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
Search
Google www PGS
 
Nuclear News - 12/6/2004
RANSAC Nuclear News, December 6, 2004
Compiled By: Samantha Mikol


A.  Cooperative Threat Reduction
    1. Russia Seeks Safety in Nuclear Arms, David Holley, Los Angeles Times (12/6/2004)
    2. When a Virtual Bomb May Be Better Than the Real Thing, David E. Sanger, New York Times (12/5/2004)
B.  Russia-Iran
    1. No new nuclear deal with Russia until Bushehr plant becomes operational: MPs , Tehran Times  (12/5/2004)
    2. MOSCOW PRAISES LATEST IAEA RESOLUTION ON IRAN , Pyotr Goncharov, RIA Novosti (12/2/2004)
C.  Russia-India
    1. India a responsible N-state : Russia, Manorama online (12/5/2004)
    2. ST. PETERSBURG DEFENSE FACTORIES SET TO COOPERATE WITH INDIA , Natalia Shilo, RIA Novosti (12/4/2004)
    3. India, Russia sign protocols for producing missiles , Press Trust of India (12/3/2004)
    4. RUSSIA AND INDIA CALL FOR ACTIVE STRUGGLE AGAINST TERRORISM , RIA Novosti (12/3/2004)
    5. Russia to cooperate with India in nuclear energy , Xinhua News Agency (12/3/2004)
    6. Russia to cooperate with India in nuclear energy: , Indo-Asian News Service (12/3/2004)
D.  Russia-Turkey
    1. Russia Offers to Help Turkey with Nuclear Energy , Zaman Daily Newspaper (12/6/2004)
E.  Nuclear Industry
    1. Lifetime of nuclear icebreaker Sibir can be extended for 15 years more , Bellona Foundation (12/6/2004)
    2. LIFE OF SIBIR NUCLEAR ICEBOAT CAN BE EXTENDED BY 15 YEARS , RIA Novosti (12/3/2004)
F.  Official Statements
    1. In Relation to Anniversary of START Treaty, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (12/5/2004)
    2. JOINT DECLARATION BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA ,  Ministry of External Affairs of India (12/3/2004)
G.  Links of Interest
    1. Terrorists Develop Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. On "Mirsad 1" Fight Over Israel, Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies at MIPT (12/6/2004)



A.  Cooperative Threat Reduction

1.
Russia Seeks Safety in Nuclear Arms
David Holley
Los Angeles Times
12/6/2004
(for personal use only)


It was near the end of President Vladimir V. Putin's reelection campaign early this year, and two days of high-profile military exercises highlighting his role as Russia's commander in chief had been marred by failed tests of submarine-launched missiles.

But with a few cryptic words, Putin dispelled the gloom. The exercises, he said at a news conference, confirmed that Russia would soon possess intercontinental nuclear weapons capable of maneuvering in flight to evade antimissile defenses.

"No other country in the world has such weapons systems," Putin said. "It means that Russia has been and will remain one of the biggest nuclear missile powers in the world. Some people may like it and some may not, but everyone will have to reckon with it."

The end of the Cold War, improved relations with the U.S. and the personal rapport between Putin and President Bush have all served to make Moscow's military seem far less ominous than in Soviet times. On top of that, Russia's conventional forces have vastly weakened.

The sad state of its regular military has forced Moscow to place fresh emphasis on nuclear weapons in order to protect its interests in Europe and Asia. Washington is building military bases in some former Soviet republics. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has expanded eastward into the former Soviet Baltic republics. Washington has continued to develop missile defenses.

The world may now have only one superpower, but the United States and Russia still could destroy each other many times over.

Source of Prestige

"In the current situation the role of nuclear weapons for Russia is hard to overestimate," said retired Gen. Makhmut Gareyev, president of the Academy of Military Sciences in Moscow. "Basically it is the only factor which can still ensure our country's safety. We have nothing else to repel strategic military threats anymore."

Nuclear weapons also ensure prestige for Russia. Some Russian analysts maintain that their country's nuclear arsenal is the only reason it has been given a seat at the table with the world's major industrial powers.

"It shouldn't be forgotten that Russia was invited to the G-8 because it has around 800 strategic missiles," military analyst Victor Litovkin wrote recently in the weekly newspaper Moskovskie Novosti. "Strategic missiles remain the only chance to make the world respect Russia in the near future."

Those within Russia's military and political elite who favor greater spending on nuclear weapons promote such views, said Ivan Safranchuk, head of the Moscow office of the Washington-based Center for Defense Information.

"I do not exclude that Putin buys this argument to some extent," he added.

The conventional forces are a shadow of the army that NATO once feared could overrun Western Europe. Dispirited and poorly trained draftees equipped with aging and badly maintained weapons have taken a beating from separatists in the southern republic of Chechnya. A tradition of brutal hazing still leads to high rates of suicide and desertion among conscripts.

The army is top-heavy and works with a technologically outdated command and control system.

But Russia has about 7,800 operational nuclear warheads, roughly divided between 4,400 strategic warheads and 3,400 tactical nuclear weapons, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an American journal considered among the most authoritative public sources for such information.

An additional 9,000 warheads are in storage or officially out of service and awaiting dismantling.

The United States, the journal said, has about one-third more strategic warheads, but a smaller total stockpile.

Russia's land- and submarine-launched strategic warheads have a total explosive power equal to about 120,000 bombs of the size that destroyed Hiroshima.

A single Hiroshima-sized blast in downtown Los Angeles, according to a computer projection done several years ago by Physicians for Social Responsibility, would kill about 150,000 people immediately and 100,000 more from neutron and gamma radiation. An additional 800,000 people would be exposed to high-level radiation.

Relying on Topol-M

Although the futuristic new weapon that Putin alluded to during his campaign and again in comments on Nov. 17 may never be deployed, Russia is already modernizing its nuclear forces.

The silo-based Topol-M missile, first deployed in 1997, was designed to accelerate faster during its booster phase to counter U.S. efforts to shoot down missiles immediately after launch. At least 36 are now in service, and a mobile version is in final testing. They will form the core of Russia's land-based missile force after 2015, said Yuri Solomonov, director of the state-run Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology, the missile's builder.

