Partnership for Global Security: Leading the World to a Safer Future
Home Projects Publications Issues Official Documents About RANSAC Nuclear News 4/15/13
Location: Home / Projects & Publications / News
Sitemap Contact
Google www PGS
Nuclear News - 03/13/02
RANSAC Nuclear News, March 13, 2002
Compiled by David Smigielski

A. Cooperative Threat Reduction
    1. USA To Pay For Transportation Of Uzbek Enriched Uranium To Russia, ITAR-TASS, March 13, 2002
B. U.S.-Russia HEU Purchase Agreement
    1. Russian Accused Of Taking U.S. Aid, Stephen J. Hedges, Chicago Tribune, March 12, 2002
C. Russia-U.S.
    1. US Nuclear Strategy Paper Out Of Line With Russia Dialogue - Minister, ITAR-TASS, March 13, 2002
    2. Russia May Have Plans To Deliver Nuclear Strike On U.S., March 13, 2002
    3. Signs Visible Of U.S. Nuclear Doctrine Changing Dangerously - Duma Member, Interfax March 12, 2002
    4. Military Experts Play Down Pentagon Nuke Plans, Yelena Shushkunova,, March 12, 2002
    5. Deputies See Little New In U.S. Report, Gregory Feifer, Moscow Times, March 12, 2002
    6. Russia Criticises US Nuclear Planning, Reuters, March 11, 2002
    7. Russian Defense Minister Starts Official Visit To The U.S., Victoria Whall, Russian Observer, March 11, 2002
    8. Bush Advisers Retreat On Use Of Nuclear Arms, Zachary Coile, San Francisco Chronicle March 11, 2002
    9. Nuclear Arms For Deterrence Or Fighting?, Michael R. Gordon, New York Times March 10, 2002
D. Russia-Iran
    1. Russian Defence Minister Denies Nuclear Arms Cooperation With Iran, Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Radio, March 12, 2002
    2. Russia To Build 2nd Atomic Power Plant In Iran, Iran News March 10, 2002
E. Nuclear Terrorism
    1. Georgia Vulnerable To Transit Of Nuclear Components, ITAR-TASS, March 12, 2002
    2. Nuclear Terrorism Seen As Growing Threat In Russia, Gennadiy Voskresenskiy, Vremya March 12, 2002
F. Russian Nuclear Forces
    1. Russia Might Keep Warheads, RFE/RL Newsline, March 8, 2002
G. Russian Nuclear Waste
    1. Russia Edges Closer To Importing Of Nuclear Waste, AFP, March 6, 2002
H. Announcements
    1. U.S. And Uzbekistan Cooperate On Nonproliferation, U.S. Department of Energy, March 12, 2002
    2. Regarding The Publication Of The US National Intelligence Council's Report On The State Of Affairs With The Security Of Nuclear Weapons And Civilian Nuclear Facilities In The Russian Federation, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, March 7, 2002
I. Links of Interest
    1. Russia Deputy N-Minister Interviewed On US HEU-LEU Contract, FBIS, March 8, 2002
    2. Verifiable Elimination Of Nuclear Warheads: What Lies Behind Russian Proposals?, Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies, February 20, 2002
    3. An Analysis Of U.S. Defense And Economic Adjustment Programs In Russia, Linn Schulte-Sasse, July 2001
    4. How Verifications Can Be Used To Ensure Irreversible Deep Reductions Of Nuclear Weapons, Wu Jun, June 2001

A. Cooperative Threat Reduction

USA To Pay For Transportation Of Uzbek Enriched Uranium To Russia
March 13, 2002
(for personal use only)

The US and Uzbek governments on Tuesday [12 March] signed an agreementcovering the transportation to Russia of highly-enriched uranium whichwas amassed for reprocessing at an Uzbek nuclear facility. The agreementwas signed for the American side by US Energy Secretary Spencer Abrahamand for the Uzbek side by Foreign Minister Abdulaziz Komilov.

Under the agreement the Uzbek nuclear reactor concerned is to berefitted so that it is no longer able to process weapons-gradehighly-enriched uranium. According to the available information, the USAwill be paying the full cost of transporting to Russia the Uzbek nuclearfuel, which preliminary estimates put at some 4m-dollars worth.

In the agreement the USA and Uzbekistan confirm their intention ofcooperating on nonproliferation.
return to menu

B. U.S.-Russia HEU Purchase Agreement

Russian Accused Of Taking U.S. Aid
Stephen J. Hedges
Chicago Tribune
March 12, 2002
(for personal use only)

A top Russian official funneled more than $4 million in U.S. foreign aidinto the Pennsylvania and Delaware bank accounts of a company he formednearly a decade ago, and then allegedly withdrew hundreds of thousandsof dollars from those same accounts, according to federal records,interviews and a Russian legislative committee report.

The U.S. Energy Department funds, which were intended to help Russiamake its nuclear power reactors safer, were transferred into two bankaccounts held by Energo Pool Inc. The company was formed in 1993 byYevgeny Adamov, who resigned under pressure last year as Russia'sminister of atomic energy.

Beginning in 1994, the money was wired by Argonne National Laboratorynear Chicago; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash.;and the Westinghouse Electric Co., according to invoices provided to theTribune by the labs.

In Russia, a report by a committee of the Duma, Russia's lower house ofparliament, has suggested that Adamov benefited personally from themoney in those same accounts.

The Duma review, completed in late 2000, found that Adamov and otherRussia officials received cash transfers of up to $100,000 from oneEnergo Pool account. It also states that Adamov paid himself $30,000 ayear as an Energo Pool director. As of August 2000, the report states,Energo Pool's U.S. account held $1.7 million.

The Duma report and the Energy Department lab records raise questionsabout what happened to the U.S. tax dollars earmarked for the nuclearsafety work in Russia, and whether Adamov and his businesses profited.

The program was one of many the United States has created to protectRussia's nuclear facilities and technology. Together with initiatives tosafeguard Russia's chemical and biological weapons industries, theUnited States has spent nearly $5 billion on such efforts since thebreakup of the Soviet Union.

At the same time, widespread governmental corruption has contributed toRussia's economic collapse and fueled mistrust of the Western democraticand free market models.

The aid payments to Energo Pool were part of an Energy Departmentprogram to improve safety at Russian reactors similar to those atChernobyl, the site of a deadly radiation release in 1986. Officials atthe Argonne and Pacific Northwest labs said the money transfers weremade at Adamov's direction, but only after they had confirmed that thecontracted work was complete. They admitted that no one checked to seeif the money ever made it to Russia.

`Contract of technical basis'

"I don't see any reason why the DOE system would ever have a need to dothat," said Argonne's Jeffrey Binder. "This would be a contract on atechnical basis. Once they proved the work [was done], the Russianswould just indicate the bank account."

A senior DOE official, however, said that payments to the Pittsburgh andDelaware accounts of an obscure company should have raised suspicionsand required an audit.

