NNSA Defends Cuts to Nonproliferation Funding

Today's top nuclear policy stories, with excerpts in bullet form.

Stories we're following today: Friday, March 4, 2011:

Nuclear Agency Officials Defend Decrease in Nonproliferation Funds - Martin Matishak for Global Security Newswire [link]

• The Obama administration yesterday defended its proposal to cut nearly $140 million in spending for one agency's efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons around the world.  The White House spending plan asks for $2.5 billion for the [the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA)] "defense nuclear nonproliferation" account, a more than 5 percent, or $138 million, decrease from the present budget cycle request. The program has oversight of the agency's varied global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear material.
• Meanwhile, [NNSA's] "weapons activities," which encompass all measures that directly support the nation's thermonuclear stockpile, would receive $7.6 billion, an 8.9 percent boost from the still-unrealized fiscal 2011 proposal.
• "It's a surprise to me that this budget is reduced," House Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee top Democrat Ed Pastor (Ariz.) said in his opening statement during a hearing on the NNSA nonproliferation and naval reactor programs. "I'd like to understand why, given all the attention to securing fissile material, this account sees a decrease when the remainder of NNSA is increasing."
• Nonproliferation has been near the top of President Obama's policy agenda since an April 2009 speech in Prague in which he called for a world free of nuclear weapons. Obama last year convened a two-day summit in Washington at which leaders from nearly 50 nations pledged to secure the global stores of loose nuclear material within four years.
• Pastor asked whether the latest budget request indicates the administration is backing away from the president's ambitious pledge.  "Absolutely not, sir," NNSA Administrator Thomas D'Agostino replied. "We are actually stepping forward into the Prague commitment with both feet."

Israel to Join Sanctions Against Iran - Paul Colsey for CNN [link]

• Citing the need to bring its policies in line with the United States and Europe, the Israeli government indicated Thursday that it will move to join international sanctions against Iran.
• Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said that while there was no direct or indirect trade between Israel and Iran, there was no legislation that specifically outlawed it.
• Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said that while there was no direct or indirect trade between Israel and Iran, there was no legislation that specifically outlawed it.
• Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-Israeli political analyst who has written extensively about the two countries, said that while the practical effect of formalized Israeli sanctions would be minimal, it was "important that Israel is doing at least what the U.S. and the European countries are doing" to maintain credibility in its repeated insistence that the world take action against Iran's nuclear program.

Nuclear Hiccup in South Korea: The Limits of Tactical Nukes - Hans Kristensen for "Strategic Security" a Federation fo American Scientist Blog [link]

• In a surprising report, Korea Joongang Daily reported that White House coordinator for arms control and weapons of mass destruction, Gary Samore, had said that the United States would redeploy nuclear weapons to South Korea if the South Korean government asked for it.
• I don’t know what Samore said or meant to say, but the hiccup comes at particularly bad time after two North Korean nuclear tests, its suspected sinking of a South Korean warship and the shelling of Yeonpyeong island, and repeated large-scale U.S.-South Korean military exercises, all of which have raised tension on the troubled Korean Peninsula again.
• Fortunately the White House quickly corrected the record, explaning that “tactical nuclear weapons are unnecessary for the defense of South Korea and we have no plan or intention to return them” to the country. It is particularly important that the rebuttal included more than “we have no plan” but also reiterated the fact that tactical nuclear weapons are “unnecessary” for the defense of South Korea.
• That tactical nuclear weapons are not necessary to defend a key ally is a fact that NATO should learn from. Nearly 200 U.S. tactical bombs are stuck in Europe because the alliance can’t figure out how to do what South Korea did 20 years ago. All the more strange because NATO, unlike South Korea, doesn’t have a large military threat right next door.

South Korea Hosts War Games as Debate Grows Over North's Nuclear Arsenal - Dondald Kirk for The Christian Science Monitor [link]

• Brig. Gen. Charles Taylor is sure of one thing as he stands beside the latest US Army reconnaissance vehicle for sniffing out evidence of the chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiological weapons that North Korea has developed since the Korean War.  “The North Koreans have threatened to use weapons of mass destruction,” says General Taylor, assistant commander of the US Army’s second infantry division. “We are preparing for a wide range of capabilities.”
• Those remarks set the tone for 10 days of war games involving nearly 13,000 American and 200,000 South Korean troops and another month of exercises, all of which wind down at the end of April. The deployment of new vehicles, robots, and other devices for defense against the most fearsome weaponry in the North’s arsenal reflects the view that North Korea, in a leadership struggle and desperate for food and other supplies, might be tempted to use them in an unanticipated showdown.
• That show of concern comes at a timely moment. Debate here has been heating up over how to deal with North Korean threats – and the widespread sense that North Korea is not going to give up its nuclear weapons even if six-party talks resume on getting the North to abandon them.
• “Voices for nuclear weapons in South Korea are getting louder and louder,” says Yoo Se-hee, chairman of the Network for North Korean Democracy and Human Rights. “The US and China haven’t been able to solve this problem.”  Mr. Yoo believes, however, that “it’s rather premature to accept that argument” – and now is not the time for South Korea to have its own nuclear weapons.  “The US and China should press further for North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons,” he says. “Otherwise the nuclear arguments of South Korea will get a bigger voice.”