The Topol-M "belongs to the next generation of missile weaponry and differs fundamentally from everything that has been done before in this field in our country and abroad," Solomonov told journalists in May.

Russia has had more trouble developing a missile for use on new submarines.

Many of Russia's aging Soviet-era submarines have been scrapped. Some have been refurbished and three new ones are being built.

"The old submarines should go to a junkyard already. It's time," said Pavel Zolotarev, another retired general who is now deputy director of the Russian Academy of Sciences' USA-Canada Institute.

"And a new submarine needs a new missile to be installed in it � more perfect, more safe, more reliable."

Four years ago, leaking torpedo propellant caused an explosion that sank the Kursk nuclear submarine, killing its 118-man crew in what Russia's top prosecutor called a technical malfunction for which no one was to blame.

Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov said the accident on Aug. 12, 2000, was triggered by a leak of highly unstable hydrogen peroxide that exploded after contact with kerosene and the metal body of the torpedo.

Construction of the three new submarines has been delayed, partly because of missile failures. Several missiles test-launched in the late 1990s blew up before reaching their targets. A new missile, the Bulava-30, was successfully tested in September, according to a Russian military publication. Like the Topol-M, the Bulava-30 boasts fast acceleration on takeoff and other "enhanced systems" to overcome missile defenses, the journal reported.

The first of the new submarines, named the Yuri Dolgoruky after Moscow's 12th century founder, is scheduled for delivery by 2006. All three are supposed to be in service by 2012.

Washington and Moscow may not have any intention of unleashing these weapons, but neither side fully trusts the other, either. And both are concerned about the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.

Bush and Putin have agreed to reduce deployed strategic nuclear weapons to no more than 2,200 each by 2012. However, their agreement contributed to the final demise of the 1993 START II treaty. The pact would have eliminated all land-based strategic missiles equipped with multiple warheads.

During the Cold War, missiles fitted with multiple warheads were considered particularly destabilizing. If one side launched the missiles first, it could theoretically destroy a larger number of enemy missiles than the number it used. That arithmetic made it more difficult to reach a stable balance between the two sides.

Both Washington and Moscow now plan to retain missiles with multiple warheads, and neither is under any obligation to destroy nonoperational warheads, leading some critics to question whether real arms control is taking place.

With so many bombs still in so many places, a lot of things could go wrong. The danger of terrorists gaining possession of a nuclear bomb may head the list.

Zolotarev, of the USA-Canada Institute, said terrorists could try to trick Moscow and Washington into firing missiles at each other. He painted a scenario where three events take place simultaneously: a sea-launched missile of undetermined origin is fired toward Russia, a so-called dirty bomb � a conventional device rigged with radioactive materials � explodes in a Russian city, and false information gets into the nuclear weapons management system.

"We must take into account that terrorists also get the knack of modern technologies, and to pit one nuclear power against the other nuclear power, to achieve their mutual destruction, can be a very alluring task," Zolotarev said.

Although unlikely, he said it was a bigger threat than a war between Russia and the United States. But that possibility hadn't disappeared altogether, either.

"There are forces in the United States which still dream of dismembering Russia and bringing it to its knees, all the way down," said Gareyev, the military academy president. "What if these forces gain the upper hand in Washington?"

Defense Spending

Such worries, together with Russia's new-found oil wealth and the high cost of reforming conventional forces, have combined to trigger a rapid increase in defense spending.

Russia's military budget � including items listed under other headings � has grown 84% in real terms since 1999, according to calculations by Safranchuk. The official military budget is set to jump an additional 17% next year, to about $22 billion.

In the late 1990s, when funds were tight, maintenance of Russia's nuclear forces was a top priority, Safranchuk said.

"The nuclear umbrella was regarded as a must to be funded, and it was taking up to 80% of procurement and research and development money," he said.

The nuclear forces lost their luster for a few years, but now seem to have regained it, he said.

Russia's official budget proposal for 2005 earmarks $300 million for the nuclear weapons sector and $2.8 billion for military research, the Russian news agency Itar-Tass reported. Many details of Russian military spending are secret, but the research category could include significant nuclear-related activities.

Alexei G. Arbatov, former deputy chairman of the defense committee of the lower house of parliament, said political leaders should tell defense planners on both sides to stop regarding the other side as a potential enemy.

"Until they are told not to do so � this will continue to poison our relations," he told a forum on U.S.-Russian security issues earlier this year at the Carnegie Center Moscow.

Nuclear weapons take years to develop, and with the Topol-M missile, Russia has countered one element of the Reagan-era "Star Wars" defense idea of a space-based laser system that would destroy missiles during their boost stage, Safranchuk said.

There are no details available on the maneuvering device Putin referred to in February, but it apparently is designed to protect a warhead after a ballistic missile reenters Earth's atmosphere. Russian experts have suggested it might resemble a cruise missile, or that it could be a gliding warhead that could use its momentum and the resistance of the atmosphere to change directions and evade U.S. defense systems.

Whether or not this new technology is deployed, for the foreseeable future Russia still has enough weapons to simply overwhelm any U.S. antimissile defense.

The Bush administration, for its part, insists that the purpose of antimissile defense is not to provide a shield against Russia but against a small number of missiles launched by a rogue state such as North Korea.

Pentagon officials say they closely monitor advances in ballistic missile technology by countries such as Russia and China, especially those that may affect plans for U.S. defense systems.

"We'd be fools to think that Russia is not taking steps to develop its ballistic missile capabilities," said one defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

In the past, defense experts have said that a maneuverable missile could evade a missile defense system. U.S. officials prefer to emphasize U.S.-Russian cooperation on terrorism and on reducing nuclear arsenals.

Brookings Institute President Strobe Talbott, a Russia expert who was deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration, said that although U.S. policymakers had not completely dismissed the possibility of a confrontation with Russia, "they do not lay awake at night worrying about 'the bad Russia, the bad bear' coming out of its lair and threatening the United States."

However, U.S. officials are expressing concern about Russia's investments in submarines capable of carrying nuclear missiles because the money could be better spent elsewhere, he said.

