Sen. Nunn's Statement to Senate on nuclear threat

[kristopher]

We have important efforts underway to reduce nuclear danger and some important successes, including the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. These all mark progress and potential, but the risk of a nuclear weapon being used today is growing, not receding. The storm clouds are gathering:
• Terrorists are seeking nuclear weapons, and there can be little doubt that if they acquire a weapon that they will use it.

• There are nuclear weapons materials in more than 40 countries, some secured by nothing more than a chain link fence, and, at the current pace, it will be decades before this material is adequately secured or eliminated globally.

• The know-how and expertise to build nuclear weapons is far more available today because of an explosion of information and commerce throughout the world.

• The number of nuclear weapons states is increasing. A world with 12 or 20 nuclear weapons states will be immeasurably more dangerous than today’s world and make it more likely that weapons or materials to make them will fall into the hands of terrorists with no return address. Developments in cyberterrorism pose new threats that could have disastrous consequences if the command-and-control systems of any nuclear-weapons state are compromised.

• With the growing interest in nuclear energy, a number of countries are considering developing the capacity to enrich uranium to use as fuel for nuclear energy, but this would also give them the capacity to move quickly to a nuclear weapons program if they chose to do so.

• Meanwhile, the United States and Russia continue to deploy thousands of nuclear weapons on ballistic missiles that can hit their targets in less than 30 minutes, encouraging both sides to continue a prompt launch capability that carries with it an increasingly unacceptable risk of an accidental, mistaken or unauthorized launch. Though we are certainly not approaching the confrontational dangers of the Cold War era, any military tensions between the United States and Russia increase the risk of accidents or mistakes.

The bottom line: The world is heading in a very dangerous direction. Both leaders and citizens here and abroad must reflect on what is at stake.

If Al Qaeda had hit the trade towers with a small crude nuclear weapon instead of two airplanes, a fireball would have vaporized everything in the vicinity. Lower Manhattan and the financial district would be ash and rubble. Tens of thousands of people would have been killed instantly. Those who survived would have been left with no shelter, no clean water, no safe food, and no medical attention. Telecommunications, utilities, transportation, and rescue services would be thrown into chaos.

That would have been just the physical impact. If you were trying to draw a circle to mark the overall impact of the blast – in social, economic, and security terms -- the circle would be the equator itself. No part of the planet would escape the impact. People everywhere would fear another blast. Travel, international trade, capital flows and commerce would initially stop, and many freedoms we have come to take for granted would quickly be eroded in the name of security. The confidence of America and the world would be shaken to the core.

The threat of a nuclear attack is a real and present danger, and yet we are doing an insufficient job in defending against this new threat. Today:
• The risk of an intentional nuclear war between Russia and the United States is much lower;

• The threat of an accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch continues;

• The threat of a nuclear attack - deliberate or by mistake - has increased since India, Pakistan and North Korea developed their arsenal and since Iran has embarked on its nuclear program; and

• A terrorist nuclear attack is more likely because of the wide availability of nuclear weapons materials, the growing number of nuclear powers, and the spread of nuclear technology and knowledge.

These dangers are threats that every country faces, and no country can defeat on its own.

We are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe.

Don't let anyone tell you that the proliferation of nuclear weapons associated with nuclear power is not an issue. Even Nunn has no effective answer for control of civil production of HEU. The energy security argument that associates with nuclear power guarantees a pathway to nuclear weapons grade materials for any country that is willing to stand against what Iran has been subject to for the past decade. Less in fact since few other countries would have the relationship with Israel that focuses so much concern on Iran.

Speaking of Iran, once they have nuclear weapons, it creates an environment in the area that cannot help but spur an arms race.

[zipplewrath]

1. It's already on

"Speaking of Iran, once they have nuclear weapons, it creates an environment in the area that cannot help but spur an arms race."