"Why the hell would you have a cut out like Energo Pool involved?" askedthe DOE official, characterizing Energo Pool as a front. "For any goodprogram manager, there would really be raised red flags."

Rose Gottemoeller, formerly the DOE deputy undersecretary for defensenuclear non-proliferation, also said the Energo Pool pay arrangementwould have been cause for concern among senior DOE officials, had theyknown of it. At the time, Gottemoeller said, there were alreadycomplaints from Russian scientists that heads of government instituteswere pocketing U.S. aid.

"I would have been concerned certainly if we heard from an institutedirector like Adamov saying, `Oh, trust me, I'm going to make sure thatmy scientists will get this,'" she said. "We had lots of reasons tobelieve that scientists weren't getting the money."

Adamov declined to be interviewed for this article. In answers towritten questions, he denied involvement with Energo Pool or the RussianInternational Nuclear Safety Center, the program that conducted thesafety upgrades paid for by the U.S. labs.

"I have no relationship to the firms Energo Pool and RINSC, which, asstated in the questions, conduct their activities in Pittsburgh andDelaware," Adamov wrote. "As far as I know, the ministry never receivedany means from these firms or through them from nuclear laboratories."

Questions about the companies have been "puffed up by the Russianpress," he said.

U.S. buys Russian uranium

Adamov's public and personal interests also mingled over a secondU.S.-Russia nuclear partnership. This agreement involved not aid but acommercial, government-to-government program under which the U.S. buysuranium taken from Russian nuclear weapons. The highly enriched uraniumis diluted and used in power plants in the United States.

Adamov's ministry was responsible for conducting the uranium sales tothe United States. But in January 2000, a second Pittsburgh company hehad formed, Omeka Ltd., was hired as a consultant by the Americancorporation that was representing the U.S. government in the uraniumdeal.

The U.S. government chose U.S. Enrichment Corp. to represent it in the$12 billion, 20-year Russian uranium contract. USEC hired Omeka Ltd. andits president, Mark Kaushansky, as a consultant. Although Adamov was nolonger part of Omeka, Kaushansky said that Adamov remained active as anadviser to the Pittsburgh firm. Adamov's wife was also Omeka's businessmanager in Moscow.

USEC and Kaushansky both said the consulting work had nothing to do withthe U.S.-Russia uranium contract, or with an attempt to influenceAdamov's decision over the price of the Russian uranium that USEC wasbuying.

Current and former DOE officials said they were troubled by thearrangement. Some said the arrangement was not illegal.

"USEC was a private company," said Gary Samore, a nuclear policy expertand National Security Council official during the Clintonadministration. "There was never any, as far as I know, legalrestriction on who USEC could hire as a consultant."

But others said Kaushansky's consulting work was an obvious conflict ofinterest for USEC, because the company was working for the U.S.government.

"It's very troubling, and the conflicts of interest are just myriad,"said a senior DOE official. "What a sweet deal for Adamov, to sit thereand know that he's got people on both sides of the deal."

From the start, Adamov was a central figure in expanding East-Westnuclear cooperation.

In 1986, in the wake of the deadly nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl inUkraine, Adamov was chosen to run the NIKIET, Russia's nuclear researchinstitute, which was responsible for the reactor's design. When theSoviet Union crumbled in 1991, NIKIET under Adamov began to aggressivelyseek Western government aid and commercial contracts.

As NIKIET's chief, Adamov was the Russian official most responsible inthe mid-1990s for selling nuclear technology to Iran, according to U.S.nuclear and diplomatic sources.

"I think Adamov was a big part of the problem," Samore said. "Adamov hada very strong personal commitment to maintaining the nuclearrelationship with Iran."

Washington complained to Moscow repeatedly about Adamov. The U.S.eventually cut off aid to Adamov's NIKIET in 1999.

Credit application questioned

Adamov seemed untouched by the scandal. In 1998, he had been namedminister of atomic energy, a position he held until the release of theDuma report on his finances in March 2001, when he was removed.

The Duma report focuses extensively on Adamov's finances, including aDiner's Club credit card application on which Adamov listed an annualU.S. income that exceeded $80,000. The report did not explain the sourceof those funds.

The money appears to spring from the businesses that Adamov establishedin the early 1990s with Kaushansky, another Soviet-trained nuclearscientist who immigratedto the U.S. in 1979.

On Jan. 14, 1993, Kaushansky and Adamov established Energo Pool Inc. inMonroeville, according to Pennsylvania records.

At the same time, the NIKIET Institute, under Adamov's direction, wasdesignated by Russia's Ministry of Atomic Energy (Minatom) to work withthe U.S. labs in a new joint program to improve the safety of Soviet-eranuclear reactors.

The first payment to Energo Pool, for $10,000, came from PacificNorthwest lab and was posted to the company's Monroeville Mellon Bankaccount No. 001-3872 in late October 1994, invoices show.

From 1994 to 1997, Pacific Northwest lab transferred $789,179, andArgonne wired $422,000 into the Energo Pool Mellon Bank account inPittsburgh, according to the labs' records. All the invoices show thepayments were made "in favor of Energo Pool."

In November 1997, a second Energo Pool was established in Wilmington,Del., state corporate records show.

Overall, Argonne and Pacific Northwest sent a total of $2.3 million toEnergo Pool accounts in Pittsburgh and Delaware from 1994 to 1999.

From 1996 to 2001, Energo Pool drew $1.8 million in payments fromWestinghouse, which was a subcontractor for Pacific Northwest lab.

"We had no reason to believe that there was a relationship between Mr.Kaushansky and Energo Pool," said Westinghouse spokesman Vaughn Gilbert.

Scientists from the U.S. labs said that other foreign aid payments toRussia would normally pass through a variety of banks. Given thatpattern, they said, the Energo Pool accounts in Pittsburgh and Delawaredid not seem extraordinary.

Unorthodox payments

But other government officials said that making the payments throughEnergo Pool was indeed unorthodox, and that the lab managers and otherswithin the DOE should have challenged the arrangement.

"Somebody somewhere should have done the due diligence," the senior DOEofficial said. "We have a fiduciary responsibility to that money."

Kaushansky said Energo Pool was "a consulting company for NIKIET" thathired contract workers on projects in Russia. The workers, he said, werenot paid benefits, and paying them from the U.S. allowed them to avoidsevere Russian income taxes.

"If you pay everything the way you're supposed to, then your people arehurt," he said.

Adamov was removed as atomic energy minister when the Duma reportappeared. Though some in the Duma have pressed for a formalinvestigation of his businesses, which the report said were worth $5million in 1999, none is apparently under way.

In his written response, Adamov said that his only interest was infinding work for his scientists, and promoting Russian interests in theglobal nuclear marketplace. As for making money, Adamov wrote that,contrary to rumors of self-enrichment, his departure from his businessventures have only hurt him.