"They say, 'This is bad because it's money that Russia can't afford. It's money that Russia ought to be spending on becoming a modern country.' "

Zolotarev said Russia and the United States should never allow any other countries to match the size of their nuclear arsenals. That would, in effect, require the two nations to work together to maintain strategic dominance for decades to come. Because Russia today is concerned with security closer to its borders rather than a global ideological conflict, tactical nuclear weapons may be more important than long-range missiles.

"A deterring role will be played by the tactical weapons," Zolotarev said.

'A Great Power'

Talbott said Russia had a choice between emphasizing military strength or other forms of influence � the economic, diplomatic and cultural weight sometimes defined as "soft power."

"Russia is a great power," he said. "It is going to be a great power forever, for all intents and purposes. The question is, is it going to be a great power that defines its greatness in military terms, or will it define its power in other terms�. If they spend too much, as they have traditionally done, on 'hard power,' it's going to be all the harder for them to catch up in 'soft power.' "

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense William J. Perry said in an interview that apart from the cost of maintaining nuclear arsenals and the danger that they could fall into the hands of terrorists, the very existence of the weapons creates a risk that they will one day be used.

"Instead of the weapons being used to implement policy, the weapons may drive policy," Perry said. "I think that is the danger."

Speaking at the Carnegie forum, Perry paraphrased a comment by Russian physicist and human rights activist Andrei D. Sakharov during the Cold War: "Reducing the risk of nuclear war carries an absolute priority over all other considerations."

"During the Cold War it did," Perry said. "Today it should also."

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Nuclear arsenals

Although Russia and the United States have made sizable cuts in their strategic nuclear arsenals, both still have thousands of warheads and delivery systems:

Warheads

2000

Russia: 5,096

United States: 7,206

2001

Russia: 6,018

United States: 7,206

2003

Russia: 4,850

United States: 6,140

2004

Russia: 4,422

United States: 5,886

**

Delivery systems

Intercontinental ballistic missiles

Russia: 56%

United States: 25%

Submarine-launched ballistic missiles

Russia: 24%

United States: 47%

Bombers

Russia: 20%

United States: 28%

Note: Both sides maintain separate arsenals of tactical nuclear weapons. Unlike strategic weapons, these generally have a shorter range, lower yield and are intended for battlefield use. They can take the form of artillery shells and other munitions.

**

Nuclear agreements

Here are the most important nuclear arms treaties between the U.S. and Soviet Union/Russia:

SALT I (Signed May 26, 1972)

Limited strategic antiballistic missile defenses and capped the number of missile launchers for each side.

SALT II (Signed June 18, 1979)

Would have limited each side to a total of 2,400 launchers, with various sublimits.

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (Signed Dec. 8, 1987)

Eliminates ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 310 and 3,420 miles.

START I (Signed July 31, 1991)

Limits each side to a total of 6,000 strategic warheads with various sublimits. Reductions completed Dec. 5, 2001; remains in force until December 2009.

START II (Signed Jan. 3, 1993)

Passed by U.S. Senate in 1996

and ratified by Russian parliament in 2000.

Would have limited warheads to 3,500 with one sublimit. Russia declared treaty null and void June 14, 2002, after U.S. withdrew from ABM treaty portion of SALT I.

START III

Would have limited each side to 2,500 warheads. No agreement was reached.

**

Increased spending

Russia plans a big hike in its military budget next year, after two years of small adjustments.

2000: 9%

2001: 28%

2002: 19%

2003: 9%

2004: 2%

2005: 17%

Sources: Center for Defense Information; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation; U.S. State Department; Dr. Nikolai Sokov, Monterey Institute of International Studies. Graphics reporting by Tom Reinken



Return to Menu


2.
When a Virtual Bomb May Be Better Than the Real Thing
David E. Sanger
New York Times
12/5/2004
(for personal use only)


At first glance, the current struggle to force Iran and North Korea to give up their suspected nuclear weapons programs has disturbing echoes of the American fiasco in searching for Iraq's weapons. There are murky intelligence reports. There is strong rhetoric from the Bush administration. There is a mix of threats and denials from paranoid regimes that sound as if they have something to hide. And there are no smoking guns.

But in Iraq's case, the critical question - the one on which American intelligence agencies failed so spectacularly - was whether Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his chemical, biological and nuclear programs, elevating the threat he posed to one that justified urgent military action.

For Iran and North Korea, that is not the right question. Instead, the issue is whether they figured out a way to successfully game the system and build a "virtual bomb."

In this era, a nation doesn't have to parade its nukes in the capital on May Day. In fact, it's probably against its interest to do so. All it has to do is create convincing ambiguity - to leave the world wondering whether, if push came to shove and shove led to talk of a pre-emptive strike, in a few short weeks the country could screw together a workable, deliverable nuclear weapon. In an age when centrifuge components and bomb designs are on the black market, and when technology has made bomb-building much less expensive and time-consuming, it doesn't take much for the world to take you seriously.

"I call them 'latent weapons states,' said Mohamed El Baradei, the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in an interview last week. "It's a description that fits a lot of countries that have the know-how. The only key is the fissile material. If you are really smart, you don't need to develop a weapon, you just develop a capability. And that is the best deterrence."

Of course, a nuclear weapon, real or virtual, is more than a deterrent. It has the power to shape events in a region. Nuclear ambiguity is all it takes to change the strategic balance. Saddam Hussein lost the chance to do that after the 1991 gulf war, when American and United Nations officials were shocked to discover how much progress he had made on a bomb. They destroyed that capability, and as it turned out Iraq was never able to reconstitute its program.

American intelligence believes that North Korea and Iran have taken this lesson to heart. "Both regimes view this as Saddam Hussein's biggest mistake," a former senior American intelligence official said recently, insisting on anonymity because he was citing conclusions from classified assessments. "If Saddam had been able to make a convincing case that he could put a weapon together quickly, they think that no American president would have dared to risk an invasion."

