North Korea Linked to Destroyed Syrian Nuclear Reactor
April 24, 2008 :: New York Times :: News
Today the White House will announce that the North Koreans had been working at a Syrian nuclear reactor until it was destroyed last September in an Israeli airstrike, reports the New York Times. This discovery, based on video evidence, comes after a seven-month clandestine investigation. U.S. and Israeli senior officials believe that the strike targeted a fledgling nuclear reactor modeled after the North Korean reactor used for attaining fuel for its weapons system.
The site was destroyed by Israeli jets on September 6. After protesting, the Syrians bulldozed the site and erected a building on the area formerly holding the reactor. They have routinely denied access to international nuclear weapons inspectors.
The State Department finds the White House’s timing in declassifying this information suspicious. Some have suggested that the administration’s declassification is aimed at undermining a deal with the North Koreans that would allow it to be removed from the list of nations sponsoring terrorism.
One senior White House official has said, off the record that, “Making public the pictures is likely to inflame the North Koreans. And that’s just what opponents of this whole arrangement want, because they think the North Koreans will stalk off.” Another official claims that perhaps this new information will force North Korea to more fully divulge its projects in Syria with the disclosure of details pertaining to its nuclear activities.
The deal in question is being brokered by the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Christopher R. Hill, who is acting as the primary liaison with North Korea, and has suddenly become the latest point of contention in a seven-year battle within the Bush Administration over foreign policy as it relates to North Korea. That policy has evolved from attempting to pressure North Korea in hopes of collapsing Kim Jong-il’s government, to negotiating with North Korea along with Russia, China, South Korea and Japan—each of whom has pursued a unique strategy in solving the problem of North Korea.
Christopher Hill was charged with the task of determining a new strategy for dealing with the North Koreans more than three years ago. With dwindling support, Hill has struggled, and senior officials have reported that President Bush has overtly admonished his aides against pursuing any policy that “makes [him] look weak.” Vice President Cheney’s office has argued that Hill’s proposal would be too big a concession—in exchange for a perfunctory declaration form the North Koreans regarding its plutonium production, it would be removed from the list of nations sponsoring terrorism and therefore no longer subject to economic sanctions under the Trading With the Enemy Act. Still, the North Koreans have failed to volunteer information pertaining to its involvement with Syria and its plans to begin building arms using uranium. Hill’s deal would allow the North Koreans to continue on in relative secrecy. It would allow them to leave unexplained its purchase of uranium enrichment materials from Pakistan—materials and equipment that experts believe was obtained to help North Korea engineer another road to a nuclear bomb if it were forced to abandon its plutonium program.
Today American intelligence officials will, in a presentation to members of Congress, show videos of Koreans working among employees at a Syrian plant. Mr. Hill has already shown this footage to senior South Korean officials. Other pictures illustrate what seems to be the construction of a reactor vessel inside the very building later destroyed in the Israeli strike of September.
Officials have heretofore refused to speak about the September attack. Christopher Hill has found little support among his colleagues, including his boss, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who has sharply criticized the 1994 agreement between North Korea and the Clinton Administration for its “front loaded” rewards system for the North. Critics are saying something very similar of Mr. Hill’s proposed deal. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, Israel, Syria
Ranks of Nuclear Experts Dwindle
February 17, 2008 :: Washington Post :: News
Two leading scientific groups cautioned February 16 that the U.S. may face a severe shortage of nuclear experts over the next 15 years. The American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science speculate that half of the U.S.'s experts in identifying smuggled nuclear materials and detonated-bomb components will retire, and the pipeline of young researchers who could replace them is "almost empty." A credible supply of nuclear forensics experts can deter nuclear proliferators who are "primarily motivated by financial, rather than ideological, concerns." The scientists recommended the U.S. deploy faster and more accurate field equipment, create a comprehensive sample-matching database of nuclear materials, fund more graduate school and laboratory positions in related disciplines and establish a panel of independent experts to measure progress and advise the U.S. government in case of an emergency. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Nuclear Weapons