"I have to state that after I left the business in 1998, theirprofitability declined. In some cases activity become unprofitable. It'sabsolutely obvious that my stay at the post of minister was only harmfulto the business of the companies I was related to."
return to menu

C. Russia-U.S.

US Nuclear Strategy Paper Out Of Line With Russia Dialogue - Minister
March 13, 2002
(for personal use only)

Washington's latest document on the new American nuclear strategy "isout of line with the dialogue between Russia and the USA", RussianForeign Minister Igor Ivanov said today.

Addressing Duma members of parliament, he recalled that US nuclearstrategy is reviewed at the start of each new administration, whichdecides its own targets for possible strikes. Ivanov stressed thattherefore "there cannot in essence be anything new in this document". Hesaid that "Moscow's concern arises from the form and timing of thedocument". The minister believes it to be framed in the spirit of theCold War period.

"This kind of document should not be appearing, given the present natureof relations between Russia and America," Igor Ivanov noted.
return to menu

Russia May Have Plans To Deliver Nuclear Strike On U.S.
March 13, 2002
(for personal use only)

Russian experts do not rule out that the Russian Defense Ministry hasincluded the U. S. in a list possible targets for Russian nuclearstrikes. "I would not make a sensation out of the news that Russia hasbeen found among those seven nations that could possibly be hit by U.S.nuclear weapons," the chief of the Military Sciences Academy's Centerfor Strategic Nuclear Forces, Maj. Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, was quoted assaying on March 12. The retired general explained that "this is aroutine and common practice with all military agencies."

Russian experts do not rule out that the Russian Defense Ministry hasincluded the U. S. in a list possible targets for Russian nuclearstrikes. "I would not make a sensation out of the news that Russia hasbeen found among those seven nations that could possibly be hit by U.S.nuclear weapons," the chief of the Military Sciences Academy's Centerfor Strategic Nuclear Forces, Maj. Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, was quoted assaying on March 12. The retired general explained that "this is aroutine and common practice with all military agencies."

Dvorkin assumed that the Russian defense agency may have included theU.S. on its own list of potentially dangerous countries. He linked thepossibility with reports saying that the U.S. is planning to create highprecision weapons that are extremely dangerous.
return to menu

Signs Visible Of U.S. Nuclear Doctrine Changing Dangerously - DumaMember
March 12, 2002
(for personal use only)

The U.S. nuclear doctrine is becoming increasingly offensive, State DumaDefense Committee Chairman Dmitry Rogozin told Interfax on Tuesday.

Until very recently the United States would deliver a nuclear strike incase of a nuclear threat. But now, nuclear weapons are likely to be usedif there is a so-called unpredictable development in the militarysituation, he said, quoting a recent Los Angeles Times report onPentagon contingencies for using nuclear weapons, in particular againstRussia.

"What this might mean is hard to say, because anything unusual mayprovoke the United States into pushing the nuclear button," Rogozinsaid.

It is true that Russian nuclear doctrine provides for the possibility ofa nuclear first strike, "but only in case of a tangible threat ofaggression, when the very sovereignty of the country is at stake," hesaid.

To put it differently, the Russian doctrine is purely defensive anddeterrence-oriented, while the U.S. one is becoming offensive, Rogozinsaid.

"The United States is crossing the dangerous line beyond which nuclearweapons cease to be a political instrument, or weapons that exist butmust not be used," he said.

Rogozin noted that the Americans are studying various options for usingnuclear weapons, in particular "very small warheads to destroyunderground structures." Their use "may lead to unpredictableconsequences and cause an escalation," he said. In particular, thedifference between low intensity and high intensity wars may become toovague, he said.

"What is important is that this information was somehow leaked," becausethis could not be done without authorization, Rogozin said. The goal ofplanting this story is to see how Russia and China will respond to thereport that their strategic installations have been targeted by U.S.strategic offensive weapons, he said.

"We must demand an explanation. If they regard us as their partners, theAmericans must investigate the leak," Rogozin said.

If this was a bona fide leak, "heads must roll of bureaucrats that havefailed to protect U.S. secrets," Rogozin said.

"If this does not happen, this will mean that the leak was authorized bythe U.S. political leadership, above all the Pentagon. In any event,this situation must be treated seriously," he said.
return to menu

Military Experts Play Down Pentagon Nuke Plans
Yelena Shushkunova
March 12, 2002
(for personal use only)

The Pentagon's plans of nuclear strike on Russia and other countries,uncovered recently by the LA Times' did not surprise the militaryexperts to whom Gazeta.Ru addressed for comment. According to ourinterlocutors, the nuclear plans have prevailed and determined theinternational relations ever since the end of the World War Two.

In its Saturday issue the Los Angeles Times said it had obtained apartial copy of the secret report which was provided by the Pentagon tothe Congress in January this year.

The report says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weaponsagainst several states, naming among the potential targets not only the"axis of evil" - Iraq, Iran and Korea, but also China, Libya, Syria andRussia. The latter, the report says, is no longer officially "an enemy".

Commenting on the leak, G.W.Bush administration and military officialssaid on Sunday the United States reserves the right to use nuclearweapons in the event it or its allies are attacked, but said that optiondoes not represent a change in policy.

"This preserves for the president all the options that a president wouldwant to have in case this country or our friends and allies wereattacked with weapons of mass destruction, be they nuclear, biological,chemical or, for that matter, high explosives," General Richard Myers,chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN.

US President's National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and USSecretary of State Colin Powell also said the new review takes intoaccount recent changes on the world scene, including an improved U.S.relationship with Russia and the possible development of weapons of massdestruction by what Powell described as a "class of nations" thatincludes Iran, Iraq, Syria and North Korea.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said the review does notreflect a change in U.S. policy regarding the use of nuclear weapons.

In a statement released following the publication of the story in the LATimes the Pentagon said it would not discussed classified information"nor will we comment on selective and misleading leaks".

The publication however created quite a stir in Moscow. Some of theState Duma deputies, outraged by the nuclear report, plan to make aspecial statement to the effect, and the Foreign Ministry's chief IgorIvanov has demanded the White House to provide further clarification asto how Russia happened to be on the weird list of possible nucleartargets.

"We hope that following the clarification already given by the USSecretary of State and the presidential national security adviser,statements from a higher source will be forthcoming, which will clarifythe situation and reassure the international community," the ministercommented.

Gazeta.Ru has asked the vice president of the Academy for GeopoliticalProblems Vladimir Anokhin and the director of the Moscow representationoffice of the Centre for Defence Information (Washington) IvanSafranchuk to comment on the LA Times' publication.

Vladimir Anokhin, vice president of the Academy for GeopoliticalProblems:

I do not feel any alarm apropos of the Pentagon's report. The plans ofdelivering a strike on Russia have existed since 1946. It should beunderstood that the USA has its own interests and goals, just as Russiaand other countries have their own interests, too.

