Russia submits U.S. nuclear arms deal to parliament

May 29, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Friday said he had submitted a landmark nuclear arms reduction treaty with the United States to the lower house of parliament for ratification.

“I today submitted for ratification the agreement on reducing strategic offensive arms,” Medvedev told members of the ruling United Russia party, which has a majority in the lower house, the Duma.

Signed by Medvedev and President Barack Obama in Prague on April 8, the successor to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) commits the former Cold War foes to reducing deployed nuclear warheads by about 30 percent.

Approval from the U.S. Senate and the Duma is required for the treaty to enter force.

Medvedev told United Russia party leaders to ensure the new treaty was ratified at the same time as the United States, but not a moment earlier or later.

Obama said earlier this month that he hoped the U.S. Senate would ratify the new START treaty by November, though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, cautioned in April that the new treaty may not be ratified until early 2011.

(Reporting by Denis Dyomkin, writing by Guy Faulconbridge)

Filed Under: International News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

UK sets limit of 225 on nuclear warhead stockpile

May 27, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Britain announced for the first time on Wednesday that it had set a limit on its nuclear weapons stockpile, at 225 warheads, and said it would re-examine its policy on using nuclear weapons.

Britain’s new Conservative-Liberal Democrat government said the announcement, timed to coincide with a U.N. nuclear non-proliferation conference in New York, was intended to build trust between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states and to contribute to worldwide nuclear arms reduction efforts.

Britain had until now disclosed only the number of operationally available nuclear warheads for its Trident missile-armed submarine fleet, and had given no figure for the overall stockpile.

“In the future our overall stockpile will not exceed 225 nuclear warheads,” Foreign Secretary William Hague told parliament.

The ceiling on operationally available warheads would stay at 160, he said. The extra warheads allow for “processing, maintenance and logistic management”, officials said.

Hague said the new government would review Britain’s policy on when it would consider using nuclear weapons as part of a defence and security review launched by the new government, which took office after the May 6 election.

Britain had long said it would consider using nuclear weapons only in “extreme circumstances” of self-defence, including the defence of NATO allies, but had been deliberately ambiguous over the precise circumstances of use, he said.

POLICY REVIEW

“The time is right to look again at our policy as the U.S. has done,” Hague said, making clear his government remained committed to maintaining a “credible minimum nuclear deterrent”.

President Barack Obama last month unveiled a new policy restricting U.S. use of nuclear weapons.

Britain and other nuclear weapons states are trying to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to countries such as Iran. Those countries often argue that established nuclear powers are doing nothing to reduce their arsenals as the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) urges.

Professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute thinktank said Hague’s disclosure “brings the UK into line with what the U.S. and France have already done”.

“The wider significance is that the Western powers want, as part of their contribution to the nuclear disarmament process, to get all the nuclear weapons states to be more transparent, including Russia and China,” he said.

The United States disclosed for the first time this month the size of its nuclear arsenal, saying it had 5,113 warheads.

In 2008, France said it would leave its submarine missile arsenal in place while cutting its stock of air-launched weapons by a third to around 290 warheads.

China and Russia have not revealed their total number of warheads, although Moscow and Washington recently agreed to limit operationally deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550.

Hague’s announcement may ease strains within Britain’s new coalition government over a decision to spend billions of pounds on updating Britain’s nuclear deterrent at a time when the country needs to cut a huge budget deficit.

The centre-right Conservatives support plans to build a new nuclear-armed submarine fleet. The centre-left Lib Dems, the junior coalition partner, wanted to look at cheaper alternatives but have agreed to opt out of any vote on the issue.

Britain has the smallest arsenal of the five legally recognised nuclear weapons states — the United States, Russia, China and France. The previous Labour government said it could consider reducing Britain’s warheads further as part of a multilateral negotiation.

(Editing by David Stamp)

Filed Under: International News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Russia to reveal nuclear stockpile data

May 13, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Moscow, May 13 (IANS/RIA Novosti) Russia is considering disclosing data on its nuclear stockpile, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Wednesday.

The statement came just over a week after the US Department of Defence for the first time revealed top-secret data on its nuclear arsenals, saying the country’s stockpile contained 5,113 nuclear warheads.

‘When the new arms reduction treaty, signed in Prague April 8 by the Russian and US presidents, comes into force, we will also be able to consider on a practical level the issue of disclosing Russia’s total number of deployed strategic delivery systems and the warheads attributed to them,’ Andrei Nesterenko said.

Commenting on the move by the US to unveil data on its nuclear arsenals, Nesterenko said ‘we consider that the step taken by Washington will increase transparency and contribute to the strengthening of trust between nuclear and non-nuclear powers’.

At a meeting in Prague in April, the two countries, which possess about 90 percent of global nuclear arsenals, agreed to reduce the number of warheads to 1,550 on each side and the number of deployed and non-deployed delivery vehicles to 800 on each side.

The new treaty, which is yet to be ratified by the Russian and US parliaments, replaces the START 1 treaty, the cornerstone of a post-Cold War arms control setup that expired December 5, 2009.