NATO 'Must Prepare to Launch Nuclear Attack'
January 22, 2008 :: News
A group of senior defense and military officials from various NATO countries issued a report analyzing the trans-atlantic alliance and making several policy recommendations. The report stresses that to stem further nuclear proliferation, the alliance should not rule out first-strike use of nuclear weapons. "The risk of further proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible... The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.... To tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence." The report also proposes the alliance scrap consensus decision making, to speed the process when fast action is necessary. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: NATO, Policy, Nuclear Weapons
Freedman on the Future of British Deterrence
December 1, 2006 :: Financial Times :: Analysis
Nuclear deterrence should continue to play a role in Britain’s international affairs, argues Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies and vice principal (research) at King’s College, London. “What is it about our current strategic environment that suggests that this is the time to abandon the deterrent?” Freedman asks in the Financial Times. “The obvious answer is ‘very little.’” He notes that Russia is in a “bad temper,” North Korea has demonstrated its nuclear capability, and Iran appears on the verge of acquiring its own. Despite the problem of how a full-blown British nuclear capability will deter suicidal sub-state organizations like Al-Qaeda, nuclear weapons continue to “make clear the horrific consequences of full-scale war or even a big miscalculation and so encourage states to resolve disputes without resort to armed force.” Freedman cites the case of India and Pakistan, in which the introduction of nuclear weapons into the conflict introduced a welcome element of caution. He notes, however, that some conflicts “may become so unstable that mutual deterrence will collapse and catastrophe will ensue, which is why proliferation is not to be encouraged.” Freedman, nevertheless, appears to agree with the British government’s position that “however difficult it is to imagine a plausible scenario where it would be necessary to threaten, let alone use, nuclear weapons, the future is horribly uncertain.” Nuclear weapons therefore remain “an essential insurance policy.” (Link)
» More stories on: Allies, Analysis, Nuclear Weapons, Proliferation, Terrorism
Kortunov: Russia Must Remain A Major Nuclear Power
November 29, 2006 :: RIA-Novosti :: News
Sergei Kortunov, chairman of Russia’s Foreign Policy Planning Committee, argues in RIA-Novosti that Russia must take steps to remain a major nuclear power for the foreseeable future. Kortunov expresses apprehension that the United States is attempting to defend itself against such weapons of mass destruction. “We must face the facts,” he states. “The United States will create the NMD system in the near future and completely dominate the world unless Russia’s nuclear policy adapts to the above-mentioned priorities.” The U.S. has also adopted “loose rules of engagement for using nuclear weapons in the event of a crisis and greater regional tensions,” and therefore Russia “has no choice but to remain a major nuclear power in the foreseeable future.” Kortunov specifies that Russia’s strategic nuclear forces in 2012 should include 600 ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles; ten to 12 ballistic missile submarines; 50 strategic bombers; and 1,000 to 1,200 nuclear warheads on intercontinental and submarine launched ballistic missiles. Such an arsenal would allow Moscow “to maintain its special strategic relationship with the United States and preserve its global political role,” Kortunov writes, adding that “we should study the possibility of resuming work on weapons and systems that can effectively breach or neutralize the U.S. ABM [anti-ballistic missile] system.” (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Russia, Nuclear Weapons
India Claims Successful Missile Interceptor Test
November 27, 2006 :: BBC :: News
India has used a nuclear-capable Prithvi-2 medium-range ballistic missile to intercept another in a missile defense test, Indian defense officials claim. According to the defense ministry, India launched a modified Prithvi-2 simulating the “adversary’s missile” from the Chandipur test range about 250 kilometers (155 miles) north of Bhubaneswar, capital of India’s Orissa state. The interceptor, also a Prithvi-2, was fired one minute later from the Wheeler’s Island missile testing center, located in the Bay of Bengal about 170 kilometers (105 miles) north of Bhubaneswar. A spokesperson for India’s Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) told the BBC that the missiles intersected each other in mid-air about 70 kilometers (43 miles) from the coast and then fell into the Bay of Bengal as planned.
If the medium-range Prithvi-2 can be transformed into a viable defense system, it could upset India’s fragile balance of power with Pakistan, which on November 16 test launched its nuclear-capable Hatf-5 (Ghauri-1) medium-range ballistic missile. But Rahul Bedi of Jane’s Defence Weekly points out that India remains far from developing an effective missile interception system. “It’s not easy, India is light years away from developing anything like the American Patriot missile defense system which is designed to detect and destroy incoming missiles,” he told the BBC (Article, Link)
» More stories on: India, Nuclear Weapons, Pakistan, Testing - Foreign
» Missile details: Prithvi-1
Hackett on North Korea, Missile Defense
October 11, 2006 :: Washington Times :: Analysis
The Bush administration is handling North Korea’s nuclear brinksmanship “just right,” argues James Hackett in The Washington Times. It has reacted without histrionics, demanded action by the world community, applied a widening circle of economic sanctions, worked with allies to present a united front, and strengthened missiles defenses. Hackett notes that the North Korean test demonstrates “the folly of those who want to delay deployment of [missile] defenses while conducting interminable flight tests.” He argues that the Bush administration should accelerate deployment of additional ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptors in Japan and South Korea, and ship-based interceptors on U.S. and Japanese Aegis destroyers in the Pacific and Sea of Japan. “The combination of a united front against Pyongyang and the strengthening of missile defenses around the Pacific can keep North Korea isolated while the united front increases sanctions to push the regime toward collapse,” Hackett writes. “It is important to stay the course and ignore those who call for direct negotiations and other concessions.” (Article, Link)
» More stories on: South Korea, Nuclear Weapons, North Korea, Japan, Analysis
» Missile system details for: Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD), Aegis Ship-Based BMD
Yomiuri Shimbun: New Threat Calls for New Defense Initiative
October 11, 2006 :: Yomiuri Shimbun :: News
The Japanese daily Yomiuri Shimbun suggests that North Korea’s nuclear test will lead to calls for a new Japanese defense initiative, including increased missile defense and perhaps a preemptive strike capability. It notes that North Korea has deployed about 200 No-dong missiles capable of striking most of the Japanese archipelago, and has tested them as recently as July 2006. Although most experts believe that North Korea remains unable to develop nuclear warheads small enough to be carried by these missiles, the Yomiuri Shimbun points out that the relatively small seismic waves observed after the recent nuclear test may indicate that North Korea is trying to decrease the size its nuclear bombs. The paper suggests that calls for the “early development of missile defense” and “ability to attack missile bases in North Korea preemptively” are likely to gain strength in coming months. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Nuclear Weapons, North Korea, Japan
» Missile details: No-dong 1, NHK-1/2
» Missile system details for: Japanese Ballistic Missile Defense
North Korea Conducts First Nuclear Test
October 9, 2006 :: Reuters :: News
North Korea today conducted an underground nuclear test, transforming Pyongyang into the world’s newest and most volatile nuclear power. The South Korean government informed U.S. officials that the explosion, registering 3.58 on the Richter scale, took place at 10:36 a.m. local time (1:36 a.m. GMT). Minutes later, North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency announced the test, calling it “a historical event that has brought our military and our people huge joy.” The announcement continued: “The nuclear test was conducted with indigenous wisdom and technology 100 percent. … It will contribute to defending the peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the area around it.” Measurements by the Japan Meteorological Agency showed that the test took place around Gilju, on the country’s northeast coast and around 110 km (70 miles) from the Chinese border. The U.S. Geological Survey confirmed a 4.2 magnitude tremor in North Korea at 10:35 a.m. local time. The White House branded the act “provocative” and said it expected the U.N. Security Council to take immediate action. Analysts have said that North Korea probably has enough fissile material to make six to eight nuclear bombs. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Testing - Foreign, Nuclear Weapons, North Korea
North Korea Vows Nuclear Test
October 3, 2006 :: Reuters :: News
North Korea said today that it will soon conduct its first-ever nuclear test, reports Reuters. According to a statement from North Korea’s foreign ministry, which was broadcast on the official KCNA news agency, “the U.S. extreme threat of a nuclear war and sanctions and pressure compel the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] to conduct a nuclear test, an essential process for bolstering nuclear deterrent, as a corresponding measure for defense.” The statement added, however, that North Korea would never be the first to use nuclear weapons, and would “do its utmost to realize the denuclearization of the peninsula and give impetus to the world-wide nuclear disarmament and the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons.” Analysts say that North Korea probably has enough fissile material to produce six to eight nuclear bombs, but does not yet have the technology to make one small enough to mount on a long range ballistic missile. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Testing - Foreign, Nuclear Weapons, North Korea
 |
| Total Records: 51 |
[1]
2
3
4
5
6
»
|
