Plutonium Boondoggle Faces Possible Suspension
On the radar: MOX vs sequestration; Dismantlement pace, infrastructure needs; Joe talks Hagel; N. Korea hides test site; Doubting nuclear dominoes; Dealing with Iran; and The bomb and 1950s monster flicks.
On the radar: MOX vs sequestration; Dismantlement pace, infrastructure needs; Joe talks Hagel; N. Korea hides test site; Doubting nuclear dominoes; Dealing with Iran; and The bomb and 1950s monster flicks.
February 1, 2013 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Alyssa Demus
Budget flash - Construction of the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility faces possible suspension if budget sequestration goes into effect, according to reports. The program - currently estimated to cost $4.8 billion - is vastly over budget, and a new baseline could add $2 billion more to that price tag.
--“If the debt crisis is going to be met head on, then budget-busting projects like MOX must be eliminated and less costly plutonium disposition options pursued,” said Tom Clements in the Aiken Leader. http://bit.ly/WFKLbl
Eyes in the skies - North Korea’s recently covered an entrance at its main underground test site, hindering intelligence agencies’ ability to predict a possible nuclear test. Choe Sang-Hun of The New York Times has the story. http://owl.li/hkOqj
Couldn’t you just vote on the Super Bowl? - Tweets @carnegienpp: What will the yield of North Korea's next nuclear test be? Vote in our poll! http://t.co/pWz2I1ZV
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.
Audit Report - “The National Nuclear Security Administration's Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition Program” by the Department of Energy Inspector General. January, 2013.
--Conclusion: “Our review disclosed that NNSA met or exceeded its nuclear weapons dismantlement and disposition program goals for FYs 2010 and 2011. However, we noted potential issues related to the infrastructure for staging nuclear weapons, nuclear weapon components, and other weapon components at Pantex that could impact future dismantlement efforts and other Directed Stockpile Work programs.” (pdf) http://1.usa.gov/VsGCHq
Hagel hearing - Fireworks flew at Sen. Hagel’s confirmation hearing yesterday, as a few conservative senators took issue with Hagel’s positions on arms control and nuclear reductions. Our own Joe Cirincione talked with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow last night, explaining Hagel’s positions and the views of those attacking them. Watch the interview. http://bit.ly/VzCgnc
Leverage-seeking - Iran is set to expand enrichment capacity at its Natanz facility. On the question why, “I wonder if they wanted to get more negotiating leverage, demonstrate their technological prowess, but did not want to fulfill the most alarming predictions of those who argue that Iran is intent on breaking out,” posited Greg Thielmann of the Arms Control Association. Full Story at The Washington Post. http://wapo.st/14Dq1ax
Questioning the cascade - In the early 2000s, many experts predicted a “cascade of proliferation” in East Asia after North Korea tests its first nuclear device. That didn’t happen. But today’s commentators, without historical evidence supporting it, still apply the same “nuclear dominoes” theory to Iran. Justin Logan in US News compares theory and history.
--”If people are going to hang the argument that Iran must be prevented from going nuclear—at any cost, including America launching another war in the Middle East—on the idea that Iran would precipitate a proliferation cascade, they would do well to read history and theory to figure out why their forebears were uniformly wrong on this question,” writes Logan. http://bit.ly/YoGATv
From the stacks - “Forecasting Nuclear Proliferation in the 21st Century,” William Potter and Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova eds., 2010. http://bit.ly/11t1VuS
Deal or no deal - The US and its negotiating partners have been unable to so far to find a diplomatic solution with Iran that keeps the Islamic Republic from the bomb. The Economist looks into the politics and prospects of such a nuclear deal.
--Looking down the road: ”Iran’s leaders seem to be taking care not to cross Mr Obama’s ‘red line’ by building an actual nuclear weapon, an act that would probably trigger American military action. So what will happen, presuming that negotiations do eventually start and that there is still no deal? The likely answer is more sanctions and more suffering for ordinary Iranians, much as Iraq underwent in the 1990s. That is hardly a happy precedent,” the paper argues. http://econ.st/XsYjYL
Window for talks - Vice President Biden told German press that the U.S. remains open to bilateral talks with Iran, but warned that the window for diplomacy “will not be open for an unlimited time.” German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle responded to the Vice President’s comments saying he will “urge Tehran to consider Biden’s offer of bilateral talks” when he meets with his Iranian counterpart this weekend.
--”Direct talks between Washington and Tehran are in the interest of all of our security, also in our interests as Europeans so we will make our contribution to creating the necessary atmosphere," said Westerwelle. AFP has the full story. http://owl.li/hkJED
Events:
--”Dealing with a Nuclear Iran: Redlines and Deadlines.” Gen. James Cartwright, Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and seven other speakers. February 6, 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. @ CSIS. http://owl.li/hbQKm
--”What to do about Nuclear Outliers Iran and North Korea?” Robert Litwak, Vice President for Scholars and Academic Relations and Director of Int. Security Studies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. February 6, 12:00-1:30 p.m. @ George Washington University. http://owl.li/hbTo6
--”Five Myths About Nuclear Weapons: A Pragmatic Re-appraisal.” Ward Wilson, Senior Fellow at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute. February 14, 3:30-5:00 p.m. @ American University, School of International Service. http://owl.li/hkKOD
Dessert:
Attack of the irradiated _______ - The 1950s saw a lot of sci-fi movies involving irradiated monsters and nuclear weapons - Godzilla, giant ants, giant locusts, huge spiders, a moth of unusual size, etc. Katy Waldman asks what in Cold War culture lead American cinema to focus on the dread of widespread destruction and the poisons of radiation.
--Her thoughts: “nuclear horror films are saturated in paranoia, fear of enemies external and internal blooming over them like a mushroom cloud. Their diffuse nervousness feels as uncontainable as the atomic danger producing it.” Full article at Slate. http://slate.me/VzAF0Q
Can’t deter Martians - In the above report, the author mistakenly said “that an atomic bomb destroyed the Martian invaders in the original War of the Worlds movie. In fact, the bomb failed to stop the aliens. They were subsequently defeated by germs.” Slate recognized the error here. http://slate.me/VzAti8