Nuclear Weapons
|
1. US Nuclear Weapons Program
Alliant Techsystems reported that the ATK/Thiokol Propulsion Consolidated Joint Venture has been awarded two contracts to produce solid propulsion systems for all three stages of the US Navy’s Trident II (D-5) Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM). The Trident II FBM is the only US submarine-launched strategic missile system in production today, first deployed in 1990 and scheduled for deployment past 2020. It is launched from US Navy Ohio-class submarines and has a range of more than 4,000 nautical miles.
“ATK/Thiokol Joint Venture Awarded Contracts Totaling $80 Million for Trident Missile Propulsion Systems” |
2. Indian Launch Vehicle Failure
India’s attempt to enter the elite space club suffered when a launch of the Geo-synchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV-D1) was aborted. One of the rocket’s engines malfunctioned, causing mechanical safety systems to shut down after only 3 seconds. India has spent 10 years and about Rs 10 billion on developing the GSLV to launch large satellites into deep space.
“GSLV dream launch singed”
“GSLV engine trouble sours India’s space plans”
“GSLV-D1 malfunctioning traced to gas injector”
“SNAG SNUFFS OUT SPACE BAZAAR SPLASH” |
Security
|
1. Swedish Nuclear Program
A recent report commissioned by Sweden’s Nuclear Power Inspectorate said that between 1945 and 1968, the Swedish National Defense Research Establishment (FOA) did extensive research into the production of nuclear weapons and had the plutonium and know-how to become a nuclear power until 1970. In 1968, Sweden signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the Parliament’s ratification of the treaty in January 1970 ended the country’s nuclear arms program. In a 1954 defense study, the armed forces said that nuclear weapons were required to defend Sweden’s official policy of neutrality, and until 1960 it tried unsuccessfully to acquire nuclear weapons from the US.
“Report: Neutral Sweden Had Nuclear Plans Until 1970” |
2. Indian Nuclear Policy
The Pioneer reported that the Indian Government “will actively” consider a proposal from the Tri-Services Chiefs of Staff Committee to create a strategic nuclear force under a single commander. The government’s pledge to consider the single nuclear command comes after the Group of Ministers (GOM) committee recommended that India have a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) to act as a single military point of contact to the prime minister. The development follows India’s nuclear explosions in 1998 and the establishment of a National Security Council in April 1999 to create a nuclear command structure.
“Cabinet to consider N-wing”
“Security revamp in top gear” |
Missile Defense
|
1. US Consultations on Missile Defense
In a news conference with French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the US missile defense program would protect both the US and its allies. Powell was responding to earlier statements by Vendrine expressing French concern about the program. Vedrine had said, “The difficulty about this (shield), it is that one does not know at all how it works technically. One does not see very well what sort of menace it has to respond to.”
“Powell: Defense Plan Will Aid Allies”
In a press conference, US President George Bush said he has assured allies of the United States “that we will consult with them” on US plans for missile defense, “But we’re moving forward to develop systems that reflect the threats of today.”
“Transcript: Bush Press Conference at White House, March 29, 2001” |
2. Russian MD Proposal
Jim Hoagland reported in the Washington Post that, responding to US unilateral statements on missile defense, Russian President Vladimir Putin outlined a plan to share the S-300 anti-missile system and its subsequent models with the European members of NATO to provide a territorial missile defense against attack from “rogue states.” Putin’s proposal excluded any mention of cooperation with the US on missile defense, as Putin argues that Europe and Russia face a more immediate threat from missile attacks. Hoagland argued that Putin’s missile defense plan is a straightforward political challenge, where missile defense will be a matter of cooperation or of confrontation between Russia and NATO.
“From Russia With Chutzpah: A Missile for NATO”
General Leonid Ivashov, chief of the Russian Defense Ministry’s international cooperation department, dismissed criticism of Russia’s missile defense proposal, and stated that the thrust of the proposal was to find peaceful means, such as diplomatic pressure, to counter a possible missile threat from a rogue state armed with ballistic missiles.