The only problem here is that we have been put in one row with the"rogue" states. And this, notwithstanding our rather calm reaction tothe US plans on deployment of the national ABM, to the invitation of theAmerican military to Georgia.

I would like to repeat that there are global plans and strategicrelations. And it is of no surprise that Russia, posessing powerfularsenals of nuclear weapons, is on the list of possible targets of theUS nuclear strike. That's why there is no point in being hystericalabout that. Our special services possess all data as to which cities andinstallations are the potential targets of the US.

Ivan Safranchuk, the Centre For Defence Information (Washington),director of the Moscow representation:

Specialists who engage in these problems should not be surprised by thefact such report exists. There is nothing surprising about the fact thata part of American nuclear strikes have Russia as their target. Theproblem is that the military planning considerably falls behind therapidly changing political situation.

And from this standpoint the report is useful, since it has displayedthe failure of the military strategy to conform with changing politicalsituation.

French strategic military plans regard the US as a possible enemy. Inexactly the same way, as far as I know, Russia regards the US in itsstrategic plans. Correspondingly, the USA seeks for ways of averting apossible threat. This is the cold war's legacy that has not beenabandoned yet.

Of course, it is unpleasant to stand in one row with Lebanon, forexample. But China is quite a worthy neighbouring this row. And talkingseriously, we must remember that Russia has not been included in the"axis of evil", and that the USA has its plans concerning Iran, Iraq andNorth Korea, as well as concerning Russia. This is normal and should notshock anyone.
return to menu

Deputies See Little New In U.S. Report
Gregory Feifer
Moscow Times
March 12, 2002
(for personal use only)

Legislators said Monday there was nothing essentially new in reportsthat the United States is preparing military contingency plans to usenuclear weapons in certain tactical situations against at least sevencountries, including Russia. But experts observed that while U.S.strategy in itself was not cause for friction between Moscow andWashington, political and media rhetoric surrounding the issue couldratchet up tension.

The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday that the Pentagon sent Congressa classified report in January in which China, Russia, Iraq, NorthKorea, Iran, Libya and Syria were included as countries against whichthe military should be prepared to use nuclear weapons.

Reaction over the weekend from the head of the State Duma's foreignaffairs committee, Dmitry Rogozin, and former Defense Ministry officialLeonid Ivashov, both known hawks, was predictably tough. Responses onMonday were calmer. State Duma Deputy Andrei Nikolayev, head of thedefense committee and a member of the centrist People's Deputy faction,said he saw "nothing strange" about the Pentagon plans. Any country withnuclear weapons "also has plans about using them," he said, Interfaxreported. Another Duma deputy, Alexei Arbatov, deputy head of thedefense committee and a member of the liberal Yabloko party, said in atelephone interview that the United States and Russia have alwaysincluded each other in contingency plans to use nuclear weapons and thatthe recent "Nuclear Posture Review" indicated nothing new. YuryFyodorov, a nuclear arms expert at the PIR Center think tank, agreed. "Iwouldn't over-dramatize the reports," he said, speaking by telephone."It's well known that during the 1990s and earlier, the United States'strategic nuclear plan always included Russia."

Others were more concerned. Deputy Konstantin Kosachyov, Rogozin'sdeputy on the Duma's foreign relations committee, said the plan in factreflected a change from what he said had been a U.S. strategy of usingnuclear weapons as a means of last resort. The United States riskedseriously destabilizing the global situation, he said in remarksreported by Interfax.

Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said if the reported plans actually exist,they "can only raise regret and concern," Interfax reported.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security AdviserCondoleeza Rice on Sunday played down suggestions that the U.S. hadmoved closer toward using nuclear weapons.

Ivanov said this was not enough. He asked for reassurances from "ahigher level" that Washington has not adopted such plans. Vice PresidentDick Cheney, in London on Monday, described the report as a routineupdate to Congress and said the United States is not targeting anynation for nuclear attack.

PIR Center's Fyodorov, meanwhile, said "the real question is why theRussian media and certain politicians are using the Los Angeles Timesreport to begin a propaganda campaign," he said. "That could complicatethe situation."

Kommersant newspaper reported on the news under the headline "A friendlynuclear strike awaits Russia." Nezavisimaya Gazeta included the NPR on along list of U.S. slights since President Vladimir Putin agreed tosupport Washington's war on terrorism. Both papers are controlled byBoris Berezovsky, a former Kremlin insider who has become Putin'sharshest critic.

Arbatov pointed to another ramification of the U.S. nuclear contingencyplans, saying they indicated that Washington's statements reassuringMoscow that it was no longer seen as a Cold War-era enemy were littlemore than "demagoguery and lies." He said Washington's intention hadbeen to reduce criticism for its plans to abandon the Anti-BallisticMissile Treaty. But given the implication of the NPR -- that Russia isstill considered a threat -- a U.S. exit from the ABM Treaty would infact destabilize global security, he said. "The attitude of cautiousnesson both sides will continue until nuclear arms are finally reduced andboth sides become equal partners," Arbatov said. Arbatov and Fyorodovboth said reports about the NPR would not affect ongoing U.S.-Russiatalks to reduce strategic nuclear arms stockpiles. "The talks are beingconducted with professionals who understand the reality of thesituation," Fyodorov said.

Less clear is whether the new flap over nuclear arms policy will affectDefense Minister Sergei Ivanov's three days of talks this week inWashington.
return to menu

Russia Criticises US Nuclear Planning
March 11, 2002
(for personal use only)

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said on Monday he hoped the UnitedStates would provide additional assurances it had no plans to usenuclear weapons against Russia or other states.

Ivanov said despite an explanation from top U.S. officials, Russia wasconcerned at reports, cited by U.S. newspapers, that such contingencyplans were being drawn up at the request of the President George W.Bush's administration.

"If it is true, it can only give rise to regret and concern, not onlyfrom Russia but from the entire world community. Such a plan candestabilise the situation and make it more tense," Ivanov said intelevised comments.

"We hope that following the explanations by the U.S. secretary of stateand the national security adviser there will be declarations at a higherlevel to provide more clarity on this issue, assure the world communityand establish that the United States is not carrying out such plans."

Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov, speaking to journalists in Ireland onhis way to the United States, also said he expected furtherexplanations. He said he wanted to put his questions directly to DefenceSecretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The report, first disclosed by the Los Angeles Times, quoted a DefenceDepartment study outlining a contingency plan to use nuclear weaponsagainst at least seven countries -- China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea,Iran, Libya and Syria.

Fellow nuclear power China said on Monday it was deeply shocked by thereport and also demanded an explanation, stressing China and the UnitedStates had agreed not to target each other with nuclear weapons.


As nations reacted to the report, U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney told anews conference in Britain the United States "on a day-to-day basis doesnot target nuclear weapons on any nation".