Look at their VERY close neighbors that already have nuclear weapons. India, Pakistan, Russia, and China. As for the "middle east" (of which it is arguable that Iran is even a portion thereof) you have Israel as THE sole nuclear power in the region. This has been one of THE most militarized countries in the region, and one more than willing to use its military power for the purpose of expansion. Beyond that, you have at least 3 countries that have pursued nuclear power and weapons to one degree or another in that larger region. Iraq, South Africa, and Lybia have all pursued programs to various degrees of success.

The problem we have with proliferation is that the world has figured out one inescapable fact. Countries with nuclear weapons don't get invaded/attacked by the US. It ends up being true of just about any nuclear "pair". India and Pakistan probably have achieved a level of MAD all on their own which will "protect" them from further serious conflicts and invasions. That's a powerful incentive for having them. Unfortunately, it also means a greater and greater chance that extra-governmental organizations will obtain them. Those kinds of organizations don't necessarily have the DISincentives for using them that governments do.

I don't have a good solution for these problems. Nunn doesn't have good solutions for these problems. Obama has at least taken the step of trying to get the US and Russia to reduce their inventories. A very good thing and a BFD that gets little attention. It would have been a very good idea NOT to invade Iraq but in fact established that we don't just go around beating up on countries we don't like that don't have them (yet). It would have been a vastly better idea to let the UN inspectors continue their work.

Now, I have no idea what we're going to do.

[madokie]

2. Thanks to the Dick and W

the world is a much more unstable place. As more and more countries build nuclear power plants and obtain the weapons that makes possible the chances of a terrorist group getting their hands on a nuclear weapon increases tremendously. Whether the nukie naysayers want to admit it or not building nuclear power plants is one step closer to nuclear weapons if that country so desires. What country in their right minds today wouldn't want a nuke weapon? We won't be invading a nuclear powered country and they all know that. They also know that the USA will invade countries they feel they have a want to. All facts, no bullshit there.
Rec

[Kolesar]

3. bush should have let the "Iraq sanctions" end quietly

...and then Iraq could have been a perpetual counter to Iran in the local power struggle. However, he would have been regarded as a wussy and a one termer in the RW press.

[DrGregory]

4. WRONG AGAIN!!

Whether the nukie naysayers want to admit it or not building nuclear power plants is one step closer to nuclear weapons if that country so desires.
===========================

A commercial nuclear reactor makes a LOUSY production reactor.

We actually have a term for it "reactor grade" plutonium to differentiate
it from "weapons grade" plutonium. The Dept of Energy has stated that one
can make a weapon from reactor grade material - but ONLY by using techniques
that a nascent nuclear weapons state would be unable to take advantage of.

That is, the very experienced nuclear weapons designers at Los Alamos and
Lawrence Livermore in the USA can make working weapons from reactor grade
fuel. But the novice weapons designers of a first time nuclear weapons
state won't have the knowledge and design techniques to take advantage
of reactor grade fuel.

EVERY nuclear weapons state started with either highly enriched uranium
( which is NOT used for power reactors ) and / or "weapons grade" fuel
from specially built "production reactors".

The USA obtained the fuel for its nuclear weapon from production reactors
located at Hanford, Washington, and Savannah River, South Carolina from
reactors that look NOTHING LIKE commercial power reactors.

Dr. Greg

[DrGregory]

5. WRONG!!!

? We won't be invading a nuclear powered country and they all know that.
==============================================================

The weapons / tactics of the US military were all designed to attack
another nuclear armed nation - the USSR.

The USA is MOST LIKELY to attack a nation seeking nuclear weapons,
or just developing them.

If Iran comes closer to having nuclear weapons, why would the USA
be deterred from blowing the enrichment plant at Natanz and other
Iranian facilities to little bits?

The scenario I like is to attack them with nuclear weapons; but
make it look like the nuclear explosion was the Iranians own doing -
a nuclear weapons build gone bad.

Then the USA and Israel could stand back and laugh and say,
"We told you not to mess with that...."