Monday, US President Barack Obama revived a civil nuclear agreement with Russia by resubmitting it to the Congress, almost two years after Washington froze the deal following Russia’s brief war with US ally Georgia over the former Georgian republic of South Ossetia in August 2008.

The agreement will open up possibilities for widespread commercial nuclear trade, technology exchange and joint nuclear research between Washington and Moscow. It will also clear the way for Russia to make headway in the profitable business of importing and storing spent nuclear fuel from US-supplied reactors.

Filed Under: International News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pakistan test fires n-capable ballistic missiles

May 8, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Islamabad, May 8 (DPA) Pakistan Saturday successfully tested two ballistic missiles capable of delivering both conventional and non-conventional warheads, the military said.

The launches of the short-range Hatf III and medium-range Hatf IV were conducted at the end of annual field exercises of Army Strategic Force Command.

‘Both missiles can carry conventional and nuclear warheads to a range of 290 km and 650 km respectively,’ military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said.

Pakistan’s arsenal of missiles target India, while the latter also has missile systems capable of hitting major Pakistani cities.

The two countries are bitter enemies and have fought three wars, two over Himalayan region of Kashmir, since they gained independence from Britain in August 1947.

The latest test came a week after their prime ministers met in Bhutan on the sidelines of a regional conference, and promised to improve relations.

Saturday’s tests are unlikely to aggravate tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbours, as they regularly carry out missile testing and notify each other in advance.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, who witnessed the tests along with senior military officers, said it was time for the world to recognise Pakistan as a nuclear power with equal rights and responsibilities.

He also demanded that Pakistan be given a Nuclear Supplier Group waiver for civil nuclear energy cooperation, as energy is a vital economic security need and nuclear power is a clean way forward.

‘Pakistan is capable of providing nuclear fuel cycle services, under IAEA safeguards, and this offer was also made at the Nuclear Security Summit,’ Gilani said.

Pakistan first conducted nuclear tests in 1998, weeks after India’s initial tests, and has been demanding recognition as a declared nuclear state since then.

Filed Under: International News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

US has over 5000 existing nuclear war-heads

May 4, 2010 By Leave a Comment

London, May 4 (ANI): The size of the United States’ nuclear warheads is estimated to be 5113, the Pentagon has disclosed, but according to the Federation of American Scientists an estimated 4,600 have been retired or dismantled.

According to The Telegraph, US and Russia together account for over 95 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons.

Setting a precedent, the US has decided to reveal the size of its nuclear stockpile in order to persuade other nuclear empowered countries to do the same.

Nuclear non-proliferation has been one of the key objectives of the Obama administration. Washington’s move to reveal the size of its nuclear arsenal assumes strategic significance in the backdrop of the forthcoming Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review conference to be held in New York this month.

There are four nuclear states that are non-signatories of the treaty. According to the Natural Resources Defence Council, India has an estimated 250 warheads, Pakistan 100, North Korea 10 and Israel 80, though the last country has never confessed to possessing any weapons.

The Pentagon said 5113 warheads were either operationally deployed, kept in active reserve or held in inactive storage. On a fact sheet detailing numbers that had been classified for decades, it said that the arsenal has been reduced by 84 percent from its maximum level of 31225 warheads at the end of 1967, The Telegraph reports.

“We think it is in our national security interests to be as transparent as we can be about the nuclear programme of the United States. We think it builds confidence, we think it brings more people to an understanding of what President Obama is trying to do,” said Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State.

Filed Under: International News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Faster weapons may replace nukes in US

April 24, 2010 By Leave a Comment

In coming years, US President Barack Obama will decide whether to deploy a new class of weapons capable of reaching any corner of the earth from the United States in under an hour and with such accuracy and force that they would greatly diminish America’s reliance on its nuclear arsenal.

Called Prompt Global Strike, the new weapon is designed to carry out tasks like picking off Osama bin Laden in a cave, if the right one could be found; taking out a North Korean missile while it is being rolled to the launch pad; or destroying an Iranian nuclear site – all without crossing the nuclear threshold.

In theory, the weapon will hurl a conventional warhead of enormous weight at high speed and with pinpoint accuracy, generating the localised destructive power of a nuclear warhead.

The idea is not new: Former US President George W Bush and his staff promoted the technology, imagining that this new generation of conventional weapons would replace nuclear warheads on submarines.

Russian leaders complained that the technology could increase the risk of a nuclear war, because Russia would not know if the missiles carried nuclear warheads or conventional ones.

The idea “really hadn’t gone anywhere in the Bush administration”, Defence Secretary Robert M Gates said on ABC’s This Week.

Obama himself alluded to the concept in a recent interview with The New York Times, saying it was part of an effort “to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons” while insuring “that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances”.

The Prompt Global Strike would be mounted on a long-range missile to start its journey toward a target. It would travel through the atmosphere at several times the speed of sound, generating so much heat that it would have to be shielded with special material to avoid melting. Its designers note that it could fly straight up the Persian Gulf before making a sharp turn toward a target. The Pentagon hopes to deploy an early version of the system by 2014 or 2015.