The New York Times reported that the review sought development ofnuclear weapons better suited to those targets.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told CBS television on Sunday thereport had virtually eliminated Russia as a nuclear threat and focusedon what Washington saw as new problems from states capable of developingweapons of mass destruction.

He described the study as "sound, military conceptual planning".

U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told NBC the reportshould constitute no surprises as it reflected U.S. concerns aboutweapons proliferation.

Russian commentators had already criticised the press reports at theweekend, saying it undermined the notion that the United States andRussia had improved relations and were allies in the internationalcampaign against terrorism.

Russian President Vladimir Putin backed the U.S.-led action and gavepermission for ex-Soviet Central Asian states to offer Washington theuse of their airfields.

Putin has been accused by military hawks and the Communist Party, whichstill secures 25 percent of the popular vote, of giving away too much toWashington and receiving too little in return.
return to menu

Russian Defense Minister Starts Official Visit To The U.S.
Victoria Whall
Russian Observer
March 11, 2002
(for personal use only)

Only two days after The Los Angeles Times published a leaked Pentagonreport in which Russia was included in a list of countries against whichthe U.S. needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons, Russian DefenseMinister Sergei Ivanov left for an official visit to the U.S. thisMonday. The visit, which was to allow the two sides to discuss missiledefense and the Strategic Offensive Weapons Treaty, will allow Ivanov tolook into the report himself.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov left for the States on anofficial visit on Monday. He is to spend three days meeting with hisU.S. counterpart Pentagon Chief Donald Rumsfeld, State Secretary ColinPowell, Presidential National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, andCongressmen, a defense ministry spokesman told Strana.Ru.

The Russian defense minister is expected to discuss some strategicstability problems with U.S. politicians, including the main parametersof new Russian-American treaty on strategic offensive weapons and theU.S. plan to deploy a national missile defense system.

Sergei Ivanov told Strana.Ru on Sunday, that during his U.S. visit hewould not only discuss strategic offensive weapons but would also hold anumber of meetings and consultations on the fight against terrorism, thecoordination of secret service operations, and exchanges of informationon the activities of extremist organizations including those basedoutside of Afghanistan. It is also assumed that he will discuss thesituation in Georgia and in other problem regions of Europe and Asiawith the American side.

In Mr. Ivanov's opinion, as far as strategic offensive weapons issuesare concerned, Russia and the United States are agreed that a newbinding legal document should be signed. He admitted Moscow andWashington had many unclear questions regarding that problem.

But, Mr. Ivanov says consultations are being held in order to smoothrelations and to bring the two sides closer together. Russia'sfundamental position is that the Russian-American document shouldprovide means for transparency, trust and regulation. It is on thesevery matters that Moscow and Washington cannot reach agreement.

In the opinion of First Deputy Chief of General Staff of the RussianFederation Armed Forces, Yury Baluyevsky, who held the first round ofstrategic offensive weapons meetings with the U.S. side in January 2002,the United States has no intention of destroying its nuclear warheads.Rather, it wants to store them as "operationally deployed weapons."

Approximately 4,000 stockpiled nuclear munitions will come under the"operationally deployed" category. 6,000 nuclear munitions (somewherebetween 1,700 and 2,200 warheads) will be on the alert duty. In the newstrategic offensive weapons document, the U.S. wants to allowinspections and verification only in respect of the stockpiled nuclearmunitions.

Observers say that in Washington Mr. Ivanov is certain to talk about theUnited States creation and development of its missile defense as well asthe deployment of their space-based elements. Russian military expertssee this as a direct threat to Russia. Especially in the light of a newreport in which the Pentagon listed Russia among the countries againstwhich the U.S. could use nuclear weapons, which was published by The LosAngeles Times on Saturday. It is expected that Mr. Ivanov will bediscussing that information with his U.S. colleagues.
return to menu

Bush Advisers Retreat On Use Of Nuclear Arms
Zachary Coile
San Francisco Chronicle
March 11, 2002
(for personal use only)

Top Bush administration officials yesterday denied that the UnitedStates was pursuing a more aggressive nuclear weapons strategy and saidthe United States would only use its nuclear arsenal if attacked by ahostile nation with weapons of mass destruction.

"We all want to make the use of weapons of mass destruction lesslikely," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said on NBC's "Meetthe Press." "The way that you do that is to send a very strong signal toanyone who might try to use weapons of mass destruction against theUnited States that they'd be met with a devastating response."

Rice and other administration officials were responding to a secretPentagon report -- parts of which were leaked to the media this weekend-- revealing that the White House had asked the military to preparecontingency plans to use nuclear weapons against countries that have orare developing weapons of mass destruction.

The classified "Nuclear Posture Review," which was sent to Congress Jan.8, named seven countries as possible targets: Russia, China, NorthKorea, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria.

The report also suggested that the United States was consideringresuming nuclear weapons testing and developing new, smaller nuclearweapons capable of blasting through underground bunkers that containweapons of mass destruction.

Secretary of State Colin Powell said the review was prudent militaryplanning, and argued that it did not indicate any shift in how theUnited States planned to use its deadliest weapons.

"Right now, today, not a single nation on the face of the Earth is beingtargeted by an American nuclear weapon on a day-to-day basis," Powellsaid on "Face the Nation" on CBS. "We should not get all carried awaywith some sense that the United States is planning to use nuclearweapons in some contingency that is coming up in the near future. It isnot the case."

Powell also flatly denied that the United States planned to resumenuclear weapons testing or to develop new nuclear weapons.

The revelations in the Pentagon report were greeted angrily in somecountries that would reportedly be targets.

"America thinks that if a military threat looms large over the head ofthese seven countries, they will give up their logical demands," formerIranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani was quoted as saying by theofficial Islamic Republic News Agency.

"They've brought out a big stick -- a nuclear stick that is supposed toscare us and put us in our place," Dmitry Rogozin, a leading Russianlawmaker with close ties to the Kremlin, said on NTV television.

The United States has long pledged not to use nuclear weapons againstcountries that do not possess them. Nonproliferation experts say theUnited States would be abandoning that pledge by threatening a nuclearattack against nations that are in the process of developing weapons ofmass destruction.

"It would be a terrible policy because once we cross that line, othercountries are going to jump across that line, too," said David Krieger,president of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a group that favorseliminating nuclear weapons.

"It's going to bust the Nonproliferation Treaty wide open," he said onMSNBC. "Many, many more countries will say the same thing the UnitedStates is saying: We need nuclear weapons to protect our security, andthat will create a far more dangerous world."

Pentagon officials stressed that the review was only a contingency plan-- much like the detailed plans the military kept for years in the eventof a Soviet missile attack, which were never used.

"This preserves for the president all the options that a president wouldwant to have in case this country or our friends and allies wereattacked with weapons of mass destruction, be they nuclear, biological,chemical or, for that matter, high explosives," Gen. Richard Myers,chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on CNN's "Late Edition."