Iran would be so busy cleaning up after that, they wouldn't
have time to bother anyone else.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

7. You want to attack Iran with nuclear weapons

You wrote:

The weapons / tactics of the US military were all designed to attack
another nuclear armed nation - the USSR.

The USA is MOST LIKELY to attack a nation seeking nuclear weapons,
or just developing them.

If Iran comes closer to having nuclear weapons, why would the USA
be deterred from blowing the enrichment plant at Natanz and other
Iranian facilities to little bits?

The scenario I like is to attack them with nuclear weapons; but
make it look like the nuclear explosion was the Iranians own doing -
a nuclear weapons build gone bad.

Then the USA and Israel could stand back and laugh and say,
"We told you not to mess with that...."

Iran would be so busy cleaning up after that, they wouldn't
have time to bother anyone else.

Dr. Greg

A vivid display of a completely broken moral compass, this "plan" by our self proclaimed "nuclear energy expert. Why am I not surprised?

[DrGregory]

9. Iranian solution

A vivid display of a completely broken moral compass, this "plan" by our self proclaimed "nuclear energy expert. Why am I not surprised?
======================================

Evidently the "tongue in cheek" nature of the
post went completely over your head.
(Why am I not surprised?)

The USA doesn't need to use nuclear weapons
to attack Natanz. The USA's conventional
forces could easily turn Natanz into a
smoldering ruin.

As long as someone does it before Iran gets
nuclear weapons. The USA would be best
equipped to do so - one only hopes our
President has the intestinal fortitude
to do what is necessary.

Failing that, one may be able to count on
Israel to do the job. Israel stepped up
to the plate in 1980 to bomb Iraq's
Osirak reactor when President Carter
faltered.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

6. You are absolutely correct.

There is no doubt that after Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech his selection of Iraq as a target to invade (as opposed to the obvious danger posed by a nuclear armed N. Korea that is bent on selling their technology) cemented the perception that if a small country possesses nukes they are far less likely to be a target of wanton US aggression than if they do not.

As for the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, only the propaganda wing of the nuclear power industry denies it. MIT knows they are clearly connected. This is from the conclusions of the 2003 pronuclear MIT study on the future of nuclear power.

Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emissions — hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.

This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts,by the year 2050.Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This study also recommends changes in government policy and industrial practice needed in the relatively near term to retain an option for such an outcome. (Want to guess what these are? - K)

We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions — renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration,and increased energy efficiency — and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any of these four options at this time.

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,four critical problems must be overcome:

Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.

Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation.

Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

Circumstances since the report was issues make the prospects of solutions to these problems dimmer than ever.

[DrGregory]

8. We are not wedded to European technology

The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.
============================

I am an MIT alum - and I know the people that wrote
the study.

However, did you see the qualifier on the above
statement - the technologies used in Europe, Japan
and Russia present risks..

However, I'm not in favor of using the European /
Japanese technology. I'm in favor of using
US technology that makes it IMPOSSIBLE to make
weapons out of the spent fuel; the IFR technology.

Again I post the link to the interview by Frontline
with Dr. Charles Till of Argonne National Lab.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/...

Q: So it would be very difficult to handle for weapons, would it?

A: It's impossible to handle for weapons, as it stands.

It's highly radioactive. It's highly heat producing. It has all of the characteristics
that make it extremely, well, make it impossible for someone to make a weapon.

I also previously posted here a link to a letter to
the New York Times by Senators Simon and Kempthorne
that referenced a study by our own nuclear weapons lab
Lawrence Livermore, that stated that one can't make
nuclear weapons out of IFR spent fuel. Because
Lawrence Livermore designs US nuclear weapons, they
should know what can / can not be used to make a
nuclear weapon.

Dr. Greg

[Dogmudgeon]

10. What are you quoting?

--d!

[Dead_Parrot]

11. From teh google:

http://www.preventwmd.gov/9_10_08_sam_nunn_testimony/