In this analysis, Mr. Hussein's big mistake was that he jumped the gun in invading Kuwait 14 years ago, before convincing the world that he was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Then he lost all the equipment that could have created that aura - centrifuges to enrich uranium, high-explosive testing areas and intermediate missiles that could have carried warheads. When Mr. Hussein kept insisting in 2002 and 2003 that he had no program anymore, Mr. Bush and the intelligence agencies could argue that he was probably just too wily for them, once again - and that it was time to stop him, before a hidden program turned into a hidden weapon. North Korea and Iran are pursuing a different strategy, flaunting their capability. North Korea has an easy case to make. Before it threw inspectors out nearly two years ago, it had a stockpile of 8,000 spent rods of nuclear fuel that could be converted to weapons-grade plutonium with relative ease. When a small group of American experts was invited into the country early this year, the North proudly showed that the rods had been removed from their cooling ponds, and said the conversion to plutonium was nearly complete. By now everyone figures they are probably right.

Did they turn the rods into five or six weapons? Or just into weapons-ready fuel?

"What's the difference?" Mr. El Baradei asks.

The Iranians are being a little more subtle. They have shown off their centrifuges, and confessed to hiding elements of their program for 18 years, but Mr. El Baradei says he has seen no evidence that they have a dedicated nuclear arms program. The Iranians insist they are enriching uranium only for generating nuclear power, and that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty allows them to do so. After all, they point out, nations like Japan do the same thing. Last week, Iran agreed to suspend production while it takes part in negotiations that could bring investment and technology into the country. But it made it clear it did not intend to give the technology up.

THE Islamic republic has not renounced the nuclear fuel cycle, will never renounce it and will use it," its top nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rowhani, said. Noting that Iran had again sidestepped Washington's efforts to ask the United Nations Security Council to consider sanctions because of the program, he added: "We have proved that, in an international institution, we are capable of isolating the United States. And that is a great victory."

But even while Iran repeated the mantra about its peaceful intentions, the International Atomic Energy Agency was demanding access to military sites where it suspects that a secret, parallel enrichment program may be under way. The Iranians don't have to let them in, unless there is already reasonable evidence of nuclear material on the site. So far, the evidence is scant.

Meanwhile, the Iranians make no secret of their efforts to develop new missiles that could carry nuclear warheads. If they can keep up the shell game - with a "peaceful" nuclear program that could become military within weeks after renouncing the nonproliferation treaty (as North Korea's did last year) - the Iranians may have figured out how to build the perfect virtual weapon.


Return to Menu


B.  Russia-Iran

1.
No new nuclear deal with Russia until Bushehr plant becomes operational: MPs
Tehran Times
12/5/2004
(for personal use only)


Two leading MPs asserted on Saturday that any new contract with Russia for building new nuclear power plants should be totally dependent on Russia completing the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant and it becoming operational.

Kazem Jalali, the spokesman for the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said Russia should first provide the Bushehr plant with nuclear fuel and then wait for another new deal.

Jalali noted that China began building a nuclear power plant in Pakistan at the same time as Russia began the Bushehr project, but Pakistan�s nuclear facility is already operational.

Jalali said Russia has repeatedly delayed the construction of the Bushehr plant under U.S. pressure.
In light of Iran�s estimated need for 7000 megawatts of electricity to meet rising demand in the future, the MP said Iran should vigorously utilize local expertise.

However, MP Hamidreza Hajbabayi, who is a member of the Majlis Presiding Board and the security committee, is more critical of Russia, saying that Tehran should not give in to excessive demands by Moscow and that Iran should link any new nuclear agreement with Russia to legal and financial guarantees from the Kremlin. Russia has proven over the past eight years that it only thinks of its profits and taking advantage of the situation in its nuclear deal with Iran, Hajbabayi said, adding, �Russia has shown that it cannot be a reliable partner.�

Hajbabayi added that Russia does not back Iran up when it gets into difficulties and at the same time it takes advantage of the conflict between Tehran and Washington. In response to an announcement by the Russians that they are prepared to build a new power plant, he stated, �The Russians can never be trusted.�

In conclusion, Hajbabayi said the behavior of the Russian diplomats during the recent meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors in Vienna was somehow more disturbing for Iran than the Western diplomats� actions.


Return to Menu


2.
MOSCOW PRAISES LATEST IAEA RESOLUTION ON IRAN
Pyotr Goncharov
RIA Novosti
12/2/2004
(for personal use only)


Senior Russian diplomats and nuclear experts have welcomed the very mild resolution on Iranian nuclear programs adopted by International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors. A positive solution of the problem is more than a matter of prestige for Russia, even though Moscow mediated Tehran's talks with the EU Troika. Russian diplomats interacted closely with both parties in a bid to "defuse the situation this way," as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov put it.

The most important aspect of the "consensus" resolution, Mr. Lavrov stressed, is that it leaves the Iranian issue within the framework of the IAEA. The resolution no longer features a provision to the effect that the Iranian nuclear file could be turned over to the UN Security Council for examination if Iran failed to honor its commitments. Iran will undoubtedly profit from some other provisions in the document. In particular, the resolution expressly states that Iran is not striving to develop nuclear weapons by developing its own civilian nuclear programs. One can safely say that this is a diplomatic victory for Tehran, Gennady Yevstafyev, a Russian expert on nuclear non-proliferation issues, believes.

The resolution praises Tehran's decision to suspend uranium-enrichment operations "as a voluntary confidence building measure", which is another victory for Iran, the expert noted. Tehran maintained this position from the start of negotiations with the IAEA and then the EU Troika. Iran has de facto reserved the right to develop its nuclear fuel production program under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

And, finally, Russia has its own interests to consider in solving this problem. Tensions have now been defused around Iran's nuclear programs, thereby facilitating more intensive Russian-Iranian nuclear cooperation. Russia's Federal Nuclear Energy Agency (Rosatom) believes that Moscow and Tehran can soon conclude an agreement on building a second power unit at the nuclear power plant in Bushehr. This document might be signed December 15-16, when Moscow hosts a session of the Russian-Iranian commission for trade and economic relations, Rosatom spokesman Nikolai Shingarev noted. This commission is co-chaired by Rosatom head Alexander Rumyantsev.

The IAEA resolution on Iran gives one ample reason to believe that most Agency members are confident that Iran will not violate the nuclear non-proliferation regime. However, one country cannot agree with this: the United States. It seems that Washington will maintain this position in the foreseeable future. The US called on the IAEA to be vigilant, making it clear that it might unilaterally propose sanctions against Iran.