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., the ranking Republican on the Senate ArmedServices Committee, said he would ask the administration today toclarify the policy to prevent increasing tensions with other nations,especially China and Russia.

"We can make it explicitly clear that nothing in this report wasdesigned to arouse in them a fear that they would be struck or that wewould use (nuclear weapons) against them other than to repel the threator the actual use of weapons of mass destruction," Warner said on CNN.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., also a member of the Armed ServicesCommittee, said he believed the review was useful because it put nationson notice about the consequences of attacking the United States.

"I don't mind (if) some of these renegade nations who we have reason tobelieve are working themselves to develop nuclear weapons, and I'mthinking of Iraq and Iran and North Korea here . . . think twice aboutthe willingness of the United States to take action to defend our peopleand our values and our allies," he said.
return to menu

Nuclear Arms For Deterrence Or Fighting?
Michael R. Gordon
New York Times
March 10, 2002
(for personal use only)

The Pentagon's new blueprint on nuclear forces has raised the questionwhether the Bush administration is lowering the threshold for usingnuclear arms.

In its Nuclear Posture Review, the Pentagon cites the need for newnuclear arms that could have a lower yield and produce less nuclearfallout. The weapons, the Pentagon said, could be designed to destroyunderground complexes, including stores of chemical and biological arms.The targets might be situated in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya or NorthKorea, a reorientation away from cold war scenarios involving Russia.

But the classified Pentagon review has ignited a new and vitallyimportant nuclear debate. Unlike much of the arms-control discussions inrecent years, this dispute is not over the number of weapons the UnitedStates needs; it is over the more fundamental issue of the circumstancesin which they might be used.

Should the purpose of nuclear weapons in a post-cold-war world beessentially to deter a nuclear attack on the United States? Or shouldnuclear weapons be developed for fighting wars, including conflicts withnonnuclear adversaries?

Critics fear that by calling for the development of more effectivenuclear weapons, the Pentagon is making the unthinkable thinkable,blurring the distinction between nuclear weapons and conventional arms.

The reaction overseas to the policy shift was predictably harsh, with aRussian legislator asking if Americans "have somewhat lost touch withthe reality in which they live."

"Throughout the nuclear age, the fundamental goal has been to preventthe use of nuclear weapons," said Ivo Daalder, a foreign policyspecialist at the Brookings Institution. "Now the policy has been turnedupside down. It is to keep nuclear weapons as a tool of war- fightingrather than a tool of deterrence. If military planners are now toconsider the nuclear option any time they confront a surprising militarydevelopment, the distinction between nuclear and nonnuclear weaponsfades away."

The Pentagon, for its part, argues that in a world full of unexpectedthreats and rogue states, it needs a broader array of options. Itdescribes nuclear and nonnuclear weapons as "offensive strike systems"that can be used separately or combined in an attack. Such systems are akey pillar of a "new triad" of offensive, defensive andmilitary-industrial resources.

"Composed of both nonnuclear systems and nuclear weapons, the strikeelement of the new triad can provide greater flexibility in the designand conduct of military campaigns to defeat opponents decisively," thereview says. "Nonnuclear strike capabilities may be particularly usefulto limit collateral damage and conflict escalation. Nuclear weaponscould be employed against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack(for example, deep underground bunkers or bioweapons facilities).Nuclear and nonnuclear strike systems can attack an enemy's war- makingcapabilities and thus contribute to the defeat of the adversary and thedefense of the United States and its security partners."

The review, though not a contingency plan for actual use of nuclearweapons, is meant to guide decisions about their role, development anddeployment over the next decade.

Throughout the cold war, nuclear weapons had an enormous role inAmerican military planning. The Pentagon not only built a formidablestrategic arsenal to deter a nuclear attack on the United States; italso reserved the right to use nuclear weapons to deter a Warsaw Pactattack on Europe. The Pentagon deployed a vast array of nuclear arms,from ocean-spanning missiles to nuclear mines and depth charges. TheKremlin did much the same.

But as the cold war waned, so did the notion that nuclear weapons couldbe used to fight a war. The United States and Russia withdrew theirtactical nuclear weapons from Europe and from their fleets. WhileWashington did not formally give up its option to make the first use ofnuclear weapons against a Warsaw Pact attack, it cast the use of suchweapons as a last resort.

With the end of the cold war, the need for nuclear weapons seemed tofade further. Arms control advocates pushed for radical cuts in theAmerican and Russian arsenals and for taking nuclear-tipped missiles offalert, though hard-liners insisted that there was still a need fornuclear arms.

With the Nuclear Posture Review, President Bush appears to have a footin each camp. He has embraced the call for deeper cuts in strategicarms, though the reductions he is seeking are probably not much deeperthan the Clinton administration had in mind when changes in proceduresfor counting nuclear weapons are taken into account.

But Mr. Bush's Pentagon has also pushed for new and more usable nuclearweapons. At same time, it is working hard to improve conventionalweapons. In effect, the Pentagon is urging the development of an arsenalin which nuclear weapons could be used against an adversary's nonnuclearforces, while promoting the development of conventional arms that couldbe used against nuclear targets.

The potential blurring of those roles, critics fear, would eliminate thefirebreak between nuclear and conventional war. Some specialists alsoargue that it sends a message to third world powers that nuclear weaponsare militarily useful.

"By emphasizing the important role of nuclear weapons, the Pentagon isencouraging other nations to think that it is important to have them aswell," said Robert S. Norris, a nuclear weapons expert at the NaturalResources Defense Council.

Today, senior Bush administration officials sought to dampen thecriticism. They argued that the Nuclear Posture Review was a mere policydocument, not an operational plan, and that the decision to developdramatically new types of weapons had not yet been made.

"This is prudent military planning, and it is the kind of planning Ithink the American people would expect," Secretary of State Colin L.Powell said on the CBS News Program "Face the Nation," adding, "We arenot developing brand new nuclear weapons, and we are not planning toundergo any testing."

Vice President Dick Cheney, who arrived in London late tonight at thebeginning of a long tour of allied nations, "will put it in context andin perspective," Secretary Powell said.

The Pentagon review, however, clearly points to important changes bytouting the need for new variable- yield or reduced-yield nuclearweapons, and improved targeting systems so they could be rapidly used inwar.

"Greater flexibility is needed with respect to nuclear force andplanning than was the case during the cold war," the review said."Nuclear attack options that vary in scale, scope and purpose willcomplement other military capabilities."
return to menu

D. Russia-Iran

Russian Defence Minister Denies Nuclear Arms Cooperation With Iran,
Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran Radio
March 12, 2002
(for personal use only)

Russian Defence Minister Sergey Ivanov has strongly denied anycooperation between Russia and Iran in producing and building nuclearmissiles.

