterprise” — want costly new facilities, including one at Los Alamos with the capacity for a five-fold annual increase in plutonium pit production in the event that existing pits, which provide the yields expected of nuclear detonations, become faulty. There are massive cost overruns for a uranium processing facility at Oak Ridge and not enough money for all of the warheads scheduled for life extensions. Securing congressional support for a tab this large — the Congressional Budget Office estimates $355 billion over the next 10 years, well before new subs and bombers come on line — would be hard even if there were a treaty ratification vote to plus-up nuclear accounts. But nuclear deterrence boosters oppose reductions below New START limits — which would allow the United States to maintain more than 1,000 deployed warheads, with multiples in reserve — as a slippery slope to nuclear abolition. Supporters of arms control have returned fire by labeling the Bomb and its backers as relics of the Cold War. The Obama administration’s promise of an oversize plutonium pit production facility at Los Alamos hasn’t been kept in an environment of deficit reduction, sequestration and higher defense priorities. A new opportunity to increase nuclear accounts in return for treaty ratification may be a long way away. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has few Republican backers. New START doesn’t expire until 2021, with the possibility of a five-year extension. The treaty’s monitoring provisions can be applied to deeper cuts, but at present, the Obama administration doesn’t want to cut its forces unilaterally, and Moscow wants to build up rather than down. Nor are Senate Republicans inclined to get beat up by hard-liners for supporting the ratification of another strategic arms reduction treaty. It will be extremely hard for arms controllers to forgo the CTBT and new treaties ratcheting down U.S. and Russian forces in transparent ways. But the resumption of U.S. nuclear testing becomes even more remote with every passing year, and tight Pentagon budgets will result in deeper nuclear force reductions whether or not there are new treaties. As arms controllers have become less tolerant of deal making, nuclear deterrence boosters have become less tolerant of treaties. The next time there’s a ratification debate, treaty critics will demand more than the traffic will bear, but they will receive less than they want. And no promises of appropriations during a treaty ratification fight are binding on future Congresses. Issue No.1104, 28 February 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 32 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama If this standoff continues, treaty ratification and nuclear force structure can expect lean years ahead. A brave new world beckons in which the United States views treaties and nuclear weapons as relics of the Cold War, while other countries cling to both. Michael Krepon is co-founder of the Stimson Center and author of Better Safe Than Sorry: The Ironies of Living With the Bomb. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/nuclear-weapons-defense-budget-cuts-103934_full.html Return to Top

Los Angeles Times – Los Angeles, CA OPINION/ Op-Ed Chuck Hagel's Nuclear Exemption One category of military spending largely escaped the ax in the Defense secretary's budget: nuclear weapons. By Doyle McManus February 26, 2014 The headlines on the Pentagon budget unveiled by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel this week were all about austerity: the smallest U.S. Army since 1940; fewer aircraft, ships and armored vehicles; even some modest belt- tightening on future military pay and benefits. But one category of military spending largely escaped the budget ax: nuclear weapons. The United States has about 1,600 long-range nuclear weapons on active duty — more than any other country, including Vladimir Putin's Russia. Under the 2010 New START treaty, the United States and Russia agreed to reduce their arsenals to no more than 1,550 warheads apiece by 2018. The Russians are already below the treaty ceiling after taking missiles out of service as part of a modernization program. But the U.S. doesn't appear to be in any hurry. Maintaining and modernizing our giant arsenal, which, happily, seems increasingly unlikely to ever be used, is expensive. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that U.S. nuclear forces will cost $355 billion over the next 10 years. About $89 billion of that will go to replacing aging missiles, submarines and bombers, and those costs will grow much larger after 2023, the CBO warned in a recent report. Worst of all, much of that spending is unnecessary. Almost every expert on nuclear weapons agrees that the United States has a far larger nuclear force than it needs to deter attacks. Last year, for example, when President Obama proposed reducing U.S. and Russian nuclear forces by about one- third to 1,100 warheads each, the Joint Chiefs of Staff embraced the idea. A year earlier, an independent panel convened by Global Zero, a disarmament group, concluded that 450 deployed warheads would be enough; one of its members was a retired senator named Chuck Hagel. But since then, Hagel has been virtually mute about reducing nuclear arms. "If there was ever a time to start resetting this institution and restructuring … it's now," he said Tuesday as he pitched his budget to a roomful of defense experts. But when I asked him whether he still harbored the goal of shrinking the nuclear force, he ducked the question, saying his only goal was to leave the military stronger than he found it. The reason officials don't like to talk about reducing nuclear arsenals is simple, and it applies in both Washington and Moscow: The weapons may have a diminishing role, but they are protected by political sponsors — sometimes based on honest disagreements over strategy, sometimes because of the jobs they provide. When Hagel came before the Senate for confirmation last year, Republicans interrogated him about his signature on the Global Zero report; he retreated, saying the proposal was merely "illustrative" and that any nuclear reductions would need to be negotiated with Russia first.