So, will the US try to exacerbate the situation around Iran? Firm support from Russia, China and the EU has so far prevented the Iranian nuclear file from being sent to the Security Council, so the US is unlikely to take any unilateral steps.



Return to Menu


C.  Russia-India

1.
India a responsible N-state : Russia
Manorama online
12/5/2004
(for personal use only)


Moscow: Russia on Thursday expressed satisfaction over the adequate measures taken by India to safeguard its nuclear materials and facilities.

''India has taken measures to provide better physical protection of nuclear objects and security of nuclear weapon and missiles,'' Interfax news agency quoted official spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry Alexander Yakovenko as saying.

''India has created a considerable nuclear infrastructure and possesses a high potential in nuclear and missiles areas, hence there is a great responsibility on Delhi for handling nuclear materials and missiles,'' he noted. He also reiterated Russia's support to India for making it a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

''We declared a number of times that we support India's candidature as a permanent member of the UN Security Council,'' he said.


Return to Menu


2.
ST. PETERSBURG DEFENSE FACTORIES SET TO COOPERATE WITH INDIA
Natalia Shilo
RIA Novosti
12/4/2004
(for personal use only)


Enterprises of the St. Petersburg defense industry would like to expand their cooperation with India, St. Petersburg governor Valentina Matviyenko told RIA Novosti.

Enterprises of the city's military-industrial sector, machine-tool enterprises, as well as those turning out power-generating equipment, fulfill Indian orders rather actively. Surely enough, these enterprises would like to expand such cooperation, Matviyenko noted. Such interest can be explained by the fact that St. Petersburg would manage to expand production that way, creating new jobs, raising wages and facilitating the local industry's subsequent development, Matviyenko went on to say.

In her words, new principles of relations between Russia and India were coordinated during Russian President Vladimir Putin's Indian visit.

Among other things, both sides have agreed to set up joint ventures with the help of the Russian-Indian science-and-technological potential; some of their products could be sold on third-country markets, Matviyenko stressed.

St. Petersburg's Consolidated Machine-Building Factories had shipped a VVER-1000 water-cooled and water-moderated reactor's body to the city's seaport in late November 2004; that reactor will subsequently become part and parcel of the first power unit at India's Kudankulam nuclear power plant (NPP), Matviyenko reminded.

Unfortunately, such cooperation now faces serious restrictions; still I believe that these restrictions will be lifted, Matviyenko noted. We can't do this today because we abide by IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) demands; still I think this situation is something temporary; this situation will be settled, and we will be able to continue our production, Matviyenko added.

In April 2004 the Baltic Shipyard furnished the Indian Navy with the third Mk 11356 frigate, i.e. the Tabar. The first two ships in this class, namely, the Talwar and the Trishul, had been transferred to the Indian client in June 2003, Matviyenko said.

Mk 11356 frigates, which were built at this enterprise, are considered to be the most advanced warships in their class. All NATO frigates (patrol ships according to the Russian classification) can only accomplish specialized objectives, such as air-defense operations and ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) operations; or they can knock down enemy missiles. For their own part, Mk 11356 frigates can be called multi-purpose ships in terms of their designation and weapons systems.

The bilateral inter-governmental commission for military-technical cooperation issues held its session on the eve of Vladimir Putin's visit; at that time, it became known that Russia could deliver three more frigates to India.


Return to Menu


3.
India, Russia sign protocols for producing missiles
Press Trust of India
12/3/2004
(for personal use only)


India and Russia on Thursday signed three protocols for fresh investments in joint development of Brahmos supersonic cruise missiles and agreed to draft an Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) accord in four to five months for patenting weapons systems made in collaborative efforts.

The two countries also decided to work out "mutually acceptable" conditions on leasing of long-range TU-22 bombers.

After three days of negotiations, Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee and his Russian counterpart Sergei Ivanov announced the decision to pump in investments in the Brahmos Aerospace joint venture, paving the way for commercial production of the 290-km range sea-based supersonic cruise missiles.

However, the two ministers were silent on the question of reported moves to acquire two Russian nuclear submarines. Ivanon said the two sides had discussed a package deal which also involved "appropriate projects" for the Navy.

Under the agreement, the Russians would up the stake in the project from 50 to 60 per cent and, according to experts, it would enable the project to shore up 50 million dollars (about Rs 250 crore) to produce the missile and export them to third countries.

With the step-up in investments, Russians officials said it was proposed to produce 360-370 missiles per year. India has already announced its intention to induct the missiles for its warships.




Return to Menu


4.
RUSSIA AND INDIA CALL FOR ACTIVE STRUGGLE AGAINST TERRORISM
RIA Novosti
12/3/2004
(for personal use only)


Russia and India are concerned about the vulnerability of democratic systems facing the threat of terrorism, states the joint declaration adopted at the end of the talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

"Considering recent terrorist activities against open societies in various parts of the world, Russia and India, as two large and authoritative democratic states, have all reasons to express concern about the vulnerability of democratic systems in the face of terrorist attacks," the document states.

"Terrorism exploits such strong democratic principles as the protection of human rights, the freedom of speech and transit," says the declaration.

Russia and India denounce all terrorist acts "regardless of their motivation, timing or perpetrators." Terrorism has no excuses, either religious, racial, ethnic or any others," the document emphasizes.

The sides pointed out that the fight against terrorism must be conducted on a long-term, full-scale and continuous basis. They underlined the necessity to make this fight more effective, "add more trust to the global effort in the struggle against terrorism and eliminate selective approaches and political prejudice."

The declaration praises the unanimous approval of UN Security Council Resolution 1566, initiated by Russia. The document stresses that this resolution provides for the development of relevant measures against terrorists, including sanctions and legal actions.

Russia and India emphasize the necessity of measures that preclude terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.

"The proliferation of WMDs, its delivery means and other related materials, especially the risk of its use by terrorists poses a threat to the world community and global security," the document underlines.

The sides point out at the necessity of measures "that stop terrorists or their supporters from buying or creatingweapons of mass destruction, its delivery means and other related materials."