As he headed for the USA yesterday, Ivanov said at an Irish airport[Shannon] that Russia had no cooperation with Iran in producing nuclearmissiles or weapons.

Saying that Russia and Iran were cooperating only in constructing theBusher nuclear facility [in Iran], Ivanov noted that the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency was exercising full supervision of the project.

Speaking about Russia's sale of weapons to Iran, Ivanov said talks onthis were currently under way, and that over the past two years the twocountries had signed only one agreement on selling Russian helicopters[to Iran].

The idea that such agreements will pose a threat to peace in the regionor in the world is ridiculous, Ivanov said.
return to menu

Russia To Build 2nd Atomic Power Plant In Iran
Iran News
March 10, 2002
(for personal use only)

Managing Director of the Russian Institute for Nuclear Equipment ExportVictor Kouzlov said on Friday that Russia is considering measures tostart works to build the second atomic power plant in Iran's Bushehrregion.

Talking to Ria-Novosti reporter, he said Russia has already presentedpapers and documents on the site of the 2nd power plant in Iran.

He said the latest discoveries would be considered in the constructionof Iran's second power plant.

Kouzlov expressed the hope that works would begin soon on the powerplant's construction.

Russia said it is committed to its previous pledges on the building ofthe power plants in Iran and the latter has always made its commitmentstoward Russia.

Iran stresses that Iran-Russia Nuclear Cooperation would not threatenany country saying there had been basically no reason to stop suchcooperation.

Russian Official: Iran, Russia to Continue Nuclear Cooperation ManagingDirector of the Russian Institute for Nuclear Equipment Export VictorKouzlov said Iran and Russia are two important nuclear counterparts andvowed Russia would not stop its nuclear cooperation with Iran.

Talking to Russian Ria-Novosti news agency, he commented on someunsubstantiated rumors on the Iran-Russia Nuclear Cooperation anddenounced efforts by Russia's rivals to create stumbling blocks to theexport of the nuclear technology from Russia to Iran.

Iran on Monday rejected rumors on cessation of Iran-Russia cooperationin Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, stressing that the two countriescontinue their bilateral cooperation in this regard.

Iran stressed that the two countries' bilateral cooperation in thisfield is fully aimed at peaceful goals and there is no reason forhalting the project.

Reacting to the unfounded rumors on halt in Iran-Russia NuclearCooperation, Russia rejected Western media reports, the same day.

Russia stressed that it is determined to go ahead with completing thepower plant and all stages of the executive works were on scheduleadding the first unit of the power plant will come on stream by the endof 2003.

The nuclear power plant under discussion is under construction in thesouthern port city of Bushehr.

Kouzlov who is currently in Iran to hold talks with the Iranianauthorities on the bilateral cooperation said that Russia's rivals aremaking attempts to drive Russia out of the International NuclearMarkets.

He went on to say that many countries are building nuclear power plantsin their territories and no one criticizes them for such moves whileexpressing surprise that some are criticizing the Bushehr Power Plant.

He said some 60 foreign delegations from the International Atomic EnergyAgency (IAEA) have visited Bushehr Power Plant and the agency iscarrying out regular inspections of the plant.

He said Iran, China and India are the main nuclear partners of Russia.

Iran and Russia have acknowledged their commitment to peacefulapplication of nuclear energy.

The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is monitoringthe nuclear technology being employed in Bushehr Power Plant. Iran is asignatory state to Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the ComprehensiveTest Ban Treaty (CTBT).
return to menu

E. Nuclear Terrorism

Georgia Vulnerable To Transit Of Nuclear Components - Official
March 12, 2002
(for personal use only)

Chairman of the Georgian State Border Guard Department Valeri Chkheidzetold reporters here on Tuesday [12 March] that "there is a danger thatGeorgian territory could be used for the transit of components ofnuclear weapons, mass destruction weapons and the so-called dualtechnologies".

He is participating in a conference on legal questions of control overexport of nuclear components, which opened in the Georgian capital onTuesday.

According to the general, Georgian border and customs services have"already recorded attempts" to haul such components across the country.

"We have information on firms and groups which were involved in attemptsto transit such components and technologies, and we regularly forwardappropriate information to the Georgian National Security Council," hecontinued.

Chkheidze said that the international conference in Tbilisi will discussthe question of establishing exchanges of information and supplementingdata banks in this sphere.
return to menu

Nuclear Terrorism Seen As Growing Threat In Russia
Gennadiy Voskresenskiy
March 12, 2002
(for personal use only)

By decision of the Supreme Court, products of processing nuclear wastefrom the Hungarian AES [nuclear power plant] Paksh can no longer bestored on the territory of Russia. It is entirely probable that asimilar fate may also befall other deals which allow the import of spentnuclear fuel into the country from abroad. And the matter centers notonly around the problematic "benefit" of such agreements for Russia'seconomy, but also around the fact that the atomic producers themselvescannot be sure of the absolute reliability of the system of protectionof nuclear facilities and SNF against outside encroachments.

The reality of nuclear terrorism is understood very well by those whoare called upon to oppose it in the course of their official duties. TheFSB [Federal Security Service] Department on Combating Terrorism hascreated a special Administration "B", with its own special assignmentsfor protecting nuclear hazardous facilities. The MVD [Ministry ofInternal Affairs] troops in charge of protecting nuclear facilities ofthe weapons and energy complexes of Minatom [Ministry of Atomic Energy]are also creating special assignment groups. The 12th MainAdministration of Minoborona [Ministry of Defense] is forming groups foreffective response to attempts at taking over nuclear materials storagefacilities.

In the opinion of Aleksandr Rumyantsev, associate of the RNTs [RussianScientific Center] Kurchatov Institute, "after 11 September of lastyear, the time has come to drastically review the effectiveness of thesystem of physical protection of nuclear facilities." And what aboutRussia? According to official representatives of Minatom, "the systemof protection of Russian nuclear facilities is constantly being improvedin order to increase its effectiveness." Nevertheless, nuclearscientists are prepared, albeit with certain stipulations, to challengethis statement by the "atomic" department. Only seven out of 30 powergenerating units of Russian nuclear power plants have so-called"protective casings"--so as not to allow the spread of radiation in caseof routine and irregular situations. Will such casings be able towithstand the impact of, say, aircraft of the Tu-154 or Il-86 type? Thatwe do not know.

The nuclear facilities of Russia, and primarily its nuclear powerplants, are guarded "along the perimeter." That is, the entire territoryaround their tall fences is controlled with barbed wire. It isbelieved that this is entirely sufficient. But alas, "despite anoutwardly strong protection, our nuclear power plants which are locatedon the banks of water reservoirs are entirely unprotected against attackfrom the direction of their water basins--rivers and lakes," AleksandrKoldobskiy, associate of the Moscow Engineering Physics Institute sayswith genuine concern.

