The Pragmatic Consensus on Nuclear Reductions

On the radar: A measured approach from Berlin; Immobilizing plutonium; Park, party of six; APS-CSIS treaty workshop; Advancing verification; Viewing Rouhani; and the “Atomic Annie” nuclear cannon.

June 27, 2013 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Alyssa Demus

Foundation for consensus - “While President Obama's Berlin speech and new guidance for U.S. nuclear forces have been criticized for not breaking new ground or, alternatively, pushing too fast on further reductions, they represent a reasonable and measured approach to the realities of being a major nuclear power,” writes Lt. Gen. Frank Klotz (USAF, ret.).

--“They also provide the basic elements of a broad consensus on what needs to be done to sustain our nuclear forces in an uncertain world populated by other nuclear powers. They can and should be used to advance an agenda that combines necessary modernization and reductions tailored to serve American and allied security interests.” Full post in The National Interest. http://bit.ly/14cmb7R

Nuclear waste - For the last decade, Washington has ignored a cheaper and easier alternative for disposing of weapons plutonium and instead has blown $3.7 billion on a failing project to turn the material into Mixed Oxide (MOX) reactor fuel, report Douglas Birch and Jeffrey Smith.

--Experts argue that it would be cheaper and safer to “immobilize” the plutonium - melting the material into a ceramic and burying it out of reach of potential thieves - instead of turning plutonium into risky fuel to be burned in reactors. A 2002 report from the National Nuclear Security Administration showed that immobilization would be cheaper. The Bush administration and Congress, however, chose to pursue MOX fuel as a way to coordinate with Russian programs (and pay for jobs in South Carolina). Full article here. http://bit.ly/18isMSx

Read the complete “nuclear waste” series by Birch and Smith:
--Part I: “How a huge U.S. nonproliferation program became a major proliferation concern” http://bit.ly/1aQFlnr
--Part II: “A $1 billion Energy Department project overshoots its budget by 600 percent” http://bit.ly/19pc8li
--Part III: “Extremism in defense of federally-paid jobs is no vice in South Carolina” http://bit.ly/12k5hV0
--Part IV: “Washington has ignored a cheaper way to dispose of its plutonium – until now” http://bit.ly/18isMSx

Welcome to Early Warning - Subscribe to our morning email or follow us on twitter.

--Have a tip or feedback for the editor? Email earlywarning@ploughshares.org earlywarning@ploughshares.org. Want to support this work? Click here.

It’s not the policy, it’s the messenger - “Now if George Bush said ‘I believe we can get to 1,100 nuclear weapons and I believe we can still defend America,’ then that’s one thing,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). “But when you have a commander in chief who has a repeated, stated goal of a world without nuclear weapons...and announces another one-third reduction, I believe it would have destabilizing effects worldwide.” C-SPAN clip here. http://cs.pn/1ai4Cs0

Tweet - @nukes_of_hazard: Sen Sessions gives away the game: "If George Bush said...we could get to 1000, 1100 nuclear weapons..thats one thing" http://cs.pn/1ai4Cs0

Engagement before sanctions - Iran’s newly elected president Hassan Rouhani “is a regime stalwart. However, unlike the often bombastic Ahmadinejad, he is a relatively pragmatic and sober politician who is acutely aware of Iran’s national crisis. He supports Iran’s nuclear program but is unlikely to risk the survival of the Islamic Republic, a system he helped create and has protected in the last 34 years, to defend every last element of it. As such, Rouhani is someone the United States may be able to work with, and he could play an important role in convincing Iran’s supreme leader to change Iran’s nuclear course before it is too late. Neither Tehran nor Washington can afford to squander this opportunity,” write Colin Kahl and Ali Nader in Al Monitor. http://ow.ly/mrpK8

Boosted warheads - Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee approved an appropriations bill that increases funding for upgrading the B61 nuclear bomb by $23 million over the administration’s request. The bill drew criticism from some committee members, including Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL), who disagree with adding funds for a bomb with a “military utility of practically nil.”

--The House bill also boosts funding for international Global Threat Reduction Initiative activities, but cuts funding for the program’s domestic work, reports Douglas Guarino at Global Security Newswire. Full story here. http://ow.ly/mrhP5

Report - “U.S.-Russian Nuclear Reductions After New START: Summary of a Workshop Exploring Next Steps” from the American Physical Society Panel on Public Affairs and the Center for Strategic & International Studies. Co-Chairs Jay Davis and John Hamre.

--Concept: A group of 30 policy and technical participants explored what would be necessary to implement a treaty to withdraw U.S. nonstrategic weapons from Europe and withdraw Russian nonstrategic weapons behind the Ural Mountains. (pdf) http://bit.ly/13aqliE

Back to the party - South Korean President Park Geun-hye and Chinese President Xi Jinping called for the resumption of six-party talks with North Korea on nuclear disarmament. President Park is in Beijing for a summit. AP has the story. http://wapo.st/11PL724

North Korea’s TEL - North Korea violated export rules and deceived a chinese firm when the North bought several large industrial vehicles and converted them into mobile missile launchers, according to a report from a UN panel of experts. Story from Global Security Newswire. http://bit.ly/125Oi5n

Blind sleuthing - A key element of future nuclear reductions and nuclear security is verification. Current verification regimes require the exchange of classified information about countries’ nuclear weapons programs - information states are not eager to share. To address this issue, scientists at Princeton University have devised a “zero-knowledge” system that verifies the contents of a warhead without revealing classified details about the bombs. Susan Matthews at Scientific American provides a detailed account of the science behind the new process. http://ow.ly/mrfhq

Speed reads -

--”Taking another shot at cutting nukes” by Walter Pincus in The Washington Post. http://wapo.st/18iCLqZ

--”Obama in Berlin: Empty aspiration or inspiration to action?” Discussion thread in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. http://ow.ly/mri8w

--”Iran’s top leader: Nuclear solution ‘easy’ if West serious about deal” in The Washington Post. http://ow.ly/mrivZ

Events:

--Senate Appropriations Committee, markup of the energy and water appropriations bill, which includes NNSA’s nuclear weapons and nuclear nonproliferation programs. June 27 @ 10:00 AM. Webcast here. http://goo.gl/7nJhE

Dessert:

”Atomic Annie” & “Sad Sack”- Among the many relics of the Cold War, “Atomic Annie” - a nuclear cannon - is one of the more obscure pieces of weaponry built. The U.S. developed the gargantuan gun intended to hurl a nuclear artillery round at enemy troops on the battlefield in the early 1950’s. After a successful test in 1953, 20 of the cannons were sent to Europe and Korea, but were never used in action. Now, only eight survive. Visitors can view the only one to have fired a shot at Fort Sill. Allison Meier at Slate’s Atlas Obscura has the details. http://ow.ly/mrl6u