Russia and India emphasize the need to fight against this threat both on national and international levels.

Moscow and New Delhi also confirmed their determination to combine their efforts to prevent the deployment of weapons systems in space.

Russia and India called for adoption by the UN General Assembly of the Universal Anti-Terrorist Convention and the Global Convention on the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism.


Return to Menu


5.
Russia to cooperate with India in nuclear energy
Xinhua News Agency
12/3/2004
(for personal use only)


India and Russia expressed their commitment to continue cooperation in nuclear energy on Friday, the Indo-Asian News Service reported.

Noting that nuclear power plants offered a pollution-free and substantial source of energy for sustainable development, a joint declaration issued by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and visiting Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed their commitment to continue cooperation in this field.

"Energy constitutes an important part of the bilateral relationship. Considering the expanding energy requirements of India, both sides stress the need for employing resources that areenvironment-friendly and available in sufficient quantities," the joint declaration said.

Russia is assisting India in setting up two 1,000 MW nuclear power plants in Koodankulam in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Negotiations are on for two more similar plants.

"Both sides are determined to continue their cooperation in thefield of nuclear energy, incorporating innovative technologies to ensure energy security, with due regard to their commitments to non-proliferation norms," the statement said.

They recognized the considerable scope for cooperation in the hydroelectric and thermal power sectors and noted that Russia was a major exporter of oil and gas and that India was emerging as a large consumer.

They affirmed their desire to cooperate in the development of new oil and gas fields and the means of their transportation in Russia, India and other countries.

"Both sides agree to encourage and assist investments in the energy sector by Indian companies in Russia and those by Russian companies in this sector in India."

Return to Menu


6.
Russia to cooperate with India in nuclear energy:
Indo-Asian News Service
12/3/2004
(for personal use only)


Russia Friday announced its willingness to cooperate with India in nuclear energy to ensure the country's energy security "with due regard to their commitment to non-proliferation norms".

Noting that nuclear power plants offered a pollution-free and substantial source of energy for sustainable development, a Joint Declaration issued by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed their commitment to continue cooperation in this field.

"Energy constitutes an important part of the bilateral relationship. Considering the expanding energy requirements of India, both sides stress the need for employing resources that are environment-friendly and available in sufficient quantities," it said.

Noting that nuclear power plants offered a pollution-free and substantial source of energy for sustainable development, the declaration expressed the two countries' commitment to continue cooperation in this field.

Russia is assisting India in the setting up of two 1,000 MW nuclear power plants in Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu. Negotiations are on for two more similar plants.

"Both sides are determined to continue their cooperation in the field of nuclear energy, incorporating innovative technologies to ensure energy security, with due regard to their commitments to non-proliferation norms," the statement said.

They recognised the considerable scope for cooperation in the hydroelectric and thermal power sectors and noted that Russia was a major exporter of oil and gas and that India was emerging as a large consumer.

They affirmed their desire to cooperate in the development of new oil and gas fields and the means of their transportation in Russia, India and other countries.

"Both sides agree to encourage and assist investments in the energy sector by Indian companies in Russia and those by Russian companies in this sector in India."



Return to Menu


D.  Russia-Turkey

1.
Russia Offers to Help Turkey with Nuclear Energy
Zaman Daily Newspaper
12/6/2004
(for personal use only)


Russian President Vladimir Putin's historic visit to Turkey kicked off yesterday with a discussion about joint energy projects.

On the first day of Putin's visit yesterday, he offered to help Ankara build a nuclear energy plant. Turkish Energy Minister Hilmi Guler and Russian Energy and Industry Minister Victor Khristenko discussed joint energy opportunities yesterday. Khristenko later spoke to reporters on the topic.

He said Russia was prepared to cooperate with Turkey on energy and said the discussions are underway. The Russian Minister went on to say that they see Ankara as a "partner with a vision" of establishing an atomic energy plant and emphasized that this will be a project for the next 10-15 years. The Turkish Minister spoke on behalf of the government and said they were currently writing plans for a nuclear energy complex. Moscow is currently building nuclear energy complexes in China, India, and Iran.

Return to Menu


E.  Nuclear Industry

1.
Lifetime of nuclear icebreaker Sibir can be extended for 15 years more
Bellona Foundation
12/6/2004
(for personal use only)


The Murmansk Shipping Company, operator of the nuclear icebreakers, declared this on December 3. The spokesman for the company explained that in 1992, when operation of Sibir was suspended, " the methods to replace the inner part of steam generators did not exist." But now it is possible and the service lifetime can be prolonged until 175,000 hours, he said. "The Murmansk Shipping Company has developed such methods and tested them on the Vaigach nuclear ice-breaker," the interviewee continued. In expert estimate, the Sibir overhaul will not cost more than 20 percent of the sum required for construction of a new nuclear icebreaker. Sibir reactor commissioned in 1978, operated about 100,000 hours.

Today Russia has six nuclear icebreakers and one nuclear lighter-carrier in service. The newest icebreaker Yamal, was commissioned in 1992. The world's first icebreaker Lenin was taken out of service in 1989. Arktica is undergoing overhaul in a bid to prolong the service life of its steam-generators to 175,000 hours (initially it was 100,000 hours). Theoretically, it can be extended to 200,000 hours, increasing the vessel's life from 25 to 30-35 years. Last February, Vaigach was put to repairs and its steam-generator was replaced. The Murmansk Shipping Company believes the experience gained can be used to put Sibir back on stream. But according to the specialists all these efforts can retain the icebreakers in operation in the Arctic region only until 2012 �2015, RIA-Novosti reported.



Return to Menu


2.
LIFE OF SIBIR NUCLEAR ICEBOAT CAN BE EXTENDED BY 15 YEARS
RIA Novosti
12/3/2004
(for personal use only)


The service life of the Sibir nuclear-powered iceboat (its service was stopped in 1992 because of faults in the steam generators) can be prolonged by another 15 years. This was declared on Friday at the conference in the Murmansk Sea Shipping Company.

The spokesman for the company explained that in 1992, when the use of the iceboat ended, "methods to replace the inside of steam generators did not exist."

"Now they have appeared for this type of iceboats and their service life will now be prolonged to 175,000 hours," he said.

"The Murmansk Sea Shipping Company has developed such methods and tested them on the Vaigach nuclear ice-breaker," the interviewee continued.

In expert estimate, the Sibir overhaul will not cost more than 20 percent of the sum required to build a new nuclear iceboat. In favor of its rehabilitation is the fact that, since commissioning in 1978, the Sibir reactor plant has worked about 100,000 hours, which meets the designed figure.

In the opinion of the company's specialists, the Sibir renovated nuclear power plant will ensure reliable navigation on the Northern Sea Route with its freight flow increasing year on year.

The fleet of nuclear iceboats is in federal ownership passed to the trust management of the Murmansk Sea Shipping Company. All the civilian nuclear-powered vessels are based at Atomflot two kilometers north of Murmansk on the Kola peninsula.

The goal set to nuclear iceboats (their manufacture began in 1959) was large-scale development and industrialization of the Soviet northern provinces. After the collapse of the USSR, activities in the northern regions have ebbed and state support for the ice-breaker fleet has been minimized, forcing the Murmansk Sea Shipping Company to earn money from cruises to the North pole aboard ice-breakers.

Things became stabilized in the late 1990s with the reinvigoration of the Norilsk Nickel Concern, one of Russia's largest exporters of primary materials, and the state's budgetary allocations.

Today Russia has six nuclear iceboats and one nuclear lighter-carrier in service. The newest iceboat, he Yamal, was commissioned in 1992. The world's first iceboat, the Lenin, was removed from service in 1989.

The Arktika is undergoing overhaul in a bid to prolong the service life of its steam-generators to 175,000 hours (initially it was 100,000 hours). Theoretically, it can be extended to 200,000 hours, increasing the vessel's life from 25 to 30-35 years. Last February the Vaigach was put to repairs and its steam-generator was replaced. The Murmansk company believes that the experience gained can be put to use for putting back on stream The Sibir ice-breaker. But, specialists say, all these efforts can retain the iceboats in use in the Arctic region only until 2012-2015.




Return to Menu


F.  Official Statements

1.
In Relation to Anniversary of START Treaty
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
12/5/2004
(for personal use only)


It is ten years since the entry of the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms into force on December 5, 1994. Initially signed as the Soviet-American, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine also became parties to the treaty, in addition to Russia and the US after the breakup of the USSR, as countries on whose territory such arms were placed. The three nations later joined the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon states.

The START Treaty, envisaging the reduction of strategic offensive arms to 1600 carriers - ICBMs, SLBMs, heavy bombers and 6000 warheads on them - continues to occupy a key position in the system of international disarmament agreements.

Russia and the US agreed that the provisions of the START Treaty would serve as the basis for ensuring trust, openness and predictability in further reducing their strategic offensive potentials. Such reductions to 1700-2200 strategic nuclear warheads are provided for in the Russian-American Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, signed in 2002.


Return to Menu


2.
JOINT DECLARATION BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA
Ministry of External Affairs of India
12/3/2004
(for personal use only)


"The Russian Federation and the Republic of India, hereinafter referred to as the Sides,

Guided by mutual trust and respect inherent in bilateral relations,

Drawing upon their wide ranging tradition of cooperation since the establishment of diplomatic relations in April 1947,

Recalling the Treaty on Friendship and Cooperation between the Republic of India and the Russian Federation of 28 January 1993,

Reaffirming the Declaration on Strategic Partnership between the Republic of India and the Russian Federation of 3 October 2000,

Convinced of the mutual desire to promote global peace and progress, and the need to counter challenges arising out of international terrorism,

Confirm their adherence to the common ideals of secularism, democracy, rule of law, cultural diversity and pluralism,

Affirm their commitment to develop further and enhance the strategic partnership based on nation-wide consensus in both the States,

Declare as follows;

India and Russia, as two of the largest democracies in the world, are deeply committed to the establishment of a more democratic world order, based on a multi-polar world, which takes into account the major changes that have taken place in the international political landscape over the past few decades. The two Sides note with satisfaction that the strategic partnership between them serves their long-term national interests, strengthens bilateral relations, deepens mutually beneficial cooperation and contributes to international peace and security.

The Sides agree to intensify exchanges in bilateral relations at the political and parliamentary levels, between the Security Councils and at official level. The significant degree of convergence in the overall perspective as well as interests of the two sides, have enabled Indo-Russian relations to withstand the test of time. Both sides recognize that their cooperation strengthens strategic stability in Asia and the world as a whole.

The Sides propose to continue consultations at all levels between the foreign ministries of the two countries, including those on disarmament as well as on the United Nations issues. Priority attention will be paid to coordination of efforts through the Joint Working Group on Combating Global Challenges and the Joint Working Group on Combating International Terrorism.

The Indian Side regards Russia as a major and fully active member of the international community, and as a country whose voice commands respect and attention on issues of global concern. In this context, the Indian Side strongly supports the earliest possible accession of Russia to the World Trade Organisation. The Sides regard this support as an important demonstration of Indo-Russian relations of strategic partnership, and express their desire to develop, after the accession of Russia to the WTO, cooperation within that Organisation, based on the principles of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit.

The Sides are convinced that trade, culture and tourism promote economic cooperation, goodwill and people-to-people contacts between nations. The Sides stress that the traditionally strong bilateral relations have rested on foundations of political, defence and economic exchanges of a substantial nature. In the current context, this process has to be carried forward and strengthened further. Mutual investments in industries, cooperation in IT and banking are some areas that offer a new scope.

Energy constitutes an important part of the bilateral relationship. Considering the expanding energy requirements of India, both Sides stress the need for employing resources that are environment-friendly and available in sufficient quantities. Nuclear power plants offer a pollution-free and substantial source of energy to provide for the sustainable development. Both Sides are determined to continue their cooperation in the field of nuclear energy, incorporating innovative technologies to ensure energy security, with due regard to their commitments to non-proliferation norms. The Sides also recognise the considerable scope for cooperation in the hydro-electric and thermal power sectors. Russia is a major exporter of oil and gas and India is emerging as a large consumer. The Sides affirm their desire to cooperate in development of new oil and gas fields and the means of their transportation in Russia, India and other countries. Both Sides agree to encourage and assist investments in the energy sector by Indian companies in Russia and those by Russian companies in this sector in India. The Sides view cooperation in energy as an area of priority attention in bilateral cooperation.