The situation with irradiated nuclear materials also evokes nooptimism. After the September events, the transport of any radioactivematerials, including SNF, has been suspended in the "nuclear countries"for an indefinite period of time. Meanwhile, Russia has been acceptingtrains loaded with SNF, and moving them through the entire country tothe processing enterprises in Chelyabinsk Oblast and Krasnoyarsk Kray.Where is the assurance that nothing will happen with these "nuclear"trains?", nuclear specialists ask.

In their opinion, Minatom has not taken full measures to ensure theeffective functioning of this system. The fact that it isinsufficiently effective is evidenced by the increased number of"incidents" with nuclear materials in the past 2 years, as cited in theofficial statistics. Particular concern is evoked by the system ofprotection of radioactive materials from atomic submarines. Accordingto certain data, from 1992 through 1996 there were around 30 reportedcases of misappropriation of these materials from Minatom facilities.Later, 52 cases of misappropriation were reported. It is unclear whichof these figures is correct. Nevertheless, it seems clear toscientists that "in fact, there may be 2-3 times more cases ofmisappropriation of nuclear materials."
return to menu

F. Russian Nuclear Forces

Russia Might Keep Warheads
RFE/RL Newsline
March 8, 2002
(for personal use only)

A top Russian military official said Moscow will consider retaining itsarsenal of multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) ifstrategic arms reduction talks with the United States fail. ColonelGeneral Yurii Baluevskii, the first deputy chief of the Russian GeneralStaff, made the comments to reporters in Moscow on March 5, saying ifMoscow fails to reach an agreement with Washington to reduce the numberof strategic offensive weapons, Moscow would keep the MIRVs in itsarsenal. Baluevskii also said Moscow will insist that all nuclearwarheads dismantled as a result of the pendingagreement be destroyed, "Krasnaya zvezda" reported the same day.Washington has suggested that the warheads be stored rather thandestroyed. Baluevskii also expressed doubts that the U.S. would be ableto develop and deploy a National Missile Defense in the near future.
return to menu

G. Russian Nuclear Waste

Russia Edges Closer To Importing Of Nuclear Waste
March 6, 2002
(for personal use only)

Russia's parliament took a step closer to importing nuclear waste fromabroad Wednesday by giving near-final approval for creating a specialcommittee to oversee the controversial project.

The State Duma lower house voted in the third of three required readingsin favor of setting up a 20-member panel that would have to give itsapproval before any waste could be brought in for storage from abroad.

The measure must now be approved by the upper house Federation Council,before being signed into law by President Vladimir Putin.

The committee, chaired by Russia's physics Noble laureate ZhoresAlferov, would be made up of presidential, government and parliamentaryrepresentatives.

Putin last July signed a controversial law authorising the import ofnuclear waste, which could see Russia take in an estimated 20,000 tonnesof spent fuel from abroad once all the logistics are in place.

Government studies say the project could earn Russia some 21 billiondollars (24.1 billion euros) over the next 10 years.

However the legislation has been vigorously opposed by environmentalgroups and some scientists who argue that Russia lacks the necessaryequipment and finances to safely store nuclear waste.

A recent report said that Russia had already accumulated 14,000 tonnesof high-grade nuclear waste from its own reactors and weaponry.

The United States -- the maker of nuclear power plants that account formost of the world's atomic waste -- has also warned that it will notallow spent fuel to be transferred to Russia from third countrieswithout assurances from Moscow on its safety and security.
return to menu

H. Announcements

U.S. And Uzbekistan Cooperate On Nonproliferation
U.S. Department of Energy
March 12, 2002

Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham signed an Implementing Agreementtoday with the Uzbek Minister of Foreign Affairs,Abdulaziz Kamilov, to facilitate cooperation on nuclear nonproliferationbetween the United States and Uzbekistan. Secretary of State ColinPowell presided over the ceremony with Uzbek President Islam Karimov.

"This project is an excellent opportunity for the United States andUzbekistan to work together to reduce the threat of terrorism andprevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction," Secretary of EnergySpencer Abraham said. "It reinforces President Bush's commitment to workwith our partners in the region and take practical steps to improve thephysical protection and accounting of nuclear materials and preventillicit nuclear trafficking. This, in combination with our othernonproliferation initiatives, will improve the security environment in away that has both regional and international benefits."

The Implementing Agreement provides the groundwork for the execution ofa June 2001 agreement to perform joint work on nuclear nonproliferation.As a result of the agreements, the United States will begin work torepatriate to Russia highly enriched uranium fuel from a researchreactor in Uzbekistan. The Uzbekistan government in turn has pledged toconvert the reactor to use low-enriched uranium, the moreproliferation-resistant form of reactor fuel. The Department of Energy'sNational Nuclear Security Administration will assist this conversion andaid Uzbekistan in the safe and secure storage of its nuclear materials.

This project furthers U.S. nonproliferation goals by increasing thesecurity of nuclear materials in Central Asia and advancing thelong-term U.S. goal of reducing the commercial use of highly enricheduranium fuel.
return to menu

Regarding The Publication Of The US National Intelligence Council'sReport On The State Of Affairs With The Security Of Nuclear Weapons AndCivilian Nuclear Facilities In The Russian Federation
Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
March 7, 2002

A report of the US National Intelligence Council on the state of affairswith the security of nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear facilities inthe Russian Federation was released a few days ago.

It can be stated with satisfaction that the report positively assessesthe degree of cooperation between Russia and the USA in this area, whichhas helped carry out in the last few years a considerable amount of workon enhancing the security of military and civilian nuclear facilitiesand ensuring the safety of nuclear materials.

The Russian Federation attaches great importance to the continuation ofcooperation with the USA in this field, which meets the interests ofboth countries, especially in the light of the events of September 11,2001. A confirmation of this has been the joint statement issued inNovember 2001 by Russian Federation Minister of Atomic Energy AlexanderRumyantsev and US Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, expressing adetermination to intensify the joint efforts to ensure security fornuclear materials. Moscow believes that there are reserves for enhancingthe efficacy in such cooperation, the tapping of which would help toaccelerate the solution of the tasks facing the two countriessubstantially.
return to menu

I. Links of Interest

Russia Deputy N-Minister Interviewed On US HEU-LEU Contract
March 8, 2002

return to menu

Verifiable Elimination Of Nuclear Warheads: What Lies Behind RussianProposals?
Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies
February 20, 2002

return to menu

An Analysis Of U.S. Defense And Economic Adjustment Programs In Russia
Linn Schulte-Sasse
July 2001

return to menu

4.How Verifications Can Be Used To Ensure Irreversible Deep Reductions OfNuclear Weapons
Wu Jun
June 2001

return to menu

DISCLAIMER: Nuclear News is presented for informational purposes only.Views presented in any given article are those of the individual authoror source and not of RANSAC. RANSAC takes no responsibility for thetechnical accuracy of information contained in any article presented inNuclear News.

Section Menu:

© 2007 Partnership for Global Security. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement.