Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 Articles & Other Documents: Featured Article: LAWLOR: Nuclear Trafficking: A Growing Threat

1. Nuclear Weapons Threat Not Decreasing, Study Says 2. New Data Suggests Iran Military Link: U.N. Atom Chief 3. Iran to Answer IAEA’s New Questions if Alleged Studies Declared Closed: Official 4. US should Dissuade Iran from Making Nukes: Study 5. Iranian Navy Deploys Submarines in High Seas 6. 'Iran could Produce a Nuclear Weapon within Two Months' It Is Claimed as UN Atomic Watchdog Reveals Concerns 7. IISS Launches North Korea Nuke Study 8. SKorea Vows Strong Response to any North Attacks 9. S. Korea's Nuke Envoy to Visit China over Embittered N. Korea 10. Safety of Pakistan’s Nukes 11. With China in Mind, Agni-V Test Scheduled for December 12. Pak Nukes ‘200% Safe’: Malik 13. South Asia Nuclear Weapons Race Hots Up 14. Food Chain at Risk of Being Poisoned by Terrorist Groups 15. House Panel Cuts More Than $1 Billion in Nuclear Agency Funds 16. "First Joint U.S.-Russia Assessment of Nuclear Terror Threat" 17. LAWLOR: Nuclear Trafficking: A Growing Threat 18. Georgia-Russia Conflict Underscores the Threat of Cyber War 19. The Missile Defense Hyperbole Game 20. Iran Wants the Bomb, and It’s Well on Its Way: Jeffrey Goldberg

Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal. As part of USAF Counterproliferation Center’s mission to counter weapons of mass destruction through education and research, we’re providing our government and civilian community a source for timely counterproliferation information. This information includes articles, papers and other documents addressing issues pertinent to US military response options for dealing with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats and countermeasures. It’s our hope this information resource will help enhance your counterproliferation issue awareness.

Established in 1998, the USAF/CPC provides education and research to present and future leaders of the Air Force, as well as to members of other branches of the armed services and Department of Defense. Our purpose is to help those agencies better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Please feel free to visit our web site at http://cpc.au.af.mil/ for in-depth information and specific points of contact. The following articles, papers or documents do not necessarily reflect official endorsement of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or other US government agencies. Reproduction for private use or commercial gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. All rights are reserved.

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 The following articles, papers or documents do not necessarily reflect official endorsement of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or other US government agencies. Reproduction for private use or commercial gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. All rights are reserved.

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

Defense News Nuclear Weapons Threat Not Decreasing, Study Says Agence France-Presse (AFP) June 6, 2011 STOCKHOLM - More than 5,000 nuclear weapons are deployed around the world and nuclear powers continue investing in new weapon systems, making meaningful disarmament in the near future unlikely, a report published Tuesday said. "More than 5,000 nuclear weapons are deployed and ready for use, including nearly 2,000 that are kept in a high state of alert," according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). SIPRI's report said the world's eight nuclear powers - Britain, China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the U.S. - possess more than 20,500warheads. As of January 2011, Russia had 11,000 nuclear warheads, including 2,427deployed, while the United States had 8,500 including 2,150 deployed, the report said. The U.S. and Russia have signed a Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) that calls for a maximum of 1,550 warheads deployed per country. However SIPRI argued that prospects for meaningful disarmament in the short-term are grim as all eight countries seem committed to either improving or maintaining their nuclear programs. "The five legally recognized nuclear weapons states, as defined by the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty are either deploying new nuclear weapon systems or have announced their intention to do so," the report said, referring to Britain, China, France, Russia and the U.S. India and Pakistan are "expanding their capacity to produce fissile material for military purposes," according to the report. SIPRI Director Daniel Nord said south Asia, where relations between India and Pakistan seem perpetually tense, is "the only place in the world where you have a nuclear weapons arms race." While Israel, which has never conclusively declared itself a nuclear weapons state but is almost universally assumed to be one, "appears to be waiting to assess how the situation with Iran's nuclear program develops," SIPRI said. Nord argued that because "nuclear weapons states are modernizing and are investing in their nuclear weapons establishments (it) seems unlikely that there will be any real nuclear weapon disarmament within the foreseeable future." The report said that North Korea "is believed to have produced enough plutonium to build a small number of nuclear warheads, but there is no public information to verify that it has operational nuclear weapons." Nord identified Pakistan "losing control of part of its nuclear arsenal" to a terrorist group as a specific concern. He also voiced worry over the potential consequences if "Israel or the United States decide that they will have to intervene and do something about the program in Iran." Iran has repeatedly insisted that its nuclear program is non-military, but several world powers have demanded closer international inspection of Iran's nuclear sites to verify the claim. SIPRI is an independent institution that receives 50 percent of its funding from the Swedish state. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6725053&c=EUR&s=TOP (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Chicago Tribune New Data Suggests Iran Military Link: U.N. Atom Chief Reuters June 6, 2011 VIENNA (Reuters) - The U.N. atomic watchdog has received further information regarding activities that "seem to point to the existence" of possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program, the agency's head said on Monday. "There are indications that certain of these activities may have continued until recently," Yukiya Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said in a speech to the agency's 35-nation governing board. Amano's statement underlined the U.N. body's concern that the Islamic Republic may be working to develop a nuclear-armed missile. Tehran rejects such suspicions, saying its nuclear program has only civilian aims, mainly generating electricity. Amano did not disclose the source of the new information. For several years, the IAEA has been investigating Western intelligence reports indicating Iran had coordinated efforts to process uranium, test explosives at high altitude and revamp a ballistic missile cone so it can take a nuclear warhead. Amano said he had written last month to the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, "reiterating the agency's concerns about the existence of possible military dimensions." He had also asked for Iran to "provide prompt access" to locations, equipment, documentation and officials to help clarify the agency's queries. Amano made clear that Iran's response had not been satisfactory, saying he had sent a new letter to Abbasi-Davani on June 3 "in which I reiterated the agency's requests to Iran." Reporting by Fredrik Dahl and Sylvia Westall; Editing by Alistair Lyon. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt-us-nuclear-iran-iaeatre7551hw-20110606,0,5987846.story (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Tehran Times – Iran Monday, June 6, 2011 Iran to Answer IAEA’s New Questions if Alleged Studies Declared Closed: Official Tehran Times Political Desk TEHRAN – An Iranian diplomat says Tehran is ready to answer the International Atomic Energy Agency’s new questions about its nuclear program if the agency declares the alleged weapons studies “closed”. Ali Asghar Soltanieh announced that Atomic Energy Organization of Iran chief Fereydoun Abbasi has replied to IAEA director Yukiya Amano’s recent letter, rejecting claims that Iran plans to develop nuclear weapons and urging the IAEA to put aside the alleged weapons studies. “In (Abbasi’s) letter, the IAEA director general has been asked to declare closed the alleged studies, and if this matter is declared closed and Iran’s (nuclear) dossier is returned to normal status, Iran is ready to cooperate on any (new) question and accusation,” Soltanieh explained.

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

He added that Iran in a 118-page document has responded to the issue of alleged studies, proving that the claims are unfounded. Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA also said that the Islamic Republic has cleared up all the ambiguities over its nuclear activities under the modality plan signed by Tehran and the UN nuclear watchdog in 2007, and at the time it was agreed that no new issue is raised, but the IAEA has reneged on the agreement. “Based on the modality (plan), all the matters between Iran and the IAEA are closed, so the agency should put away the issues relating to the modality (plan),” he said. “If the agency declares closed the issues relating to modality (plan), Iran is ready to answer (new questions), but (cooperation) is impossible if the agency doesn’t meet its commitments,” he added. http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=241924 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Gulf News – U.A.E. US should Dissuade Iran from Making Nukes: Study The goal of the United States should be to discourage Iran from making nuclear weapons, according to a new study. By Agence France-Presse (AFP) June 7, 2011 Washington: With Iran now largely capable of developing a nuclear weapon, the goal of US policy should be to dissuade it from taking the fateful, next step of making a weapon, urged a study released on Tuesday. And if it fails, the United States should have a strategy worked out to deter a nuclear armed Iran, said the study by the Rand Corporation, which was sponsored by the US Air Force. "There is still time to dissuade Iran from weaponising its program," said Alireza Nader, one of the authors of the report, "Iran's Nuclear Future: Critical US Policy Choices." The report reflects a shift in US policy circles over how to deal with Iran as mounting international sanctions on the regime have failed to reverse the direction of its nuclear program. Calls for military strikes to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities have faded as the implications for the region have sunk in. Even in Israel, which has long viewed Tehran as an existential threat, comments by a former intelligence chief have exposed doubts about how to deal with the threat. Further complicating the policy choices facing the United States is the Arab Spring, which may usher in regimes who prefer a softer approach toward Iran in countries that currently host US forces. The Rand report said Iran already has largely acquired the materials, equipment and technology needed to develop a nuclear weapon. "International efforts to control exports and interdict trade can now only hope to slow Iran's progress and possibly deny it the specific technologies needed, for example, for nuclear warhead miniaturisation and for mating a warhead on a missile. "Thus, the Iranian action that the United States will wish to dissuade in the future will be nuclear weaponization," it said. The report's authors argue that there are factions and personalities within Iran with differing views over whether or not to 'weaponise' the country's nuclear program, and US and international pressure can still affect the outcome of the debate. "We see such a goal as facing really serious obstacles but believe it is too soon to give up trying," said Lynn Davis, a former undersecretary of state for arms control and international security who led the study.

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

"It is still possible in our view to influence the outcome of the internal political debate in Iran," she said. "The bottom line from our point of view is - shared by the intelligence community - that Iran has yet to make a decision with respect to its nuclear program," she said in a conference call. Echoing the report, she emphasised the need for an integrated US strategy that anticipates the future evolution of the Iranian nuclear program, rather than policies "we see today arising primarily from the art of the possible." While it makes no specific policy recommendations, the report analyzes the pros and cons of various strategies to dissuade Iran from "weaponising," and how they are likely to suit US partners in the region. These include various forms of sanctions and military steps that could be taken to show Iran that it will pay a price and can gain nothing from such a fateful step. But it also includes a chapter on deterring Iran if it does acquire nuclear weapons, either declaring itself a nuclear state or maintaining an ambiguous posture by not admitting to having the weapons. Among the possible military steps suggested in the report were exercises and temporary deployments of nuclear capable bombers in the region, and committing nuclear capable assets for planning purposes to respond to Iran's use of nuclear weapons. To deny Iran any gain from developing nuclear weapons, the United States could seek capabilities to seek, locate and destroy Iranian weapons before they are launched, the report said. The report also had some advice for the US Air Force: design exercises that show it can put Iran's nuclear capabilities at risk, but be sensitive to how such shows of force might impact the internal debate in Iran. "Because there is the prospect that Iran could develop nuclear weapons, either a virtual capability or a declared capability, it is now time for the United States and others to begin to think about how deterrence might be achieved, again influencing Iran in the potential use of its nuclear weapons," Davis said. "I would suspect there is some planning going on, but our value here is helping planners not only here in the United States but around the world to think about the future," she said. http://gulfnews.com/news/region/iran/us-should-dissuade-iran-from-making-nukes-study-1.818469 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

FARS News Agency – Iran Tuesday, June 7, 2011 Iranian Navy Deploys Submarines in High Seas TEHRAN (FNA) - Informed sources said that the Iranian Navy has deployed its submarines in far seas as part of its plan for widening its naval presence in the high seas and oceans. An informed source told FNA on Tuesday that the submarines were deployed in international waters together with the dispatch of 14th fleet of warships sent by Iran to the high seas. The move comes after high-ranking Navy commanders announced preparedness to send submarines to long-term missions. The source said that Iran's fleet of warships is now in the Red Sea as part of its naval mission. "Identifying combat vessels of the different world countries, collecting information about sea beds in international waters are among the main tasks of these submarines," the source added. The Iranian Navy dispatched its 14th flotilla of warships to the Gulf of Aden in May to protect the country's cargo ships and oil tankers against Somali pirates.

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

The 14th fleet of warships, comprised of IRI Bandar Abbas Warship and IRI Shahid Naqdi Destroyer, is tasked with patrolling and providing security for Iran's shipping lines. In March, a senior Navy commander of the Iranian Army stressed the need for the Navy to boost its naval deployments outside the country's territorial waters as a strategic force. "The Navy is in the middle of field and should be present all throughout the world seas," Lieutenant Commander of the Iranian Navy Rear Admiral Gholam-Reza Khadem Biqam said at the time. Also in March, Commander of Iran's Navy Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari announced that the Iranian Navy planned to expand its operational zone far beyond the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman in the next Iranian year (started on March 21). In December, Sayyari said that the country was deploying submarines in the high seas to further boost its military power. "To become the superior power in the region, we should turn into a regional power in military defense, and we should prove our might and capability not only inside, but also outside the region," he continued. The Iranian Army Navy and the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Navy have tight cooperation in controlling the country's waterways and protecting Iran's interests inside territorial waters and in the high seas. Iran's naval power has even been acknowledged by foes. In a Sep. 11, 2008 report, the Washington Institute for the Near East Policy said that in the two decades since the Iraqi imposed war on Iran, the Islamic Republic has excelled in naval capabilities and is able to wage unique asymmetric warfare against larger naval forces. According to the report, Iran's Navy has been transformed into a highly motivated, well-equipped, and well- financed force and is effectively in control of the world's oil lifeline, the Strait of Hormuz. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9003170800 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Daily Mail – U.K. 'Iran could Produce a Nuclear Weapon within Two Months' It Is Claimed as UN Atomic Watchdog Reveals Concerns By Daily Mail Reporter 7 June 2011

 IAEA voicing growing concern about Iran nuclear work  UN agency wants prompt access to sites and officials  Iran denies military aims, rebuffs cooperation request Iran is only a matter of months from being able to create a nuclear weapon, according to experts. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 54, has long been pushing his country's nuclear capabilities, and at the current rate of uranium enrichment the first bomb could be eight weeks away. Gregory S Jones, from RAND, published a report this week explaining the severity of the situation and to confirm the fears expressed by a United Nations watchdog. In spite of a number of setbacks, says the researcher, the Iranian regime is back on track with their nuclear programme - and there is very little American, or the U.N. can do about it. Jones based his report on recent findings by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - their report was published two weeks ago.

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Manufacturing the bomb will take about two months, Jones believes - as constructing a nuclear warhead is a complicated process. In order to halt the process, Jones comments, forces will have to deploy ground forces - airstrikes will no longer be sufficient. He believes that Tehran, the Iranian capital, has produced 38.3kg of uranium enriched at 19.7 per cent. If its centrifuges continue to work at the current capacity, it will take around two months for the Iranian regime to produce the 20 kg of uranium enriched to 90 per cent required for the production of a nuclear warhead. Meanwhile Yukiya Amano, director general of the 35-nation IAEA, made clear in a speech his growing frustration at the Islamic state's failure to answer agency queries about its nuclear programme. His remarks are likely to be welcomed by Western powers as a sign that he is gradually ratcheting up the pressure on Iran - but the hope is that he is not too late. The U.S. and its allies accuse Iran of seeking to develop an atomic weapons capability. Iran rejects the accusation, saying its nuclear programme is aimed at generating electricity so that it can export more of its oil and gas. For several years, the IAEA has been investigating Western intelligence reports indicating Iran has coordinated efforts to process uranium, test explosives at high altitude and revamp a ballistic missile cone so it can take a nuclear warhead. Western diplomats believe Amano is in effect warning Tehran to co-operate or face a possible assessment by the IAEA on the likelihood it has conducted nuclear activity with possible military aspects. Such an assessment could lend weight to any renewed Western push to tighten sanctions on the major oil producer. Amano said the U.N. agency had received 'further information related to possible past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities that seem to point to the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme'. The Japanese later told a news conference, without disclosing the source of the information: 'The activities in Iran related to the possible military dimension seem to have been continued until quite recently.' Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment, activity which can have both civilian and military uses, has drawn four rounds of U.N. sanctions since 2006. Amano said he had written last month to the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, to reiterate 'the agency's concerns about the existence of possible military dimensions'. He had also asked for Iran to 'provide prompt access' to locations, equipment, documentation and officials to help resolve the agency's queries. Abbasi-Davani replied and said U.N. sanctions resolutions against his country were 'illegal and unacceptable'. Iran was 'not providing the necessary cooperation to enable the agency to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran', Amano said. 'I urge Iran to take steps towards the full implementation of all relevant obligations in order to establish international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme,' he added. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394901/Iran-produce-nuclear-weapon-months-claimed-U-N-atomic- watchdog-reveals-concerns.html# (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Defense News IISS Launches North Korea Nuke Study By WENDELL MINNICK 4 June 2011 SINGAPORE - North Korea's third nuclear test will likely be a highly enriched uranium (HEU) bomb, and neither China nor the United States can stop or reverse Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program. These are the conclusions of a new study by Jonathan Pollack, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, at a book launch at the Shangri-La Dialogue on June 3 in Singapore. "No Exit: North Korea, Nuclear Weapons and International Security" looks at how North Korea has staked its future on the development of nuclear weapons and why the hermit nation will never surrender them. Organized by the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), the book launch is part of the 10th Asia Security Summit, dubbed The Shangri-La Dialogue, being held June 3-5 in Singapore. The book is part of IISS Adelphi book series that looks at international defense and security issues. North Korea conducted two underground plutonium bomb tests in 2006 and 2009, and has been developing advanced long-range ballistic missile capabilities that could someday threaten the continental U.S. Pollack looks at why North Korea disregards United Nations censure and openly circumvents sanctions by selling weapons and technology to other pariah nations to fund its nuclear program. North Korea is more of a traditional Korean dynasty and not a communist state, Pollack said. The Kim family has successfully ignored efforts by China and the U.S. to influence it to abandon its nuclear program and adopt capitalist reforms. Instead, the Kim family has created an "impregnable fortress" that protects the family dynasty. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and China's push towards improved relations with South Korea during the 1980s and 1990s, North Korea became concerned that its traditional protectors would abandon it. The only course of action was to create a mechanism that guaranteed its survivability. Nuclear weapons have clearly served that purpose well, he said. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once referred to North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons as a "small child seeking attention." Pollack does not believe this is the correct analogy. "This is a system of old men who have made the pursuit of these capabilities their life time work." He pointed out that North Korea made a conscious decision to begin a nuclear program in the 1970s, as ties between Beijing and Washington began improving. Despite the fact that North Korea occasionally "drops hints" the nuclear program is a "bargaining chip" that can be exchanged for rice and oil, the reality is that Pyongyang has no intention of surrendering the capability. The best course of action, Pollack said, is to continue sanctions and other pressure that slows further development, especially efforts by the North to miniaturize a nuclear warhead for fitting on a ballistic missile. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6721238&c=ASI&s=TOP (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Boston Globe SKorea Vows Strong Response to any North Attacks By Alex Kennedy, Associated Press June 4, 2011 SINGAPORE—South Korea warned Saturday that any future attacks by North Korea would be met by a very strong response, saying that Pyongyang is becoming increasingly bold in its provocations.

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

South Korea must react to any future attacks by the North with stiffer responses than in the past, Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin said at a regional security conference in Singapore. "Proactive deterrence means that if there is a provocation, we will respond very strongly," Kim said. "I don't think we can be reserved because they are being bolder and bolder." Tensions between the two countries that share the Korean peninsula have jumped since two deadly attacks blamed on North Korea last year. The North has denied involvement in the sinking of a warship in March 2010 that killed 46 South Korean sailors and argued that a November artillery barrage that killed four was provoked by South Korean firing drills. In remarks earlier Saturday at the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue security forum, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said North Korea's development of long-range missiles and nuclear weapons put the country "in the process of becoming a direct threat to the United States." Gates said the U.S. is seeking to persuade North Korea to follow international norms through negotiations with the participants in stalled six-nation nuclear disarmament talks that involve the two Koreas, Japan, China, Russia and the U.S. "The United States has no interest in regime change," Gates said. "We have no interest in destabilizing North Korea." North Korea vowed Friday to launch "retaliatory military actions" against South Korea, a threat that came days after Seoul said its military had used photos of Pyongyang's ruling family for target practice. "From now on," the North "will launch practical and overall retaliatory military actions to wipe out the group of traitors at a stroke," said a statement from an unidentified spokesman for the general staff of the North's Korean People's Army. South Korean marines and some army units had used pictures of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, his son and heir- apparent Kim Jong Un, and his father, the North's revered founder Kim Il Sung, as firing targets since the North's deadly shelling of a South Korean border island in November. The South said Tuesday that it would tell units to use only standard targets. Kim Kwan-jin said North Korea has been insincere in previous talks and must change its attitude for South Korea to return to formal discussions. http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/06/04/skorea_vows_strong_response_to_any_north_att acks/ (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Yonhap News – South Korea June 7, 2011 S. Korea's Nuke Envoy to Visit China over Embittered N. Korea SEOUL, June 7 (Yonhap) -- Amid dwindling hope for inter-Korean talks, South Korea's nuclear envoy will fly to China, North Korea's top ally, this week, the foreign ministry said Tuesday, after Pyongyang announced angrily it would no longer deal with Seoul. Wi Sung-lac, who represents South Korea in the stalled six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear arms programs, will meet with his Chinese counterpart Wu Dawei during his two-day trip that begins on Wednesday, the ministry here said in a statement. North Korea declared last week it would no longer speak to South Korea, accusing Seoul of breaching trust by divulging details of their secret overseas contact aimed at setting up a summit.

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

The denunciation came amid hopes that the North would soon extend an offer to the South for nuclear dialogue between the divided countries that would help restart the six-party talks, which also include the United States, Russia and Japan. The bitter relations between the Koreas are expected to be on Wi's agenda when he travels to Beijing, the ministry said. China, which hosts the six-party talks, had proposed that the two Koreas first hold a dialogue. "The two sides will assess the current situation regarding the North Korean problem and the recent inter-Korean relations and exchange broad opinions on future measures," the ministry said. The planned meeting in Beijing comes as Kurt Campbell, U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, is set to arrive in South Korea on Friday. The senior U.S. diplomat was scheduled to fly out of China later Tuesday to Mongolia. In a related development, the foreign ministry here said Russia's deputy nuclear envoy to the six-party talks will arrive in Seoul on Thursday. It did not say whether Grigory Logvinov would rendezvous with Campbell in Seoul, even though he is set to meet with Wi on Friday before leaving over the weekend. The six-party talks, which seek to denuclearize North Korea through negotiations, have not been held since late 2008. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/northkorea/2011/06/07/10/0401000000AEN20110607007000315F.HTML (Return to Articles and Documents List)

The Nation – Pakistan Safety of Pakistan’s Nukes By ASHRAF JAVED June 4, 2011 In the aftermath of Osama bin Laden’s death in Abbottabad, the US, some western countries, India and Israel have launched anti-Pakistan propaganda campaign suggesting that Pakistan is the “hub of terrorism” and Al-Qaeda leaders have taken shelter in Pakistan. Some days after the Osama episode, militants’ attack on Pakistan Navy’s PNS Mehran base in Karachi has been fully manipulated by these foreign elements. The aim of such events is to show that if Pakistan cannot defend its bases and cannot locate Osama in a garrison like Abbottabad, how can it defend its nuclear assets and prevent them from falling in the hands of terrorists and extremists. In this connection, on May 24, the head of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that he was confident that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons were safe but admitted that security had become a matter of concern. The following day, Defence Minister AK Antony of India pointed out that India is deeply concerned about the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals after a group of terrorists laid siege to a heavily guarded naval base. Despite repeated assurances by Pakistan’s military and civil leadership that nuclear weapons are safe, and are under tight security arrangements, having well-coordinated command and control system, a deliberate campaign about the safety of these atomic weapons continue in one or the other form by the US and Indian media. The evidence of terrorist attack on Mehran base points towards the involvement of Indian intelligence agency RAW, which conducted this attack with the consent of CIA and tactical support of Israeli spy agency Mossad. These agencies got the services of a group of Al-Qaeda, which is also collectively being used by the anti-Pakistan lobbies of America, India and Israel. The fact of the matter is that through Abbottabad action and the naval base assault, CIA, RAW and Mossad have intensified their nefarious agenda against Pakistan.

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

In this context, firstly, with the help of American and Indo-Israeli lobbies, they are distorting the image of Pakistan in the comity of nations. Secondly, America wants to increase drone attacks on Pakistan - extending it to Balochistan and other major cities of the country. Thirdly, without bothering for any backlash inside Pakistan, America wants to intensify its pressure on Islamabad by emphasising its old policy to ‘do more’ against the militants. After creating unrest and destabilising Pakistan through these acts, Washington wants to show to the world that Pak nuclear weapons are insecure, Al-Qaeda- related militants can lay a hand on the same and these non-state actors can also use these atomic weapons inside the American homeland and Europe. In that scenario, the US is likely to ask Pakistan to rollback its nuclear program and to hand over its all nuclear weapons to the US. In case of refusal to act upon American demands, US can conduct full-fledged aerial strikes on Pakistan’s nuclear and military installations to further weaken the country. In 2009, when the heavily-armed Taliban entered Dir, Buner and other adjoining areas, US high officials and their media had left no stone unturned in exaggerating the Talibinisation of whole Pakistan, while indicating concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. For example, on April 22, 2009, Hillary Clinton stated that Taliban advances pose “a serious threat” to Pakistan, while on April 23; she warned that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists. Admiral Mike Mullen and General David Petraeus, Commander of US Central Command had also expressed similar thoughts. Surprisingly, when Pakistan’s Armed Forces ejected the Taliban insurgents out of Swat, Dir and Buner by breaking their backbone including command and control system—capturing many militants, the same American high officials started admiring the Pak Army. But in wake of the present strained relations between Islamabad and Washington, they have again revived their old blame game against Islamabad bringing the security of nuclear weapons under question. Pakistan is the only Islamic country that possesses nuclear weapons, which are not being tolerated by the ‘nuclearised’ America, India and Israel who want to destabilise Pakistan. So, there is a co-relationship between Pak atomic weapons and destabilisation of Pakistan. The militants enter Pakistan from Afghanistan where India has established a number of secret training camps, and where its military personnel have been imparting training to the youngsters, having connections with the Pakistani Taliban. In fact, under the pretext of Talibanisation of Pakistan and lawlessness in the country, which has been accelerated by CIA, RAW and Mossad, US is preparing ground to ‘denculearise’ Pakistan by propagating that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are not safe. http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/04-Jun-2011/Safety-of- Pakistans-nukes (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Times of India – India With China in Mind, Agni-V Test Scheduled for December By Rajat Pandit, Tamil News Network (TNN) June 4, 2011 NEW DELHI: India finally plans to test its most ambitious strategic missile Agni-V, with near ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) capabilities, this December after some delay. With high road mobility, fast-reaction ability and a strike range over 5,000 km, Agni-V would even bring China's northernmost regions within its nuclear strike envelope if it is ever required. The armed forces are already inducting the two-stage 3,500-km Agni-III after completion of its developmental and pre-induction trials last year, having earlier operationalised the Pakistan-specific Agni-I (700-km) and Agni-II (over 2,000-km) missiles.

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

The Agni-V, in turn, is meant to add some much-needed credible deterrence muscle against China, which has a massive nuclear arsenal with missiles like the 11,200-km Dong Feng-31A capable of hitting any Indian city. For one, it will be quite easy to store and swiftly transport the 17.5-metre tall Agni-V by road since it's a canister- launch missile system, unlike the earlier Agni missiles. If fired from the North-East, for instance, it would be able to hit China's northernmost city of Habin. For another, Agni-V would also carry MIRV (multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles) payloads being concurrently developed. A single MIRVed missile can deliver multiple warheads at different targets even if they are separated by long distances. "We have tested the three (solid-propellant composite rocket motor) stages of Agni-V independently...all ground tests are now over. The integration process is now in progress. We want to test the missile in December, not let it spill over to 2012," DRDO chief V K Saraswat told TOI on Friday. This came after defence minister A K Antony, addressing the annual DRDO awards ceremony, asked defence scientists to "demonstrate" the 5,000-km missile's capability "at the earliest". With a "launch mass" of around 50 tonne and a development cost of over Rs 2,500 crore, Agni-V will incorporate advanced technologies involving ring laser gyroscope and accelerator for navigation and guidance. It takes its first stage from Agni-III, with a modified second stage and a miniaturized third stage to ensure it can fly to distances beyond 5,000 km. An ICBM, incidentally, usually denotes a missile capable of hitting targets over 5,500 km away, and has largely been the preserve of the Big-5 countries till now. DRDO is also gearing up for another test of its two-tier BMD (ballistic missile defence) system, designed to track and destroy hostile missiles both inside (endo) and outside (exo) the earth's atmosphere, around this August with a new interceptor missile called PDV to add to the existing ones. Antony, on his part, said, "The interceptor missile development programme has taken India into an elite club of nations that possess the capability to demonstrate and deploy missile defence. DRDO should now also work towards developing a credible BMD for our country." http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-04/india/29620558_1_agni-v-canister-launch-missile-system- dong-feng-31a (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Hindustan Times – India Pak Nukes ‘200% Safe’: Malik Press Trust of India, Hindustan Times Islamabad, June 06, 2011 Asserting that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are “200% safe” despite a series of terror attacks on military installations, interior minister Rehman Malik said the country has strong monitoring and control mechanisms in place to protect its atomic programme. Though the recent attack on the PNS Mehran Naval airbase in Karachi and detection of Osama bin Laden in the garrison city of Abbottabad triggered fears that there could be rogue elements in Pakistani military, Malik told Newsweek magazine that the country’s “nuclear weapons are 200% safe”. “The assets are well protected and tightly monitored. The [International Atomic Energy Agency] agrees with us. We should be wary of the disinformation being spread against our nuclear programme, including the suggestion that the US may move to denuclearise Pakistan,” Malik said.

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Top US Senator John Kerry, during a recent visit to Pakistan, addressed this “misperception and categorically denied any intention on the part of the US” to take any step against the country’s nuclear assets, Malik said. He also said that some retired military officers or relatives of armed forces personnel may have been involved in the May 22 terrorist raid on the Naval airbase that killed 10 people and destroyed two surveillance aircraft. Malik admitted that “things have heated up” in Pakistan since bin Laden’s killing in a US raid and the country “must brace for the worst”. Seven killed, 10 hurt in Pak blast At least seven people were killed and 10 injured when a bomb planted in a van went off at a bus stop on the outskirts of Peshawar in northwest Pakistan on Sunday. Officials said they had received four bodies, including those of two children and a woman. No group claimed responsibility for the attack. http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/pakistan/Pak-nukes-200-safe-Malik/Article1-706164.aspx (Return to Articles and Documents List)

The Australian – Australia South Asia Nuclear Weapons Race Hots Up By Amanda Hodge, South Asia correspondent June 08, 2011 THE nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan has accelerated sharply in the past year, with both countries increasing their weapons stockpile, a new report warns. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates both countries have increased their nuclear arsenals by up to a third, and that the tense neighbours were "expanding their capacity to produce fissile material for military purposes", the report issued by the institute yesterday reveals. SIPRI director Daniel Nord said south Asia was the only region of the world "where you still have a nuclear weapons arms race". He identified Pakistan losing control of part of its nuclear arsenal to a terrorist group as a particular concern. The institute estimates India's nuclear warheads armoury has increased from between 60 to 80 last year up to 110 now, while Pakistan may have lifted its stockpile from between 70-90 warheads to as many 110. While both countries keep their nuclear inventories secret, the institute said its numbers were based on calculations of their stocks of weapons-grade plutonium, as well as the number of operational nuclear-capable delivery systems. "India and Pakistan continue to develop new ballistic and cruise missile systems capable of delivering nuclear weapons," it says in its 2011 year book, released yesterday. "Currently, neither country is believed to keep its nuclear weapons mounted on missiles and ready for launch. However, recurring crises and the growing familiarity of the military in both countries with nuclear weapons is likely to generate pressures for deployment of nuclear weapons with a launch-on-warning posture - with the attendant grave risk of accidental nuclear war." Pakistan reiterated its readiness to use nuclear deterrence last month, when it tested a short-range Hatf 9 ballistic missile. The launch prompted the Federation of American Scientists Nuclear Information Project to warn that the nuclear-capable missile appeared designed to attack an invading force of Indian soldiers. The south Asian neighbours, who have fought three wars since Pakistan was hived off from the subcontinent in 1947, both stunned the world with nuclear tests in 1998.

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Ten years later, the US lifted a three-decade moratorium on nuclear trade with India, agreeing to provide assistance to India's civilian nuclear energy program and expand bilateral co-operation in energy and satellite technology. Since then, Islamabad has pressured the US for a similar deal, but Washington holds serious concerns over Pakistan's record in transferring nuclear technology to states such as Libya and North Korea, and fears for the stability of the country's nuclear arsenal. Recent militant attacks on supposedly highly secured military facilities, including a 17-hour siege last month of a Karachi naval air base, have heightened concerns that the insurgents could gain access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik insisted this week the country's nuclear arsenal was "200 per cent safe" against an attack. "The assets are well-protected and tightly monitored," he said. "The (International Atomic Energy Agency) agrees with us." The SIPRI report found that the world's nuclear-armed nations - the US, Russia, China, Britain, France, Israel, India and Pakistan - possessed more than 20,500 warheads, and that all eight countries were committed to improving or maintaining their nuclear weapons programs. "More than 5000 nuclear weapons are deployed and ready for use, including nearly 2000 that are kept in a high state of alert," it warned. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/south-asia-nuclear-weapons-race-hots-up/story-e6frg6so- 1226071220752 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

London Telegraph – U.K. Food Chain at Risk of Being Poisoned by Terrorist Groups Food and drink sold in Britain is under a growing threat from terrorist groups which might try to poison supplies, the Government’s security advisers have warned. By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent 04 June 2011 Manufacturers and retailers have been told that their sector is vulnerable to attacks by ideologically and politically motivated groups that may seek to cause widespread casualties and disruption by poisoning food supplies. The warning from the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure [CPNI], which operates as part of the Security Service, comes as experts warned the deadly E.coli outbreak in Germany has highlighted the vulnerability of the food chain and how quickly bacteria can spread. The highly virulent strain has claimed 18 lives and left more than 1,800 seriously ill, with the true number of cases expected to be far higher. A senior German doctor last night called for an investigation into the possibility that the bacteria had been spread deliberately. Klaus-Dieter Zastrow, chief doctor for hygiene at Berlin’s Vivantes hospital, said: “It’s quite possible that there’s a crazy person out there who thinks 'I’ll kill a few people or give 10,000 people diarrhoea’. It’s a negligent mistake not to investigate in that direction.” In the past, the main threat of deliberate contamination of food has been from criminals attempting extortion or from individuals with a grudge, but security officials fear there is an emerging threat from extremist groups such as al-Qaeda, dissident republicans in Northern Ireland and animal rights activists.

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

The CPNI has asked food and drinks producers, suppliers and supermarkets to tighten security at plants and depots and to identify vulnerabilities in supply chains. One official from the CPNI spoke about the threat at a meeting of food safety experts. Addressing a conference of the Society for General Microbiology, he said: “The UK suffers from a low level of malicious contamination of food by the bad, the mad and the sad. Now it has to consider the possibility of food supplies being disrupted by politically motivated groups.” The E.coli outbreak is thought to have been caused by poor hygiene at a farm, in transit, or at a food outlet. Dr Richard Byrne, from the Centre for Rural Security at Harper Adams University College in Shropshire, said: “The outbreak in Germany very much highlights how we produce food and how it is distributed is quite vulnerable in terms of agroterrorism. “The impact on the German economy and fresh vegetable industry in general is huge. The US and Australia are much more publicly aware of the threat from terrorism to the food supply compared to the UK. Groups could go after consumer health in a short- term way by using something like E.coli, or longer term by contaminating with cadmium or radioactive caesium.” The CPNI report sent to companies in the food industry warns of a number of threats. Attackers could contaminate prepared food or drink with bacteria or chemicals. Or, by targeting basic ingredients used in large numbers of foods, they could cause even wider disruption. US experts have warned that the dairy industry is particularly vulnerable, as adding just a few grams of botulinum toxin or ricin to a tanker load of milk could poison or even kill thousands of consumers. The report warns that it is harder to guarantee the security of produce grown abroad and imported to Britain. It adds that such attacks could cause severe economic harm. In one example, a major British producer of pastries was targeted by an attack where peanuts were introduced into a nut-free product. The factory was shut down for five days and products were removed from sale due to the risk of anaphylactic reactions from allergy sufferers. Police ruled out accidental causes and the company lost five per cent of its annual sales. In February, a South African farmer was arrested after allegedly threatening to unleash foot and mouth disease in Britain. He was said to have believed that Britain was responsible for letting Robert Mugabe inflict losses on Zimbabwe’s farming industry. The CPNI report warns: “The food and drink industry in the UK — the food sector of the national infrastructure — could be under threat from ideologically motivated groups. The threat is unlikely to decline in the foreseeable future. This could cause mass casualties, economic disruption and widespread panic.” The report singles out farms as vulnerable because they often employ foreign workers, and urges all businesses to make comprehensive checks on new employees and visiting contractors. Production facilities should have security and perimeter controls, while unscheduled deliveries should not be accepted, it says. In the US, food “bioterrorism” has become a major concern after documents were found in Afghanistan apparently referring to plans by terrorists to contaminate supplies. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8557373/Food-chain-at-risk-of-being-poisoned-by- terrorist-groups.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

National Journal House Panel Cuts More Than $1 Billion in Nuclear Agency Funds

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

By Martin Matishak June 4, 2011 An influential congressional panel on Thursday adopted a fiscal 2012 spending bill that would cut nearly $1 billion in proposed funding from U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration's weapons and nonproliferation programs. The budget blueprint reported out by the House Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee would provide the agency roughly $10.6 billion in fiscal 2012 to maintain the country's nuclear stockpile, conduct nonproliferation activities around the globe, and fund other work -- including its naval nuclear-reactor program and defense environmental cleanup efforts. That dollar amount is about $1.1 billion below the Obama administration's initial request of $11.7 billion for the semiautonomous branch of the Energy Department. Nearly all of the funding reduction would come from the nonproliferation and weapons accounts. The 11-member subcommittee approved the measure by voice vote. There was no dissent. Last week the Republican-controlled House approved a fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill that granted the White House's full funding appeal for the agency. The Obama administration request included close to $7.6 billion for NNSA "weapons activities," which ensure the safety and performance of the nation's atomic arsenal, for the coming budget cycle that begins October 1. The spending measure approved in Thursday's mark-up session would grant about $7.1 billion for that work, according to an initial breakdown of the appropriations bill obtained by Global Security Newswire. That is a decrease of slightly less than $500 million, or 7 percent, from the administration's request, the document shows. In his opening statement, subcommittee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., noted the proposed legislation includes an increase of roughly $195 million from the present budget's allocation for weapons work. That amount was just shy of $6.9 billion. The measure also "fully supports urgent ongoing efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear material worldwide," Frelinghuysen added. Yet the same preliminary breakdown of the spending bill shows NNSA nonproliferation accounts would drop to just above $2 billion, down from the more than $2.5 billion sought by the administration and approved last month by the full chamber. The total reduction would equal roughly $463 million, or 18 percent from the administration proposal, the document states. It also marks a $216 million, or 10 percent, decrease from the appropriated fiscal 2011 level. The panel's lead Democrat, Rep. Ed Pastor of Arizona, complained that NNSA nonproliferation accounts are "reduced significantly" in the next budget year. "The allocation results in a reduction in efforts to secure dangerous materials," he warned. Meanwhile, the nuclear agency's naval nuclear reactor effort would receive roughly $1 billion, a reduction of about $123 million, or 11 percent, from the requested level, according to the preliminary breakdown of the legislation. A report of the specific NNSA defense activity accounts affected under the proposed spending bill will be made available on June 14, the day before the full Appropriations Committee takes up the panel's bill, according to a committee spokeswoman. The legislation approved on Thursday includes "$35 million to support Yucca Mountain activities, including $10 million for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue their review of the license application" and "provisions to forbid the use of funds to close down the program."

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

The Energy Department's decision to shutter the planned radioactive-materials storage site has drawn the bipartisan ire of congressional lawmakers. The project has taken nearly 30 years of the government's time and cost taxpayers about $15 billion, according to a recent Government Accountability Office audit. Overall, the spending package provides roughly $30.6 billion in annual funding for the Energy Department, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as several regional water and power authorities. The subcommittee mark-up on Thursday was attended by Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers, R- Ky., and ranking member Norman Dicks, D-Wash. During the debate, Dicks and other Democrats decried GOP plans to "cut and grow" the nation's economy through spending reductions. The Washington lawmaker labeled the various cuts contained in the bill as "a penny wise, a pound foolish." Rogers, however, applauded the spending measure. "The austerity that the Congress and the country are being faced with is reflected very loudly in this bill," the Kentucky lawmaker said. "It'd be easy to be chairman, it'd be easy to do this job if we were just increasing budgets," added subcommittee member Mike Simpson, R-Idaho. "We have to get serious about constraining growth and spending." Rogers said he intends to have all 12 federal spending bills cleared by the full Appropriations Committee before Congress breaks for August recess. Not every Republican on Capitol Hill was pleased at the news of the proposed spending cuts. The subcommittee's reduction "would negatively impact programs to modernize our nuclear security infrastructure and refurbish our aging nuclear weapons," House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner, R-Ohio, said in a statement on Wednesday. That panel, which has budget-authorization oversight for the nuclear agency, actively lobbied in recent months to ensure NNSA weapons and nonproliferation activities would be spared from GOP budget-cutting measures. The proposed cut to NNSA programs "comes as a surprise" as the spending plan for fiscal 2012 and beyond put forth by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and passed by the full chamber preserved all modernization funds, the Ohio lawmaker added. "I fully recognize and appreciate the fiscal challenges we face. They are not easily overcome. In the face of these challenges we must set priorities and our top priority must be the defense of the nation," according to Turner. An NNSA spokesman declined to comment on the ongoing budget process. http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/house-panel-cuts-more-than-1-billion-in-nuclear-agency-funds- 20110603 (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School Press Release "First Joint U.S.-Russia Assessment of Nuclear Terror Threat" Study Warns of Multiple Dangers, Calls for Urgent Action June 6, 2011 Author: James F. Smith, Communications Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Belfer Center Programs or Projects: The US-Russia Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Researchers from the United States and Russia today issued a joint assessment of the global threat of nuclear terrorism, warning of a persistent danger that terrorists could obtain or make a nuclear device and use it with catastrophic consequences. The first joint threat assessment by experts from the world’s two major nuclear powers concludes: “If current approaches toward eliminating the threat are not replaced with a sense of urgency and resolve, the question will become not if but when, and on what scale, the first act of nuclear terrorism occurs.” The study recommends measures to tighten security over existing nuclear weapons and the nuclear materials terrorists would need to make a crude nuclear bomb, along with expanded police and intelligence cooperation to interdict nuclear smuggling and stop terrorist nuclear plots. The report also calls for improved protection of nuclear facilities that might be sabotaged, and of radiological materials that might be used in a dirty bomb. The report, titled "The U.S.-Russia Joint Threat Assessment on Nuclear Terrorism," released on Monday, June 6, in Cambridge, Mass., and in Moscow, results from a nearly year-long partnership by nuclear security experts from the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School and The Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies in Moscow, a leading Russian research center. The lead U.S. and Russian authors are Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, a senior fellow in the Belfer Center and a former director of intelligence and counter-intelligence at the U.S. Department of Energy, and Pavel S. Zolotarev, a retired army general who is deputy director of Moscow’s Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, at the Russian Academy of Sciences, and former head of the Information and Analysis Center of the Russian Ministry of Defense. “If you look at the U.S. and Russia together, we own about 90% of the problem – more of the weapons, less of the nuclear materials. So it’s only right that these two countries share their expertise and look hard at ways to work together to lower the risks,” said Mowatt-Larssen. “The United States and Russia have never produced a document that could be said to represent a common understanding of the nuclear terrorism threat. This can now be used as a basis for driving action in both governments.” Zolotarev said: "Russia and the United States have paid more attention to nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence, even though neither of our two countries has a political need to rely on mutual nuclear deterrence any longer. As a result we pay insufficient attention to the threat of nuclear terrorism, which constitutes a more real threat than the enormous arsenals of nuclear weapons in both countries. The threat of nuclear terrorism is increasing. Our response should anticipate the dynamics of the threat rather than lag behind it." The researchers’ joint assessment was reviewed and endorsed by a group of retired U.S. and Russian senior military and intelligence officers, led by General Anatoliy S. Kulikov (former Minister of Interior) and General Eugene E. Habiger (former STRATCOM commander). This “Elbe Group” was established in October 2010 to create an informal communication channel on security issues of concern to both the United States and Russia. The Joint Threat Assessment was coordinated by the Kennedy School’s U.S.-Russia Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism, which is directed by William Tobey, a senior fellow in the Belfer Center and former top official in the National Nuclear Security Administration. The assessment project was supported by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a non-profit organization in Washington that works to reduce threats from nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. “The joint threat assessment accomplishes something that so far governments have been unable to do: gauge the threat of nuclear terrorism from differing national perspectives, and thereby form the basis for effective action to defeat it,” said Tobey. “This will help to overcome the number one barrier to improved nuclear security-- complacency. “ Key Findings

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

The joint assessment examines potential terrorist pathways to a nuclear attack, among them buying or stealing an existing weapon, or getting highly enriched uranium or plutonium and fashioning a crude nuclear bomb of their own, which the study warns is distressingly plausible. It also concludes that while the killing of Osama bin Laden damages al Qaeda’s capacity to carry out nuclear terrorism, surviving leaders of the group retain nuclear terror ambitions. The joint report documents that al Qaeda has been working for years to acquire the nuclear materials and expertise needed to make a crude nuclear bomb, getting as far as carrying out explosive tests for their nuclear program in the Afghan desert. The report outlines the steps terrorists could follow and envisions how a terrorist nuclear plot might be structured – and how countries should work together to stop it. The study notes that in addition to al Qaeda, terrorists from the North Caucasus region remain committed to carrying out catastrophic attacks, have carried out reconnaissance at nuclear weapon storage sites, have plotted to hijack a nuclear submarine with nuclear weapons on board, have planted radiological materials in Moscow, and have repeatedly threatened to attack nuclear power plants. These groups include factions in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia and elsewhere. Among the joint assessment’s recommendations:  All stocks of nuclear weapons, highly enriched uranium and plutonium must be protected against all plausible terrorist and criminal threats, and the number of locations where these stocks exist must be reduced as much as practicable.  Coordinated U.S.-Russian leadership is vital for this international effort because the two countries hold the largest nuclear stockpiles and are most experienced in dealing with nuclear security. This joint effort should promote and support enhanced intelligence and law enforcement by UN, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and international police organizations. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/21090/first_joint_usrussia_assessment_of_nuclear_terror_threat. html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Washington Times OPINION/Commentary LAWLOR: Nuclear Trafficking: A Growing Threat Black Sea Region is most likely focus for contraband smugglers By Maj. Gen. Bruce Lawlor, the Washington Times Friday, June 3, 2011 If terrorists ever get their hands on a nuclear bomb or the means to build one, it will likely occur in the area that surrounds and feeds into the Black Sea. This region, which includes Southeast Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia, is with rife ethnic and cultural tensions, weak governance structures, rising nationalism, intense competition for resources, divisive geography, disputed borders, dueling great powers, Islamist terrorism and protracted warfare. It is a good place for terrorists to look for weapons of mass destruction. The United States has invested heavily in helping countries in the region to improve their nuclear security. For the most part, it seems to be working. Nuclear weapons storage facilities are pretty well guarded. Except for Pakistan, the threat of terrorists gaining access to a nuclear bomb in the region has diminished. There is another danger that is of great concern, however. It is the growing connection between nuclear insiders and organized criminal networks in this volatile part of the world. Successful illicit trafficking requires three things: access to the contraband, identification of a potential buyer and safe transport of the goods, usually across international boundaries. Nuclear trafficking cases over the past couple

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530 of decades show a clear pattern. Insiders working within a country's nuclear establishment are almost always responsible for theft of nuclear material but they usually have trouble finding a buyer and figuring out how to transport it across international borders. This lack of know-how on the part of nuclear insiders is not surprising. People who are cleared to handle dangerous nuclear materials do not normally associate with terrorists, nor do they tend to run in circles where knowledge of how to smuggle contraband across international borders is common. The weakness of nuclear insiders is finding an illicit buyer and moving their nuclear contraband clandestinely. So far, these difficulties have worked to the advantage of law enforcement. A significant portion of the reported nuclear smuggling investigations began when police received reports of amateur thieves trying to find buyers interested in purchasing nuclear material. For example, one case began in 1994 when police in St. Petersburg, Russia, heard that three men were offering to sell highly enriched uranium in the local markets. An investigation ensued and the three men were arrested. The pattern appears to be changing in dangerous ways, however. More recent nuclear smuggling cases indicate that experienced illicit traffickers are at work. They suggest that insiders with access and the willingness to steal nuclear material have teamed up with organized criminal networks that know how to move the contraband clandestinely. This alliance creates an illegal distribution chain that is much more secure and thus much more difficult for the police to uncover. A nuclear smuggling case in Georgia in 2006 illustrates the point. The police arrested several Georgian nationals who were attempting to sell highly enriched uranium. The modus operandi used in the operation caught the attention of Georgian nuclear security officials and led to a number of disturbing conclusions. The case began when the Georgian police learned of efforts by Russian sellers to find a buyer for nuclear contraband. The Georgians mounted a sting operation and posed as interested buyers. Then they requested a meeting with the sellers on Georgian soil. At first, the case appeared to be like the others in which naive nuclear insiders were attempting to sell stolen material. The sellers, however, never showed up for the meeting. Instead, they sent a courier with a sample of the illicit material. When the courier arrived, the police "buyers" tested the contraband, determined that it was low-quality material unsuitable for bomb making and refused to buy it. The courier left the meeting and was on his way back to Russia when he was arrested. What the Georgians came to understand is that the courier was conducting a test run of the proposed smuggling route and gathering information on the potential buyers. Had the courier returned successfully to Russia, the real sellers would have gained much useful information. First, they would have known that the route used by the courier to cross the Russian-Georgian border was safe. They could use it to deliver the higher quality contraband. Second, with knowledge of the buyers' identities, they could perform further due diligence, perhaps even use surveillance, to determine whether the buyers were genuine. These are not the tactics of naive nuclear insiders. They are more like what one expects to see from experienced international traffickers. The Georgians had another such event take place in 2010. Globalization has eased the movement of people and goods across international boundaries. The price of highly enriched uranium is running at least $10,000 per gram. The risk-reward calculation is changing in a way that incentivizes illicit traffickers to include nuclear material in the contraband they move. This means that terrorists can become commodities purchasers, much like the buyers of illegal drugs. In short, the odds of terrorists successfully acquiring nuclear material have increased in their favor. Maj. Gen. Bruce Lawlor, retired, is director of Virginia Tech's Center for Technology, Security and Policy. He served at the White House's Homeland Security Council and was the first chief of staff for the Department of Homeland Security. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/3/nuclear-trafficking-a-growing-threat/ (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

Kansas City Star OPINION/Editorial Sunday, June 5, 2011 Georgia-Russia Conflict Underscores the Threat of Cyber War In the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia, cyber warriors aimed computer attacks at the smaller country that disrupted financial institutions’ websites and the government. Given our computer and Internet dependence, this was a harbinger for an ominously threatening kind of war. The Defense Department has now concluded that a highly disruptive cyber attack by a foreign power could be justifiably viewed as an act of war — something requiring retaliation by conventional military means. This conclusion is long overdue. We tend to associate the phrase “acts of war” with outright combat. But the phrase has long covered acts that don’t involve clashing armies or fleets. A naval blockade is an act of war, for example, and a cyber attack could have similar consequences, generating critical shortages or life-threatening disruptions of essential services. Then there’s the risk of a successful cyber attack on the military, something that would be devastating. The armed forces were once “platform-centric.” They were built around weapons “platforms” such as ships, vehicles and planes. Now they are reliant on interlinked computers, which coordinate the movements of widely dispersed ships, planes, satellites and ground troops. The technology that directs the weapons and troops has become the most lucrative target of all. Yet the Pentagon has only taken the first steps in developing a doctrine for grappling with such threats. And it’s still unclear how the source of any attack would be verified, given that this is often murky. The origin of the Stuxnet cyber worm that sabotaged Iran’s nuclear program remains unknown to this day. Pentagon planners say any military response would probably be governed by the notion of equivalence. If a cyber attack causes a high level of disruption or death, a “use of force” response could be called for, but that response must be proportional. The issue of cyber security was highlighted last week after Google said hackers in the northeast Chinese city of Jinan had penetrated hundreds of email accounts, including those of Chinese activists and government officials in Washington. In addition, a Chinese army spokesman recently acknowledged the existence of a military unit specializing in cyberspace. In developing its strategy, the Pentagon is rightly consulting with allies in a bid to develop coordinated responses to any attack. Three years ago, one of the U.S. military’s computer systems was penetrated. This was a wake-up call, but one the Pentagon has been slow to heed. Announcing that a cyber attack could be viewed as an act of war meriting a “use of force” response was a necessary step — a reminder that one of the first steps in a credible national defense policy is deterrence. http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/05/2928824/the-stars-editorial-georgia-russia.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

The Moscow Times – Russia OPINION The Missile Defense Hyperbole Game

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

06 June 2011 By Greg Thielmann In principle, both Russia and the United States have endorsed cooperation on missile defense. Absent cooperation, the two countries are unlikely to make further progress on reducing their still bloated nuclear arsenals. Senior officials from both countries — and NATO — have been engaged in discussions to work out modalities for missile defense cooperation, but concrete agreements have so far been elusive. A meeting on Wednesday in Brussels between Russian and NATO defense ministers will provide another opportunity to spell out how cooperation can work in practice. If Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama show the necessary political will and leadership, it is still possible to provide mutual, written guarantees that any future strategic missile defense deployments will not be directed at the other. They can also develop a joint data fusion center on missile launches by third countries, such as Iran, that could pose a threat to Russia, Europe and perhaps the United States. Unfortunately, opponents of arms control in the U.S. Congress have been trying to limit the extent of missile defense cooperation through legislation. At the same time, some portions of Russia’s military have been undermining the trust necessary to institutionalize cooperation by misrepresenting the facts on missile defense. Even in this post-Cold War and financially constrained era, arms control efforts are still encumbered by the dynamics of worst-case scenario thinking and parochial defense budget advocacy. U.S. politicians and commentators regularly exaggerate the contribution of missile defenses against a nuclear-armed missile threat and the progress of the Iranian and North Korean ballistic missile forces against which U.S. missile defenses are directed. Their Russian counterparts exaggerate the potential of future U.S. missile defenses to threaten Moscow’s sophisticated strategic nuclear forces. Given lingering suspicions and the inherently subjective nature of estimating future capabilities, it may be too much to expect more realism in the discussion. But it is perfectly reasonable to expect national leaders — and the experts who advise them — to avoid willful misstatements and fatuous logic. I have taken opponents of New START to task for distortions about Russian offensive nuclear capabilities and attempts by U.S. politicians to belittle Moscow’s concerns about U.S. strategic missile defense programs. But some recent Russian commentary on missile defense is equally distorted and unhelpful to finding a mutually satisfactory path. In 2009, Obama canceled the illogical plans of President George W. Bush to deploy U.S. strategic missile interceptors in Poland and a powerful radar in the Czech Republic by 2015, meanwhile leaving Southeastern Europe unprotected against Iran’s existing medium-range missile threat. In its place, he announced a European Phased Adaptive Approach, or EPAA, which is much more closely oriented toward the actual and emerging ballistic missile threat from Iran. In combination with New START, the Obama approach constituted an opportunity to “reset” the U.S.-Russian relationship. The new timetable bought several more years to resolve some of the acute conflicts between U.S. and Russian notions of how strategic missile defenses affect the overall balance of forces. Only during the third phase of EPAA, starting in 2018, would enlarged SM-3 interceptors be deployed against a potential intermediate-range ballistic missile threat from the Middle East. Only in the fourth phase would additional refinements give the SM-3 a capability in 2020, or perhaps later, to enhance existing U.S.-based defenses against a handful of potential ICBMs from the Middle East. Yet official Russian spokesmen have repeatedly made inaccurate or misleading statements about U.S. plans. Two weeks ago, General Staff deputy chief Andrei Tretyak claimed that Russian strategic nuclear weapons would be threatened by the third phase of EPAA, erroneously stating that this phase would start in 2015, three years before it is actually scheduled.

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

General Staff spokesman Vyacheslav Kondrashov asserted that neither Iran nor North Korea “presently possesses ballistic missiles capable of striking the United States or any NATO nation.” Yet NATO member Turkey shares a border with Iran and is therefore within range of the numerous short- and medium-range ballistic missiles deployed by Iran. While it might be easy to dismiss Russian official statements as careless but harmless hyperbole, On May 20, during the International Legal Forum in St. Petersburg, Medvedev himself used 2015 as “the beginning of the threat to Russia’s security.” Russia insisted on including a preamble to New START stipulating that current strategic defensive systems should not “undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the parties.” Today, the United States has deployed 30 ground-based strategic interceptors in Alaska and California, designed to protect the U.S. homeland against limited ICBM attack. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov confirmed this on May 16, when he said “existing U.S. missile defense elements do not pose a threat to Russia.” Similar realism is very much needed from both sides in the delicate negotiations to achieve a level of U.S.-Russian cooperation on missile defenses. This will help Moscow and Washington address the mutual threat from emerging nuclear proliferators in the Middle East while satisfying Russia’s legitimate concerns about protecting the credibility of its nuclear deterrent. For Russian officials to exaggerate the perceived threat by misrepresenting U.S. plans and capabilities is destructive. It misleads the Russian public and fosters distrust in the United States about Moscow’s motives, wasting the window of opportunity afforded by the Obama administration’s policies to reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals and engage other nuclear-armed states in the nuclear disarmament process. Greg Thielmann is senior fellow of the independent Arms Control Association in Washington. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/the-missile-defense-hyperbole-game/438234.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Bloomberg OPINION/Column Iran Wants the Bomb, and It’s Well on Its Way: Jeffrey Goldberg By Jeffrey Goldberg June 6, 2011 The Iranian government, which is known neither for transparency nor candor, has insisted for many years that the goal of its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. And for many years, the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose motto is “Atoms for Peace,” has tended to give the ayatollahs the benefit of the doubt on this question. The agency’s former chairman, Mohamed ElBaradei, now a candidate for the presidency of Egypt, seemed to take the attitude that anxiety about Iran’s nuclear objectives was motivated by the strategic self-interest, even the paranoia, of the U.S., Israel and the Arab states near Iran, rather than by the reality-based worry that bloody- minded mullahs bent on dominating the Middle East aren’t the sort of people who should have the bomb. The new chairman of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano of Japan, seems more skeptical of Iran’s claim of nuclear virginity. He is, by many accounts, preparing a comprehensive indictment of Iran’s nuclear program to be issued later this year. As an interim step, his agency recently issued a report on Iran’s nuclear activities that might help concentrate the attention of a world that has lately been preoccupied by the revolutions in Libya, Yemen and Syria. These are important events, but an Iran with a bomb? This would bring about a nuclear arms race in the world’s most volatile region. It would pose a serious threat to the smooth flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf. And it would mean the end of American influence in the Middle East. Not to mention the potential for an actual nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran.

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530

IAEA’s New Report The IAEA’s new report makes for dry reading -- the agency doesn’t turn out propulsive narratives -- but strongly suggests that the mullahs haven’t gone into the nuclear business because of their keen interest in clean energy. Using information gathered from member states’ intelligence agencies, it cites seven possible “undisclosed nuclear related activities” on the part of Iranian nuclear scientists. These include experiments to build atomic triggers, studies of the type of instruments needed for testing explosives underground, and the development -- this is a mouthful -- “of explosive components suitable for the initiation of high explosives in a converging spherical geometry.” Iran’s nuclear scientists might be building atomic triggers as a weekend hobby, and they might have discovered a sports- related reason to initiate explosives in a converging spherical geometry. But if the IAEA’s suspicions prove correct, then Iran is actively trying to make a nuclear warhead. Pattern of Deception “The IAEA is certainly worried that Iran has an ongoing program to develop and build nuclear weapons components,” David Albright, a former IAEA inspector who now heads the Institute for Science and International Security, told me. Albright, along with many other experts, discerns a pattern of deception in Iran’s behavior, exemplified by the regime’s decision to build a secret uranium-enrichment facility deep inside a mountain near Qom, the existence of which was exposed by Western intelligence agencies in 2009. A peaceful, internationally supervised nuclear program presumably would have no need for secret uranium- enrichment facilities buried inside mountains. News about possible advances in weapons design wouldn’t be so dire if Iran was still having trouble making nuclear fuel. Last year, the Stuxnet virus -- the only computer virus about which anyone has ever said anything nice -- was thought to have crippled a substantial number of Iran’s centrifuges. The virus, apparently a joint project of Israel, the U.S. and several European countries, was the most overt sign that a sophisticated international program of subterfuge and sabotage directed against Iran’s nuclear program was doing real damage. Growing Enrichment Capacity Stuxnet now appears to have been a more perishable virus than previously thought. Signs are abundant that Iran is accelerating its manufacture of low-enriched uranium, the necessary precursor to highly enriched uranium. The Federation of American Scientists reported in January that “calculations using IAEA data show that the enrichment capacity at Iran’s commercial-scale enrichment facility at Natanz has grown during 2010 relative to previous years. The boost in capacity is due to an apparent increase in centrifuge performance.” This latest IAEA report buttresses the federation’s finding, noting that inspectors who had recently visited the Natanz facility now believe Iran is producing low-enriched uranium at a faster pace than before the centrifuges were hit by Stuxnet. Various Western intelligence agencies and independent analysts think that the Iranians already possess enough low- enriched uranium to produce two or three bombs. Khamenei’s Options What all this means is that the IAEA is deeply worried that the Iranians are approaching a moment of decision -- the point at which the country’s nuclear scientists could tell Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, that they’re ready to make him a bomb for testing. Khamenei would then face three options. He could shelve the program for a later day. He could order a nuclear break-out, in which Iran expels the IAEA inspectors and enriches its uranium to bomb-grade levels. Or he could try what is known as a sneak- out, in which his scientists create bomb-grade uranium in a secret facility. The chance that he would choose the break-out option is small. It would take Iran anywhere from six months to a year after expelling the inspectors to enrich uranium to bomb strength, and in this period it’s almost guaranteed

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530 that Israel or the U.S. would bomb its nuclear facilities. (I believe firmly, after two years of reporting on the Iranian nuclear program, that President Barack Obama would order air strikes if he thought Iran was moving definitively to become a nuclear- armed state). Sneak-out, then, would be the more attractive option -- which is why intelligence agencies across the globe are searching relentlessly for a “son of Qom,” an as-yet- undiscovered nuclear facility similar to the one found at Qom. Intelligence Limitations There will always be those who doubt that Iran seeks to be a nuclear-armed state. And these doubts are useful: Iraq has taught many of us important lessons about the limitations of intelligence. But we’ve also learned a different lesson recently from Syria. Last month, at the same time it was airing its suspicions about Iran, the IAEA issued another report, in which it found that Syria was “very likely” operating a clandestine nuclear program until 2007, when Israel bombed what was allegedly a secret Syrian reactor. Shortly after the attack, Seymour Hersh, in an article skeptical about such claims, quoted ElBaradei, then the head of the IAEA, as saying, “Our experts who have carefully analyzed the satellite imagery say it is unlikely that this building was a nuclear facility.” The most important mission of the IAEA -- and one of the most important missions of the Obama administration -- is to know all that it is possible to know about Iran’s intentions, and to subvert these intentions in all possible ways. Because it will be a very bad day indeed when it is an underground nuclear test that informs us of Iran’s intentions. Jeffrey Goldberg is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-06/iran-wants-the-bomb-and-it-s-well-on-its-way-jeffrey- goldberg.html (Return to Articles and Documents List)

Issue No. 913, 7 June 2011 United States Air Force Counterproliferation Research & Education | Maxwell AFB, Montgomery AL | Phone: 334.953.7538 | Fax: 334.953.7530