Press TV – Tehran, Iran OPINION/Viewpoint Iran Missile Progress, US New Bête Noire By Dr. Amir Dabiri Mehr Thursday, February 27, 2014 Amid progress in the ongoing talks on Iran’s nuclear energy program, the United States is raising unreasonable demands about Iran’s missile achievements. A senior US intelligence official has said that Iran will acquire inter-continental ballistic missiles by 2015. Issue No.1104, 28 February 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 34 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama “I think when the Chairman [of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey] talked about our assessment being in the 2015 timeframe, given the development that we’ve seen, that’s accurate,” Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lieutenant General Michael Flynn recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee. Based on these remarks, the US officials have said that Iran must dismantle its missile program. In reaction, Iranian officials have said that the talks between Iran and six world powers are exclusively focused on the nuclear issue and that Iran’s defense capabilities are non-negotiable. The first question striking the mind is to know why the US officials are bringing up a new issue in the midst of the nuclear talks while they are well aware that Iran will never accept to negotiate about its missile program. This issue could be analyzed from two points of view. The first standpoint is based on the US-Israeli view of Iran’s nuclear and military activities: Iran has made significant progress in three different but complementary sectors and therefore the US and its allies should keep Iran from completing a triangle. Progress in these three fields would maximize the Islamic Republic’s deterrence power against threats. Here are the three sides of the triangle: 1. Nuclear program: Iran can enrich uranium to generate nuclear energy. Iran enriches uranium up to 20-percent purity with its own 19,000 centrifuges. Iran’s achievements in this field are irreversible. Iran can only be convinced to voluntarily curb the level of its enrichment as it agreed to not enrich uranium above five percent purity. 2. Ballistic missile launch: The US military and strategic experts say Iran is capable of launching 5,000-kilometer- range missiles whose warheads weigh one ton. In their view, Iran, which is located 10,000 kilometers from the east of the United States, is close to developing missiles which could hit the US. 3. Navigation and aviation: By intercepting a US drone, Iran showed to the US officials that it has made significant achievements in the aviation sector. Therefore, US strategists say, Iran can mount nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles to strike any target. For US strategists, any country making achievements in these three sectors is a potential nuclear power upon which Washington could no longer impose its demands. Therefore, they say, Iran should not be allowed to upgrade the range of its missiles to above 10,000 kilometers. They say Iran’s nuclear issue and missile development should be discussed together throughout Iran’s talks with world powers – the US, France, Britain, Russia, China and Germany. The second standpoint stipulates that negotiations with Iran should not be limited to the nuclear issue and that Iran’s military achievements, gained particularly in the wake of the Iraqi imposed war (1980-1988), must be discussed. This standpoint is setting the stage for discussions about Iran’s ballistic missiles in the future round of talks. The first standpoint is far from reality and is mainly promoted by anti-Iranian circles in the US and Israel. These circles claim that Iran is seeking to develop a nuclear bomb. Advocates of this view say holding talks with Iran will let Tehran buy enough time to reach its nuclear objectives. But the fact is that Iran’s nuclear activities are fully under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and reports by the UN nuclear monitoring body give a clean bill of health to the Islamic Republic. Furthermore, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has said in a fatwa that developing a nuclear bomb is religiously forbidden. Regarding the second standpoint, it is important to know that Iran has never hidden its military and missile achievements. Iran says it is entitled to boost its military strength and the US cannot ask Iran to dismantle its missile program. The world remembers well that the US, France, Britain, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the former Soviet Union supplied Iraq with weapons during its invasion of Iran in the 1980s. Iran was left alone and it had to manufacture its own weaponry. Naturally, such a country must be equipped with the most advanced and most effective defense gear in order to spare any infringement upon its territorial integrity. Such a level of

Forbes.com OPINION/Op-Ed The Dangerous Degradation of the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal By MICHAEL AUSLIN February 27, 2014 Nuclear war seems so passe. The Soviet Union collapsed nearly a quarter-century ago. The war in the shadows of counterinsurgency and counterterrorism has defined a generation of combat. Yet earlier this month, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel convened the nation’s senior military leaders for an emergency meeting on America’s nuclear force. Firings, cheating and drug scandals, and continued inspection failures have resulted in a crisis for what once was the symbol of U.S. strength. Even more worryingly, just as America’s nuclear warriors struggle to regain the confidence of the country’s civilian leadership, our two-decade nuclear holiday is ending. Contrary to President Obama’s dream of a “global zero” future without nuclear weapons, proliferation of the world’s most dangerous weapons is increasing. The Pentagon must revitalize its strategic forces or face the dangers of becoming increasingly unable to respond to a more unstable world of nuclear powers. Even as America’s strategic force took second place to nation building and Middle East wars in recent years, the global nuclear balance shifted permanently. Though Washington refuses to admit it, North Korea became a nuclear-capable state that also obtained long-range ballistic missile capability. Despite the assurances of the Obama Administration, Iran has secured for itself a breathing space while international negotiations allow it to continue building its nuclear program largely unmolested from the world community. China, meanwhile, has just tested a mobile long-range ballistic nuclear missile that can hit U.S. targets, which is just part of their expanding nuclear capability. They also have begun building a ballistic missile submarine force. India and Pakistan continue to earn analysts’ predictions that their border is the most likely spot on earth for a nuclear exchange. Each recently has fielded new missiles for their nuclear forces. To top it off, Vladimir Putin is modernizing Russia’s massive nuclear and missile force as he regains Moscow’s influence in Europe and Asia. Yet while the world has been embracing the atomic bomb, the U.S. nuclear mission degraded. Only the U.S. and UK, among all declared nuclear powers, are not currently modernizing either their weapons inventory or delivery systems. Standards in the U.S. nuclear force have also fallen. The Air Force suffered a series of embarrassing mishaps in the 2000s, for example, mistakenly ferrying live nuclear weapons across the country and shipping nuclear triggers to Taiwan. The deputy commander of U.S. Strategic Command, the successor to the Cold War Issue No.1104, 28 February 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 36 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama Strategic Air Command, was relieved of duty in October 2014 for using fake poker chips at a casino, which is a criminal offense. A week later, the Air Force very publicly fired the two-star general in charge of America’s 450 ICBM’s for personal misconduct while on an official visit to Moscow. In January, the news came that dozens of ICBM launch teams cheated on tests. Now, the specter of a beleaguered U.S. nuclear force facing a world with stronger nuclear powers and more proliferation is causing a mini-renaissance of the nuclear mission. There is no question that the country’s senior nuclear leaders are committed to revitalizing their mission and instilling the “exemplary leadership and personal conduct above reproach” needed to operate the world’s most dangerous weapons, as current Deputy Commander of U.S. Strategic Command Lieutenant General James Kowalski recently told me. Yet the Obama Administration must move more quickly to plan for a future in which nuclear weapons are likely to play a greater role in national defense. Hard as it may be to accept, Dr. Strangelove is back. The Air Force is only just beginning developing a next generation bomber to replace its half-century old B-52s, 1980s-era B-1s, and tiny force of 20 B-2’s from the 1990s. While bombers evoke Cold War images, they will be increasingly important in the coming decades. Unlike missiles, bombers can be recalled, which is a vital part of America’s response to the proliferation of nuclear capabilities to rogue regimes like Iran, as well as a flexible deterrent to major nuclear powers such as China. It needs to be remembered that we have no effective hotline with Beijing or other types of understanding such as existed between Moscow and Washington even in the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The U.S. Navy is beginning work on the successor to its 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, which carry roughly half of America’s operationally deployed nuclear forces, and are the most survivable of all U.S. nuclear forces. The SSBN(X) will need to have a 40-year service life starting around 2030, but with an estimated cost of $6- 8 billion each, the program will face budget battles. Even America’s land-based nuclear missiles are being eyed for replacement, given that the Minuteman III ICBM entered service beginning in 1970 and finished production in 1978. Our nuclear weapons, too, need updating, since our current warheads were designed and built from the 1960s (for the gravity dropped bombs) to the 1980s (for the latest land-based ballistic missiles). As this nuclear renaissance gains steam, funds for nuclear modernization and upkeep must not be reduced, despite budget cuts affecting the overall military. There must remain a full commitment to the Long Range Strike Bomber and SSBN(X), in particular, as well as to extending the life of the warheads. The expense of the nuclear enterprise, expected to cost $132 billion over the next decade, is daunting in an age of austerity, but the specter of more nuclear weapons in the hands of aggressive or unstable regimes around the globe is a reminder that security never comes cheaply. In conjunction with modernization, stressing the importance of nuclear weapons will help reduce the low morale and cheating among missile crews. More robust intellectual engagement is also needed. In December, Air Force Global Strike Command ran its first nuclear wargame, codenamed Strategic Vigilance, in response to the new threat environment. This is the right approach. To it should be added the encouragement of a new generation of civilian nuclear thinkers with insight into political and economic factors that can be embraced by U.S. Strategic Command and its subordinate nuclear commands. While the days of the iconic SAC may be over, the nuclear triad is sure to become far more important over the next twenty years than it has been for the last twenty. The dramatic uncertainty that will result from an Iranian nuclear capability or a North Korean weapon, not to mention fears about a stronger nuclear China and Russia, will make strategic vulnerability at home once again at the forefront of security planning. Political leaders today must start thinking again how nuclear weapons fit into the larger mosaic of America’s security plans in an increasingly uncertain future. Mr. Auslin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/02/27/the-dangerous-degradation-of-the-u-s-nuclear-arsenal/ Return to Top Issue No.1104, 28 February 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 USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal Maxwell AFB, Alabama

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. Return to Top