Filed Under: International News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

U.S. signals its nuclear arms stay in Europe for now

April 23, 2010 By Leave a Comment

The United States appeared on Thursday to rule out an early withdrawal of its battlefield nuclear weapons from Europe and said if it cut its arsenal it would want Russia to move its arms further from NATO nations.

The stance sketched out by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is likely to please former Soviet satellites now in the 28-member Western security alliance who view the so-called “tactical” nuclear weapons as critical to deterring Russia.

However, it may frustrate those that regard them as Cold War relics that have little military justification but bring huge risks — including of accidents or nuclear terrorism — to the nations that house them.

“As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance,” Clinton said in remarks prepared for delivery to NATO foreign ministers.

“As a nuclear alliance, sharing nuclear risks and responsibilities is fundamental,” she added in the remarks, which were released by the State Department.

The reference to sharing risks and burdens implied some of the estimated 200 U.S. tactical nuclear weapons deployed in five European nations will stay for now. Russia’s arsenal is estimated at 5,400 weapons, 2,000 of which are deployable.

Attention has turned to “tactical” nuclear bombs stationed in NATO countries and Russia since Washington and Moscow this month signed a deal to cut the number of deployed long-range, “strategic” nuclear warheads by about 30 percent.

Germany’s ruling coalition committed in November to the withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons from German territory. In February, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium and Luxembourg called for a debate about their future in Europe.

However, Russia says it will not start destroying its massive superiority in the weapons until Washington removes its bombs from Europe, a prospect worrying to former Soviet bloc states that are now part of NATO.

Clinton made clear that the United States would be loath to trim its arsenal without some Russian compromises.

“In any future reductions, our aim should be to seek Russian agreement to increase transparency on non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe, relocate those weapons away from the territory of NATO members, and include non-strategic nuclear weapons in the next round of U.S.-Russian arms control discussions,” she said.

“BEDROCK” COMMITMENT

At a news conference earlier with Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, Clinton tried to reassure former Soviet states who view battlefield nuclear weapons in Europe as a symbol of U.S. commitment to collective defence.

“Let me be clear: our commitment to Estonia and our other allies is a bedrock principle for the United States and we will never waiver from it,” she said in the Estonian capital.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that while the Western security alliance must debate the matter, he personally thought U.S. nuclear weapons had to stay in Europe.

“I do believe that the presence of American nuclear weapons in Europe is an essential part of a credible deterrent,” he told reporters.

Washington and Rasmussen have stressed the need for unity among NATO’s 28 members and while no agreement is expected in Tallinn, the alliance aims to set out its nuclear stance in a strategic vision due to be approved at a summit in November.

Analysts say tactical nuclear arms have little military rationale in a post-Cold War world, especially since readiness had been so reduced that they would take months to deploy.

But a key concern is that any move to remove NATO nuclear weapons could prompt Turkey to develop its own deterrent, given its worries about nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

Poland’s Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said there were too many tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, but there needed to be a reciprocal agreement with Russia.

Tomas Valasek of the Centre for European Reform think tank said allies had to decide whether to move on tactical weapons unilaterally or in exchange for cuts by Russia and to give reassurances on collective security to former Soviet states.

“But I suspect the days of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe are over, barring a catastrophic meltdown in relations with Russia. It’s just a matter of when and how,” he said.

Filed Under: International News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NATO debates future of U.S. nuclear arms in Europe

April 23, 2010 By Leave a Comment

NATO ministers debated on Thursday whether they should do away with U.S. battlefield nuclear weapons in Europe, and Washington said it was committed to defending former Soviet states nervous about Russia.

Attention has turned to so-called “tactical” nuclear bombs stationed in NATO countries and Russia since Washington and Moscow this month signed a deal to cut the number of deployed long-range, “strategic” nuclear warheads by about 30 percent.

Germany’s ruling coalition committed in November to the withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons from German territory. In February, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium and Luxembourg called for a debate about their future in Europe.

However, Russia says it will not start destroying its massive superiority in the weapons until Washington removes its bombs from Europe, a prospect worrying to former Soviet bloc states that are now part of NATO.

At a news conference with Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to reassure former Soviet states who view battlefield nuclear weapons in Europe as a symbol of U.S. commitment to collective defence.

“Let me be clear: our commitment to Estonia and our other allies is a bedrock principle for the United States and we will never waiver from it,” she said in the Estonian capital.

Washington wants to address the issue of battlefield nuclear weapons, which many analysts consider obsolete in the post-Cold War world, but has yet to make public its position.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that while the 28-member Western security alliance must debate the matter, he personally thought U.S. nuclear weapons must stay in Europe.

“I do believe that the presence of American nuclear weapons in Europe is an essential part of a credible deterrent,” he told reporters.

CLINTON TO EXPLAIN PRINCIPLES

A senior U.S. official said Clinton would lay out some guiding principles during the dinner meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Tallinn, the Estonian capital.

Washington and Rasmussen have stressed the need for unity among the 28 NATO states and while no agreement is expected in Tallinn, the alliance aims to set out its nuclear stance in a new strategic vision due to be approved at a summit in November.

Analysts say tactical nuclear arms have little military rationale in a post-Cold War world, especially since readiness had been so reduced that they would take months to deploy.