The Sides agree that the 21st century presents new challenges. In a globalised world, there are inherent inter-linkages not only between countries, but also between issues. Both Sides recognise the indivisibility between security and prosperity in the present day world. They agree that the most effective way to address contemporary challenges is through multilateral approaches based on the widest possible international support. Multi-lateralism is an instrument to work towards the objective of a multi-polar world.

The UN system is at the centre of multi-lateralism. Both Sides agree to cooperate closely at the UN and in other international organizations. In 2005 the UN will be 60 years old. Both Sides emphasise the necessity of comprehensive reforms in the UN system so as to reflect both the enlarged membership in the UN and the contemporary realities. India and Russia emphasise that the expansion of the UN Security Council is an urgent imperative to make the Security Council more representative and effective. In this framework, the Russian Federation reiterates once again that it regards India as an influential and major member of the international community. The Russian Federation reaffirms its support to India as a deserving and strong candidate for the permanent membership in an expanded UN Security Council.

India and the Russian Federation reiterate their common resolve to fight terrorism. They reaffirm that global terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security, and condemned in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation, whenever and by whomsoever committed. They underscore that there can be no justification for terrorism on any grounds, including ideological, religious, racial, ethnic or any other. They believe that the fight against terrorism has to be long-term, sustained and comprehensive. In this regard they emphasise the need for giving substance and credibility to the global fight against terrorism and avoid selective approaches and political expediency. With the recent targeting of open societies around the world, India and the Russian Federation as two large and influential democracies, have reasons to be concerned about the vulnerability of democracies to terrorist attacks, because terrorism exploits the strengths of democracies such as, the protection of human rights, freedom of expression and movement.

Both countries welcome the unanimous adoption of the UN Security Council resolution 1566 [piloted by the Russian Federation]. Noting that it seeks to consider action against terrorists including sanctions and judicial action and aims at making the Counter Terrorism Committee more action-oriented, both countries decided to actively cooperate with each other in counter-terrorism efforts.

India and the Russian Federation re-emphasise the need for an early adoption by the General Assembly of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

Both Sides reaffirm that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), their means of delivery and related materials, particularly the risk of their falling into the hands of terrorists constitutes a threat to international peace and security. They highlighted the need to prevent terrorists or those who harbour them from acquiring or developing WMD, their means of delivery and related materials. Both sides emphasised the necessity to further address this threat on national basis as well as through forward looking multilateral long term efforts by all partners against proliferation with the central role of the United Nations. As strategic partners India and Russia affirmed their commitment to cooperate bilaterally as well as through appropriate multilateral forum towards contributing to this objective.

Both Sides also reaffirm their commitment to support efforts to prevent the deployment of weapons in outer space while preserving it for peaceful and cooperative activities aimed at developmental benefits.

The Sides note with satisfaction that the Trilateral Meetings at the Foreign Ministers level of India China and Russia have been taking place regularly. These meetings have been useful in promoting understanding and exploring areas of possible cooperation at a trilateral and at an international level. The Trilateral Meetings have also reflected a strong concern against terrorism anywhere and in any form. The Sides express their conviction in favour of progressive increase in the trilateral cooperation, which could also result in social and economic development amongst the three countries.

The Sides considered the situation in Central Asia and note that security and stability in that region coincides with the priorities of India and Russia for the region. Greater economic growth and democratic progress of the Central Asian States demand the respect for their freedom to choose the models of development and implementation of reforms.

The Sides express concern over continuing violence in Iraq and stressed the need for an intra Iraqi dialogue aimed at building national consensus on a new constitution and on restoring stability and security in the country. The Sides advocate strict compliance of the UN Security Council resolution 1546, particularly with regard to the interim timetable of political process stipulated by it with a view to facilitating the formation of a new, democratic Iraq.

The Sides affirm their continuing interest in contributing to the reconstruction efforts in Iraq and urged a wider degree of international consultation in the ongoing peace efforts. The Sides believe that it would be in the interest of the international community to restore the efficacy of multilateral approaches in addressing situations such as the war in Iraq.

The Sides support the objective of a lasting, just and comprehensive settlement of the Arab Israeli conflict, based on relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council. The sides encourage the resumption of peaceful negotiations as soon as possible in accordance with the Road Map worked out by the Quartet of international intermediaries and approved by the UN Security Council in its resolution 1515.

The Sides welcome the successful conclusion of the Presidential elections in Afghanistan and underline the importance of efforts at national reconciliation and unity. The Sides also look forward to conduct of the parliamentary elections as scheduled in April/May 2005. They express support for a strong, united, sovereign and independent Afghanistan and underline the importance of empowering the Central authority with indigenous security institutions.

The Sides reiterate their support for the reconstruction process in Afghanistan. The Sides express their concern at the continuing threat to security, especially in the South and Southeastern provinces and also over the continued increase in the cultivation, production and trafficking of narcotic drugs in Afghanistan and underlined the need for effective steps to counteract the drug and terrorist threats.

The Russian Federation and the Republic of India are convinced that their bilateral cooperation in all forms, and their strategic partnership, contributes to the strengthening of the regional and global goodwill and cooperation. They are determined to further enhance in every possible way the relations of partnership and closely interact on a bilateral and multilateral basis, with other states, regional and international forums.

Prime Minister of the Republic Of India

President of the Russian Federation"


Return to Menu


G.  Links of Interest

1.
Terrorists Develop Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. On "Mirsad 1" Fight Over Israel
Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies at MIPT
12/6/2004
(for personal use only)
http://www.armscontrol.ru/UAV/mirsad1.htm


Return to Menu


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

RANSAC's Nuclear News is compiled two to three times weekly. To be automatically removed from our mailing list, click on the following link: Remove Me From The List

If you have questions/comments/concerns, please reply to news@216.119.87.134



Section Menu:
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999


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