“Russia downplays European defence” |
3. US-German Talks on MD
In a press conference after their meeting, US President George Bush and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said that there was agreement on many issues, with the exception of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Asked whether they discussed US plans for a missile defense, Bush said, “we want to develop defenses that are capable of defending ourselves; defenses that are capable of defending others, who so choose to, against the true threats of the 21st century. Russia is not our enemy. The true threats of the 21st century are the extremists who can’t stand what Germany or America believes in.” Bush indicated that the US would also pursue unilateral nuclear arms reductions. In his response, Schroeder also said he questioned Bush’s plan for a missile defense shield. He said, “we’ll also have to look into lots of technical aspects, such as the threat scenario that is behind the whole system. Is it technologically feasible? Can we truly implement it? Who is going to be covered under the shelter? Who’s going to be invited to be included by the shelter that we’re going to build? What are going to be repercussions for the global disarmament process? What are going to be the repercussions on Russia and on China, for example?” Scheoder also dismissed the assumption that missile defense would lead to a new arms race.
“German Leader Questions Bush Plan”
“Schröder to Visit Bush, Bearing Europe’s New Concerns”
“Transcript: Bush, Schroeder Remarks After First Meeting March 29” |
4. DPRK Perspective on US-Japan MD Program
The DPRK’s official Korean Central News Agency accused the US and Japan of boosting joint development of the proposed US anti-missile defense system, saying that could push the DPRK to respond with force. The KCNA said, “If they continue to provoke military confrontation with North Korea — following this path to war — we will have no option but to respond with firm resolve.” The article reported that the KCNA has in the past accused the US and Japan of fabricating missile threats from the DPRK to justify the missile defense program.
“U.S. Warned in Anti – Missile Defense” |
5. Canadian Perspective on MD
Canadian Defense Minister Art Eggleton stated that Canada would refrain from making any commitment to the proposed US missile defense system until the US formally invites it to participate. Canadian Lieutenant General George Macdonald, deputy head of the joint US-Canada NORAD air defense command, said Canada should sign up to the missile defense system if asked. The New York Times stated that many Canadian military officers fear that too much foot-dragging over missile defense could damage Canada’s close defense ties with the US.
“Canada Says Won’t Be Rushed Into Missile Defense” |
6. NMD Tests
Aerojet conducted a successful static hot fire test of the first-stage booster attitude control system (ACS) thruster pack it is developing for Boeing and the National Missile Defense system’s Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) vehicle. Aerojet will develop and build 17 ACS shipsets over the next three years to support Boeing’s integrated flight test schedule for the NMD program.
“Aerojet Successfully Tests Attitude Control System Thruster Pack For National Missile Defense Interceptor”
US Defense Department spokesman Rear Admiral Craig Quigley said that the next intercept test of the missile defense system, patterned after one that failed last July, will take place in early to mid-summer. Integrated Flight Test 6 “is a near duplicate of last July’s test, using just about identical components in every facet of the shot.” However, it will use the Minuteman booster, not the three-stage Boeing developmental booster slated for use in Test 7.
“Defense Department Report, Tuesday, March 27” |
Arms Control
|
1. Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
Oliver Meier, with the Verification Research, Training & Information Center (VERTIC), writes in an essay for BASIC, that despite progress on the future CTBT organization by the 80 signatory members, there remains much to be resolved on the future of the verification system. The technical committee that will be responsible for verifications has a 2001 budget of over $83 million and a staff of 200, though there are disagreements concerning the structure of on-site inspections to investigate allegations.
“CTBT Inspections Remain Contentious”
In a March 12 letter to US Secretary of State Colin Powell, US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms called on the Bush administration to repudiate Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and lay out a new policy for testing US nuclear weapons. The letter also called for opposing agreements with Russia that may limit the Defense Department’s ability to develop anti-ballistic missile defense systems.
“Helms Calls for Repudiation of Nuclear Test Ban Treaty”
“”Jesse Helms pushes for U.S. pullout of nuclear test ban treaty”
“Nuclear Testing: Policy Options for the New President” |
2. ROK Entry Into Missile Control Technology Regime
The ROK’s entry to the Missile Technology Control Regime was approved Monday and the ROK joined 32 other countries in seeking to limit nuclear proliferation by restricting the transfer of missiles and missile components and technology. The ROK’s entry into the MCTR came after an agreement with the US allowed the ROK to develop missiles with a range of greater than 187 miles.
“S. Korea Agrees To Missile Rules”
“Missile Control Technology Regime” (NPP Weekly Flash, Vol. 3 #12)
“ROK Adherence to MTCR” (NAPSNet Daily Report, March 28, ROK) |
3. Bush Administration Policy
John Bolton stayed close to policy positions previously enunciated by the US President George and Secretary of State Powell in his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to be Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, but was challenged by committee Democrats for apparent inconsistencies in his positions. Bolton stated that he believes “sound, verifiable arms control agreements and energetic nonproliferation strategies can and should be critical elements in American foreign policy.” Bolton repeated the stated positions of Bush and Powell when asked about various arms control issues, but would not elaborate further on those positions. For example, Bolton stated he did not have “a final opinion” when he was asked whether he believes that the ABM Treaty currently remains in force, despite the demise of the Soviet Union. Bolton pointed to administration goals to reduce the US nuclear arsenal, support South Korea’s efforts to engage its neighbor to the north, and build effective missile defenses that will protect not only all 50 American states from rogue missile attack or accidental missile launches, but also US allies and military forces deployed overseas. He indicated that the US will engage both Russia and China on the subject of missile defense.
“Text: Under Secretary of State-designate John Bolton on Arms Control”
Arms Control Nominee Defends Shifting View”
“Bolton Echoes Bush, Powell Arms Control Views at Hearing”
Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance Owen Sheaks says that “all programs that have to do with weapons of mass destruction are under review,” and will be completed in the coming year. Asked if the issue of verification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is dormant, Sheaks said, “No, it’s not. In fact, right now the really critical question relates to the fact that we are paying $20 million a year to the [CTBT Organization], which is putting together an International Monitoring System.” He said his Bureau is working “very closely with the intelligence community to see what the benefits are of the utilization of the International Monitoring System to collect data which is relevant to nuclear testing monitoring.”
“Interview: Key U.S. Official Discusses Arms Verification, Compliance” |
Proliferation
|
1. US-DPRK Missile Talks
Christopher Marquis wrote in the New York Times that a task force of foreign policy experts sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations has urged the US to resume talks with the DPRK in order to negotiate an end to the threat posed by the DPRK’s ballistic missile program. In a letter to US President George Bush, they stated that if the DPRK “is indeed ready to take further steps toward strengthening peace on the peninsula, then the United States should be fully prepared to respond.”
“Experts Urge Bush to Resume North Korea Talks”
In an article in the Washington Post, US Senator John F. Kerry stated that the US has no hope of reducing the DPRK’s missile threat unless it constructively engages the DPRK. Kerry argued, “…Delay — and Secretary Powell’s lukewarm endorsement of the agreed framework — could send a negative signal about the nature and direction of our policy.”
“Engage North Korea”
The Arms Control Association sponsored a press conference to respond to US President Bush’s remarks, at a March 7 press conference with ROK President Kim Dae-jung, that there were no plans at this time to resume talks with the DPRK to end its ballistic missile program and missile exports because of concerns about Pyongyang’s trustworthiness and the verifiability of current and future agreements. Speaking first on the panel, Spurgeon M. Keeny, Jr., President and Executive Director of the Arms Control Association, stated that the US failure to pursue these negotiations will be perceived as an effort to maintain the DPRK as a clear and present danger to the US and thus as a rationale for pursuing a National Missile Defense. Morton H. Halperin, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, stated that the “Perry process” of negotiations was successful at getting the DPRK to stipulate that it would forgo testing and development within its missile program, and despite the debate over verification measures, it was clear the DPRK would follow US interests in exchange for compensation. Robert Gallucci, Dean of Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, stated his concern for the prospective policy of the Bush administration, even at this early stage. They also answered questions on the subject of the Bush administration’s DPRK policy.
“President Bush’s Deferral of North Korean Negotiations: A Missed Opportunity to Curb North Korea’s Missile Program”
“Text Only” |
2. US Nonproliferation Programs in Russia
US President George Bush said “We want to make sure that any money that is being spent is being spent in an effective way,” referring to a review of the roughly $800 million a year the US spends to help Russia reduce its nuclear forces and improve security over its nuclear materials. A senior administration official said the review will take several months and will include representatives of the departments of State, Energy and Defense, and of the Office of Management and Budget. A senior administration official stated that programs deemed ineffective will likely be cut. The review will report on how well each program serves the national interest, whether Russia and other countries should shoulder a larger share of its cost, how supportive Russia has been of the program, and whether the program should have a “sunset” provision to ensure it does not continue after its objectives have been met. Former US Senator Howard Baker told the Senate Foreign Relations committee Thursday that there are “all sorts of arguments about why our programs are not totally cost-efficient in Russia.” But, Baker said, “If we don’t do it, no one will — not even the Russians — partly because they don’t have the resources and partly because they don’t have the same sense of danger that we have.”
“U.S. Is Reviewing Aid for Russia’s Nuclear Programs”
“U.S. Reviewing Aid Meant to Contain Russia’s Arsenal”
“U.S. Reviewing Aid Meant to Contain Russia’s Arsenal”
“Transcript: Bush Press Conference at White House, March 29, 2001”
RANSAC released an interim report discussing the Bush administration’s proposal to cut funding for US nonproliferation programs that target Russia’s nuclear weapons industry. The analysis describes the current debate within the administration and compares the recent, current, and proposed budgets for a large number of US nonproliferation programs operating in Russia.
“Interim RANSAC Report:Proposed Federal Budget Cuts for Nuclear Security Efforts in Russia”
“Text Only”
In a speech to the Nuclear Security Decision-makers second annual forum in New Mexico, Republican US Senator Pete Domenici, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said, “Russia’s nuclear stockpile is the most serious national security threat we face today.” He also advocated the spending of “billions of dollars to fix the problems and modernize” US nuclear weapons facilities to prevent an infrastructure crisis.
“Excerpts: Domenici Says Russian Nuclear Stockpile Serious Threat”
Russian social scientist Valentin Tikhonov writes in a report for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on the living and working conditions of Russia’s weapons experts working within the Russian nuclear and missile complexes. The results suggest an increasingly difficult situation, and illustrate the high potential that a significant percentage of Russia’s weapons experts might sell their services to would-be proliferators. Tokhonov notes that more than 62% of employees earn less than $50 per month. Of those surveyed in the missile industry, 25% would like to immigrate to another country and 21% said they would work in the military complex of another country.
“Russia’s Nuclear and Missile Complex: The Human Factor in Proliferation” |
3. Chemical & Biological Weapons
The Carnegie Corporation of New York published a report by B. Alan Rosenberg, in which Rosenberg states that while biological weapons are the most threatening of all weapons of mass destruction, the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, intended to curb the development of biological weapons, lacks verification or enforcement measures. Rosenberg states that there are currently behind-the-scenes efforts by a small community of interested international policy and academic experts, but that these efforts face the threat of compromises leading to useless enforcement mechanisms. Similar to the debate over ballistic missile proliferation, Rosenberg argues much of the attention focuses on preparing for an attack rather than preventing one. Rosenberg discusses using mechanisms for biological weapons nonproliferation similar to those used in the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention and includes an appendix on the history of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.
“Defining the Debate on Controlling Biological Weapons” |
Announcement
|
1. Nuclear Control Institute Conference
The Nuclear Control Institute will hold a conference on April 9 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in Washington, DC. The conference theme will be “Nuclear Power and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons,” examining the relationship between national nuclear power programs and nuclear proliferation. Speakers will include Ambassador Robert Gallucci, Dean of the Georgetown School of Foreign Service, Former US Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary, Richard Rhodes, Pulitzer-Prize winning author of “The Making of the Atomic Bomb,” and Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute, and other experts.
“Conference Information”
“Nuclear Control Institute Hosts April 9 Conference On Nuclear Power and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons”
(return to top) |