But a key concern is that any move to remove NATO nuclear weapons could prompt Turkey to develop its own deterrent, given its worries about nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

Poland’s Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said there were too many tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, but there needed to be a reciprocal agreement with Russia, which has an arsenal estimated at 5,400 weapons, 2,000 of which are deployable, against an estimated 200 NATO operational weapons.

Germany’s Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said it was time to make progress with disarmament but pledged not to take unilateral steps.

“The Americans included in their concept that tactical nuclear weapons might be reduced. This is big progress compared to the situation a few months ago,” he said. “Of course we would not go it alone and would coordinate it within the alliance.”

Tomas Valasek of the Centre for European Reform think tank said allies had to decide whether to move on tactical weapons unilaterally or in exchange for cuts by Russia and to give reassurances on collective security to former Soviet states.

“But I suspect the days of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe are over, barring a catastrophic meltdown in relations with Russia. It’s just a matter of when and how,” he said.

(Additional reporting by Ilona Wissenbach, Editing by Lin Noueihed)

Filed Under: International News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NATO debates future of nuclear arms in Europe

April 23, 2010 By Leave a Comment

NATO ministers debated on Thursday calls to do away with battlefield nuclear weapons in Europe and Washington stressed its commitment to the defence of former Soviet states nervous about Russia.

Attention has turned to battlefield, or “tactical”, nuclear bombs stationed with U.S. and allied air forces in Germany and in Russia after Washington and Moscow reached a deal to cut the number of deployed long-range, “strategic” nuclear warheads by about 30 percent.

Germany’s ruling coalition committed in November to withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons from German territory, and in February, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium and Luxembourg called for a debate about their future in Europe.

However, Russia says it will not start destroying its massive superiority in the weapons until Washington removes its bombs from Europe, a prospect worrying to former Soviet bloc states that are now part of NATO.

At a news conference with Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to reassure former Soviet states who see the presence of battlefield nuclear weapons in Europe as a symbol of U.S. commitment to collective defence.

“Let me be clear: our commitment to Estonia and our other allies is a bedrock principle for the United States and we will never waiver from it,” she said.

Washington wants to address the issue of battlefield nuclear weapons, which many analysts consider obsolete in the post-Cold War world, but has yet to make public its position.

CLINTON TO EXPLAIN PRINCIPLES

A senior U.S. official said Clinton would lay out some guiding principles during a dinner meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Tallinn, the Estonian capital.

Washington and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen have stressed the need for unity among the 28 NATO states and while no agreement is expected in Tallinn, the alliance aims to set out its nuclear stance in a new strategic vision due to be approved at a summit in November.

Rasmussen told the meeting it was important to build on progress in arms control, but also for the alliance to maintain a nuclear deterrence.

“NATO should play its part and we will discuss that based on the clear principles of solidarity, shared burdens and the need to ensure deterrence in an uncertain world.”

Analysts say tactical nuclear weapons have little military rationale in a post-Cold War world, especially as their readiness had been so reduced they would take months to deploy.

But a key concern is that any move to remove NATO nuclear weapons could prompt Turkey to develop its own deterrent, given its worries about nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

Poland’s Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said there were too many tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, but there needed to be a reciprocal agreement with Russia, which has an arsenal estimated at 5,400 weapons, 2,000 of which are deployable, against an estimated 200 NATO operational weapons.

Germany’s Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said it was time to make progress with disarmament but pledged not to take unilateral steps.

“The Americans included in their concept that tactical nuclear weapons might be reduced. This is big progress compared to the situation a few months ago,” he said. “Of course we would not go it alone and would coordinate it within the alliance.”

Tomas Valasek of the Centre for European Reform think tank said allies had to decide whether to move on tactical weapons unilaterally or in exchange for cuts by Russia and to give reassurances on collective security to former Soviet states.

“But I suspect the days of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe are over, barring a catastrophic meltdown in relations with Russia. It’s just a matter of when and how,” he said. (Additional reporting by Ilona Wissenbach)

Filed Under: International News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NATO to debate future of nuclear arms in Europe

April 23, 2010 By Leave a Comment

NATO ministers meeting in Estonia on Thursday will debate the future of battlefield nuclear weapons and relations with Russia after Washington and Moscow agreed a major arms reduction treaty this month.

The U.S.-Russian deal would cut the number of deployed long-range, “strategic” nuclear warheads by about 30 percent and is part of a broader effort by the administration of President Barack Obama to boost ties with America’s former Cold War foe.

Attention now turns at a NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Tallinn to the estimated 200 operational battlefield, or “tactical,” nuclear bombs stationed with U.S. and allied air forces in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey.

Germany’s ruling coalition, which is also keen to boost ties with Moscow, committed in November to withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons from German territory, and in February, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium and Luxembourg called for a debate about their future in Europe.

While the U.S. administration wants in future to address the issue of battlefield nuclear weapons, which many analysts consider obsolete in the post-Cold War world, it has yet to state publicly its position. It has, however, stressed that any decision must be agreed by all 28 NATO states.

A senior U.S. official who flew to Tallinn with Clinton said she would lay out the U.S. stance over dinner with NATO foreign ministers on Thursday but declined to tip her hand.

“The secretary will spell out some of the principles that guide us as we think about this issue but I will let her address this with the allies first,” the official, who spoke on condition that he not be identified, told reporters.

Russia, meanwhile, says it will not start destroying its massive superiority in the weapons until Washington removes its bombs from Europe, a prospect worrying to former Soviet bloc states that are now part of NATO.

Another key concern is that any move to remove NATO nuclear weapons could prompt Turkey to develop its own deterrent, given its worries about nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

NATO STRESSES COMMON APPROACH

NATO aims to set out its nuclear stance in a new strategic vision due to be approved at a summit in Lisbon in November and stresses the need for a common approach.

“No decision will be taken in Tallinn,” NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Monday.

“But I do think the principles of NATO’s nuclear discussion are already clear: first that no ally will take unilateral decisions and second that as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, NATO will need a nuclear deterrent.”

A Belgian foreign ministry spokesman said it was important to debate reducing or withdrawing tactical nuclear weapons.

“But there must be a decision by consensus within NATO. We don’t know whether that is in reach,” Patrick Deboeck said.

“We think it is important to maintain the credibility of nuclear deterrence, but we also see the possibility to go further,” on nuclear disarmament, he said. “NATO has a role to play on tactical nuclear weapons.”

Deboeck said the key point was whether such weapons should be withdrawn without Russian moves to destroy its arsenal, which is estimated at 5,400 weapons, 2,000 of which are deployable.

Tomas Valasek of the Centre for European Reform think tank said tactical nuclear weapons had little military rationale, especially as their readiness had been so reduced they would take months to deploy.

But for ex-Soviet bloc states nervous about Russia, they were a symbol of U.S. commitment to collective defence.

“I suspect the days of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe are over, barring a catastrophic meltdown in relations with Russia. It’s just a matter of when and how,” he said.

(Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Michael Roddy)

Filed Under: International News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Planet at stake in US-Russia nuke treaty: Medvedev

April 8, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Russian president Dmitry Medvedev says the world depends on the nuclear disarmament treaty he is due to sign with US president Barack Obama, as he arrived in Prague for the ceremony.

“The treaty is an important document on which the overall situation in nuclear disarmament depends to a great extent – and so does – speaking in general, the overall situation on the planet,” Mr Medvedev said after meeting Czech president Vaclav Klaus.

Mr Obama is expected to land in Prague around Thursday morning (local time).

The two leaders will sign a successor to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expired last December, in the city where Mr Obama called for a nuclear-free world in a keynote speech a year ago.

The deal slashes the number of deployed warheads by 30 per cent from the levels set in the last major US-Russian disarmament treaty in 2002, specifying limits of 1,550 nuclear warheads for each of the two countries.

“That which will happen in Prague tomorrow will be a very important step in the process of disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,” Mr Medvedev said.

Filed Under: International News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ANALYSIS – Hurdles could delay Senate action on START

April 8, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Lack of outright Senate opposition, so far, to the new arms reduction treaty that President Barack Obama is to sign with Russia this week does not guarantee quick approval — or even that approval will happen at all.

Supporters, though, are confident that the treaty will ultimately win approval in the Senate where Obama’s Democrats have the majority, but not the required 67 — or two-thirds– vote.

“I’m pretty confident that if we can get this treaty to a final vote, not only will the treaty pass, but it will pass with a very large majority,” said John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev meet in Prague on Thursday to sign the successor to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. The new START commits the ex-Cold War foes to cut arsenals of deployed nuclear warheads by about 30 percent.

The White House hopes that by the end of 2010, the Senate as well as Russia’s parliament, the Duma, will have approved the deal. Senate committee hearings could begin this spring, as soon as the treaty and annexes are sent to Capitol Hill. No action is required in the House of Representatives.

Analysts say potential obstacles to the Senate’s consent lie not so much in what is in the new treaty, but concerns that some Republicans have raised about related matters: U.S. missile defense programs and the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

U.S. politics and procedural rules could also delay Senate action and indirectly, that of Russia’s Duma. Russian officials say they want to “synchronize” ratification, suggesting they may not be willing to vote until the Senate does.

But Senate Republicans soured by the recent healthcare battle with Obama may be in no rush to hand him a foreign policy victory ahead of November congressional elections.

“There is a danger that it (the new START) will have difficulty overcoming the intense partisan obstructionism in that body,” analysts Max Bergmann and Samuel Charap of the Center for American Progress wrote this week.

ARGUMENTS FOR APPROVAL

On the merits, there has been little criticism of the new START so far. Many lawmakers in both U.S. political parties favor nuclear arms reductions, as well as keeping some level of cooperation going with the Russians.

Many are also likely to think that some means of verifying Russia’s nuclear arsenal is better than none. The old START treaty expired last December, although both sides pledged to uphold the spirit of the deal while seeking a replacement.

If things do get tricky in the Senate debate, “it’s because the debate becomes broader, rather than just the narrow debate about the provisions of the treaty,” said Tom Donnelly, defense analyst at the American Enterprise Institute.

Republicans are looking for evidence that Obama will keep the remaining U.S. arsenal up-to-date, he said.

U.S. missile defense programs are not limited by the treaty, but they are another potential source of trouble in the ratification process. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says Moscow will withdraw from the new START treaty if U.S. missile defense threatens Russia, although he suggested this was unlikely to happen in the near future.

Stephen Rademaker, a former head of the State Department’s arms control bureau, said some U.S. senators might wonder why they should vote for the treaty if the Russians intend to use it as leverage to stop missile defense policies that Obama already has declared.

“Is there an intention on both sides to live with this treaty, or are the Russians essentially coming to this wedding declaring that they want to get married but they don’t intend to live in holy matrimony?” Rademaker asked during a forum at the Heritage Foundation in Washington this week.

But Ambassador Linton Brooks, who negotiated the first START treaty under former President George H.W. Bush, noted that Russian statements about missile defense may be aimed at Russian audiences.

“It would be tragic if we allowed Russian statements made for domestic purposes to derail it (new START),” he said.

Filed Under: International News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

U.S. plans help German nuclear arms removal – minister

April 8, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Washington’s plans to reduce its reliance on nuclear weapons will bolster efforts to remove the last remaining U.S. nuclear arms in Germany, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said on Wednesday.

Westerwelle said Tuesday’s announcement by U.S. President Barack Obama that the U.S. aimed to renounce development of new atomic weapons was a “historic” step that brought the vision of a Germany free of nuclear arms closer to reality.

“The German government wants the last tactical nuclear weapons removed from Germany,” he said in a statement in Berlin. “This provides a tailwind to the government’s aims.”

Westerwelle, a member of the Free Democrats (FDP) who rule in a coalition with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives, has made disarmament his signature issue.

He announced the day after last year’s federal election that he wanted talks on removing the last U.S. nuclear warheads from Germany, calling them “relics of the Cold War”.

According to unofficial estimates, the United States still has around 20 nuclear weapons stationed at a base in the western German town of Buechel.

Westerwelle said removal of the weapons should involve the “closest cooperation” with Germany’s allies and promised to address the matter at an informal meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Tallin on April 22-23.

He said Obama’s plans also sent out a signal that Iran should desist from any moves to acquire nuclear arms.

(Reporting by Dave Graham; editing by Noah Barkin)

Filed Under: International News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Q+A – Why is a U.S.-Russia nuclear deal important?

March 27, 2010 By Leave a Comment

The presidents of Russia and the United States will meet in Prague to sign a new nuclear arms reduction treaty on April 8, the White House and Kremlin said on Friday.

The two largest nuclear powers have been formally negotiating on a successor to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) since April 2009.

* WHAT IS THE NEW TREATY?

- Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev said last April that they wanted to agree a new deal by the Dec. 5 expiry date of START I but talks snagged and the two sides agreed to act in the spirit of START until a replacement was ready.

The two leaders agreed in July that a new treaty would limit operationally deployed nuclear warheads to 1,500-1,675, and both sides said on Friday that the specific limit would be 1,550 — down from current levels of 2,200-2,700.

In the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), also known as the Moscow Treaty, each side agreed to cut strategic nuclear warheads to 1,700-2,200 by 2012.

Obama and Medvedev said the limit for delivery vehicles — the missiles, bombers and systems that deliver a warhead to a target — should be in the 500-1,100 range. Negotiators agreed on a specific limit of 800, half the 1,600 set in START I.

* WHY IS THE AGREEMENT IMPORTANT?

– The quest for a START successor pact is a key part of efforts to “reset” relations after increasing tension that peaked with Russia’s 2008 war against U.S.-supported Georgia.

Obama has said improving ties with Russia, a key player in Iran and an important source of support on Afghanistan, is a priority.

– Both the United States and Russia, which hold 95 percent of the world’s nuclear arms, say further reductions in their arsenals will improve mutual trust and send a strong signal to other nations at a time when global powers are trying to rein in the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.

– The agreement could help create the momentum for a nuclear security summit Obama is hosting in mid-April and a May conference to review the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

– For Russia, its vast store of Soviet-era nuclear weapons is one of the factors keeping Moscow at the top table of world politics.

After Russia’s conventional forces were starved of cash in the chaos that followed the 1991 Soviet collapse, its still mighty nuclear deterrent is the centrepiece of the Kremlin’s military doctrine.

– Both sides said the new deal will include detailed verification procedures that were absent from the 2002 Moscow Treaty — an omission cited by arms experts as a major flaw However, the verification procedures will not be as onerous as in START I.

Verification procedures such as inspections and access to data about missile tests is important because it helps the former Cold War foes accurately to predict how many weapons each side has and thus reduces the chance of a new arms race.

– A replacement for START I is seen as the first step towards much deeper cuts. Both sides hope an agreement on START could lay the ground for more ambitious talks about reducing the silos of thousands of non-deployed nuclear warheads and shorter-range tactical nuclear warheads.

Those talks could also impose must bigger cuts to deployed strategic warheads and delivery systems.

* WHY DID THE TALKS TAKE LONGER THAN HOPED?

– The two sides agreed on a news blackout from negotiations in Geneva, so there were few details about what caused the delay in achieving a deal.

– Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said in December that U.S. plans for a missile defence system were the main obstacle to reaching a new deal, suggesting Moscow wanted it to limit missile defences.

Obama and Medvedev agreed in July that the treaty will contain a provision describing the relationship between offensive and defensive weapons, but the United States says the pact is not the place for details on missile defence.

– Remarks about the treaty from both sides on Friday suggested that it will not place specific limits on missile defence. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said either side has the right to stop reducing strategic offensive weapons if the other side increases its capacity for defence against those missiles.

– Negotiations over verification measures were said to have been intense. Russia has called for more relaxed procedures than in START I.

That is in part because while Russia has been developing new nuclear missiles to take the place of aging models, the United States is relying mostly on models that will be in service for years to come, prompting Russia to contend that it is getting little new information from verification measures.

(Writing by Guy Faulconbridge and Steve Gutterman in Moscow)

Filed Under: International News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

US, Russia close to signing deal on nuke weapons reduction

March 25, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Washington, Mar. 25 (ANI): The United States and Russia are close to announcing a nuclear weapons deal that would replace the START accord of 1991.

The apparent agreement comes just ahead of a White House summit on nuclear security in April.

According to the Christian Science Monitor (CSM), American and Russian negotiators reached an agreement Wednesday on a new strategic arms reduction treaty that will continue the process of reducing the world’s two largest arsenals of nuclear weapons – and that will move the powers further away from their 20th-century status as cold-war enemies.

Agreement comes just as the Obama administration is about to embark on several weeks of nuclear diplomacy.

President Obama has invited more than 40 heads of state to a White House summit on nuclear security in April, and a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference is set for May.

An official announcement could come as early as Friday, US officials said.

Russian officials in Moscow announced that a few details in the treaty’s annex have been agreed on.

The accord is expected to include the deal that Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev concluded with a handshake last July to reduce each country’s nuclear warheads to between 1,500 and 1,675 within seven years.

The original START accord, reached by US President George H.W. Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, called for reducing arsenals to about 6,000 warheads each and included verification measures to boost confidence on each side that the other was following through on obligations. (ANI)

Filed Under: International News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pak says reports of increase in nuke warheads ‘speculative’

September 4, 2009 By Leave a Comment

Islamabad, Sep.4 (ANI): Pakistan has rejected reports that it has enhanced its nuclear capabilities and has considerably increased the number of its nuclear warheads from 60 to around 70-90.

Interacting with media persons after a meeting with Minister for Religious Affairs, Hamid Saeed Kazmi, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi termed the reports ‘speculative’.

Qureshi said Pakistan is against an arms race in the region and does not have any aggressive designs against any country.

“Pakistan is a peaceful country and wants to establish peace in the region but minimum credible deterrence is right of Pakistan and it will be maintained at all cost,” The Dawn quoted Qureshi, as saying.

According to a study in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Pakistan is pushing ahead with a plutonium-based nuclear programme, superior to its previous uranium technology program.

The report concluded that Pakistan has an arsenal of 70 to 90 nuclear weapons and is ‘busily enhancing its capabilities across the board.’

“The US Defence Intelligence Agency in 1999 had estimated that Pakistan has 25 to 35 warheads and would have between 60 and 80 by 2020,” the report said

The report, carried by The Telegraph, also said that a new nuclear-capable ballistic missile is being readied for deployment and two nuclear-capable cruise missiles are under development. (ANI)

Filed Under: International News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

US report reveals Pak enhancing nuke weapon capability to target India

September 1, 2009 By Leave a Comment

Washington, Sep.1 (ANI): Top US nuclear scientists have shockingly revealed in a report that Pakistan is enhancing its nuclear weapons and production capabilities.

According to the report, which is yet to enter the public domain, Pakistan is readying a new nuclear capable ballistic missile for deployment and two nuclear capable cruise missiles.

It also says that Pakistan is building two new plutonium production reactors and a second chemical separation facility at Chasma, Khushab and Dera Ghazi Khan in southern Punjab.

Pakistan is also renewing work on a partially built separation plant at Chasma.

It is believed that this secretive and substantial arsenal build-up is targeted at India.

Based on official estimates of Pakistan’s current uranium and plutonium technology, scientists had so far thought the country far short of having a 100 nuclear warheads in its kitty.

The new report, however, suggests that Pakistan has exceeded earlier estimates, and from being able to build 30-40 nuclear weapons it actually could possess as many as 70-90 – a disturbing figure from India’s point of view and that of the US, currently debating financial and military aid to its friend in keeping with the AFPAK agreement.

Moreover, if this report is true Pakistan is clearly going beyond the moratorium existing as an unwritten code of conduct in South Asia to halt the arms race. (ANI)

Filed Under: International News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

US worried over increased risks of Pak nuke theft due to expanding nuclear programme

May 28, 2009 By Leave a Comment

Washington, May 28 (ANI): The United States is concerned over reports about both Pakistan and India expanding their nuclear programmes, and the possible threats this may pose in Pakistan’s nukes falling into the hands of extremists.

While Pakistan is working hard to develop warheads for ballistic missiles and cruise missiles that could be launched from ships, submarines or aircraft, India on the other hand, is busy in developing cruise missiles to carry nuclear warheads.

Indian scientists are also busy in re-designing its Agni ballistic missiles to make it capable of carrying nuclear warheads and could be deployed on submarines.

The recent nuclear test conducted by North Korean has aggravated Washington’s concern about the arms race in the region.

The United States is primarily concerned by the reports that Pakistan is rapidly adding onto its stockpile of nuclear arsenals, and the increased risk of it falling into the Taliban’s hands, The Washington Post reports.

“More vulnerabilities. More stuff in production. More stuff in transit, when it is more vulnerable to theft,” said Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, former CIA’s official on weapons of mass destruction and the Energy Department’s director of intelligence.

It may be noted that former weapons inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) David Albright recently had claimed that two plutonium-producing reactors in Pakistan are nearing completion at Khushab, about 160 miles south-west of the capital, Islamabad.

Albright said commercial satellite pictures of the region prove that Pakistan is expanding its nuclear capability.

The Khushab reactors are situated near the border of Punjab and the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), where the military and the Taliban are engaged in heavy confrontation.

Beside, the Khusab reactors, the terror threat also looms large over the Gadwal uranium enrichment plant, especially after an incident when a suicide bomber had blown himself up outside the Kamra complex in 2007.

John Bolton, a hawkish former senior official in the Bush administration, had recently also expressed concerns over the safety of these nuclear facilities.

The United States believes that a more global approach is needed while appealing the two countries to slow down their weapon race.

“We have to think of dealing with the South Asian problem not on a purely regional basis, but in the context of a more global approach,” said Gary Samore, senior White House Nonproliferation Adviser.

“Pakistani government has always said they will do that in conjunction with India. The Indians have always said,we can’t take steps unless similar steps are taken by China and the other nuclear states, and very quickly you end up with a situation where it’s hard to make progress,” Samore added. (ANI)

Filed Under: International News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

India-Pakistan n-arms race worries US: report

May 28, 2009 By Leave a Comment

Washington, May 28 (IANS) The India-Pakistan nuclear arms race, which reminds some in the American establishment of the US-Soviet nuclear competition during the Cold War, has left US officials “increasingly worried”, a report said here Thursday.

At a time when the reported detonation of a North Korean nuclear device Monday has renewed concerns over that country’s efforts to build up its atomic arsenal, “US and allied officials and experts who have tracked developments in South Asia have grown increasingly worried over the rapid growth of the region’s more mature nuclear programmes, in part because of the risk that weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists”, the Washington Post reported.

Sometime next year, at a tightly guarded site south of its capital, Pakistan will be ready to start churning out a new stream of plutonium for its nuclear arsenal, which will eventually include warheads for ballistic missiles and cruise missiles capable of being launched from ships, submarines or aircraft, it noted.

Engineers in India, on the other hand, are designing cruise missiles to carry nuclear warheads, relying partly on Russian missile-design assistance, the report said.

India is also trying to equip its Agni ballistic missiles with such warheads and to deploy them on submarines and its rudimentary missile-defence capability is slated for a major upgrade next year, according to the Post.

India and Pakistan see their nuclear programmes as vital points of leverage in an arms race that has begun to take on the pace and diversity, although not the size, of US-Soviet nuclear competition during the Cold War, it quoted US intelligence and proliferation experts as saying.

Pakistani authorities said they are modernising their facilities, not expanding their programme; Indian officials in New Delhi and Washington declined to comment, the report said.

“They are both going great guns [on] new systems, new materials; they are doing everything you would imagine,” a former intelligence official who has long studied the region and who spoke on the condition of anonymity told the Post.

While both India and Pakistan say their actions are defensive, the consequence of their efforts has been to boost the quantity of nuclear materials being produced and the number of times they must be moved around, as well as the training of experts in highly sensitive skills, this source and others say.

That would lead to more vulnerabilities, according to Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, formerly the CIA’s top official on weapons of mass destruction and the Energy Department’s director of intelligence during the George W. Bush administration.

US experts are also worried that as the size of the nuclear programmes of India and Pakistan grow, chances increase that a rogue scientist or military officer will attempt to sell nuclear parts or know-how, as now-disgraced Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan did.

Former Indian government officials say efforts are underway to improve and test a powerful thermonuclear warhead, even as the country adds to a growing array of aircraft, missiles and submarines that launch them.

“Delivery system-wise, India is doing fine,” Bharat Karnad, a former member of India’s National Security Advisory Board and a professor of national security studies at New Delhi’s Centre for Policy Research, was quoted as saying.

India first detonated an atomic bomb in 1974. India and Pakistan both tested nuclear devices in 1998.

A senior Pakistani official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said his government has refrained from testing missiles that could carry nuclear weapons because officials do not want to antagonise the Indian and US governments.

The scenario poses a challenge for the US administration as President Barack Obama hopes to complete during his first term a treaty to curtail the global production of fissile materials.

Filed Under: International News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts