North Korea Preparing for Rocket Launch

On the radar: Launch Dec. 10-22; New START data; Nuclear buildup?; Obama speaking at Nunn-Lugar event; New sanctions report; Exaggerated Iran fears; Senate votes for sanctions, over WH objections; and a Nuclear mascot.

December 3rd, 2012 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Marianne Nari Fisher

Missile watch - North Korea announced it will attempt a rocket launch between December 10 and 22. The North has installed the first stage of the rocket and will have all three stages in place in three to four days, according to South Korean government sources. BBC reports. http://bbc.in/VqDpwK

--”South Korea to Reroute Flights Near Path of North Korea’s Planned Long-range Rocket Launch” from AP. http://wapo.st/TxBBMK

Understanding the launch - “When it comes to the divided peninsula, it seems that a combination of inter-Korean rivalry and Kim Jong Il’s dying wishes to put a satellite into space could well be the principal drivers behind this launch. As such, Kim Jong Un probably cares little about what the international community thinks and as before, there will probably be little repercussions for his country at the UN. More important will be Chinese and South Korean reaction, but for the reasons listed above, it seems nothing said in Beijing or Seoul will prevent this launch from going ahead,” assesses Tad Ferrell at NK News. http://bit.ly/11rptDg

New START data - As of September 1, the U.S. had 1722 operationally deployed strategic warheads on 806 of a total 1034 strategic delivery vehicles.

--Russia had 1499 operationally deployed strategic warheads on 491 of a total 884 strategic delivery vehicles. Data from the State Department. http://1.usa.gov/UBQS2r

Slow going - “The latest data set shows that the U.S. reduction of deployed strategic nuclear forces over the past six months has been very modest: 6 delivery vehicles and 15 warheads. The reduction is so modest that it probably reflects fluctuations in the number of deployed weapon systems in overhaul at any given time,” writes Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists. http://bit.ly/VqHcu6

More nukes? - A new paper from the Heritage Foundation argues “the U.S. should maintain approximately 2,700 to 3,000 operationally deployed warheads.” http://herit.ag/Ss2rHu

--Reference points: The U.S. currently has an estimated 2,150 operationally deployed warheads. Hans Kristensen with the numbers (pdf) http://bit.ly/VgktuY

--The U.S. arsenal had 2,702 deployed nuclear warheads in when President George W. Bush left office in 2009. To meet Heritage’s proposed numbers, the U.S. would have to reverse reductions taken by President Bush and likely build up above SORT and New START treaty ceilings. (2009 numbers pdf) http://bit.ly/Ss1tLx

Event - “Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction:​ Partnering for a More Secure World” will mark the 20th anniversary of the US Nunn-Lugar CTR Program. Today at National Defense University from 10:30 to 4:30. Includes introduction by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and closing remarks with President Barack Obama. Details here. http://bit.ly/Ubn1tg

Tweet - @DavidCulpDC: 4 pm, Obama speaks at "Nunn-Lugar CTR: Partnering for a More Secure World" at NDU. Webcast at http://www.dvidshub.net/webcast/2751.

Welcome to Early Warning - Subscribe to our morning email or follow us on twitter.

--Have a tip? Email earlywarning@ploughshares.org. Want to support this work? Click here.

Report Launch - “Weighing Benefits and Costs of International Sanctions Against Iran” from the Iran Project. Thursday from 8:30 to 10:00am at the Carnegie Endowment. Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, Carnegie’s George Perkovich, and William A. Reinsch will discuss the report’s findings. Ambassador Thomas Pickering will moderate. Register here. http://bit.ly/Ukq4BA

Checking assumptions - “Did prior acts of nuclear proliferation have the same fearsome consequences that Iran hawks now forecast? The answer is no. In fact, the spread of nuclear weapons has had remarkably little impact on the basic nature of world politics and the ranking of major powers,” writes Stephen Walt in a historical analysis of the consequences of when 9 other countries got nuclear weapons.

--Arguing that the issue is blown out of proportion, Walt says, ”The smart way to discourage Iran from going nuclear is both to take the threat of force off the table (thereby reducing Iran's perceived need for a deterrent) and to make it clear that getting a bomb won't bring Iran big strategic benefits and won't affect global or regional politics very much if at all.” Full article at Foreign Policy. http://bit.ly/Vgh8M6

Sanctions vote - “Ignoring White House opposition spelled out just hours before the vote, the Senate voted 94-0 on Friday for a package of punitive measures that would end sales and transactions with various Iranian domestic industries,” reports AP. http://wapo.st/UBSTvt

Admin view on sanctions proposal - “We do not believe additional authority to apply more sanctions on Iran is necessary at this time," read an email from National Security Council staff to Senate Democrats on the latest sanctions proposal in the Senate. "We also have concerns with some of the formulations as currently drafted in the text and want to work through them with our congressional partners to make the law more effective and consistent with the current sanctions law to ensure we don't undercut our success to date." Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy has the email and the story. http://bit.ly/YHsqQd

Broader debate - “While backers of the [Kirk-Menendez] bill hope that additional sanctions might pressure Iranian leaders into action, critics argue that more effort should be put into a negotiated solution, and that the administration’s more targeted sanctions should be allowed to run their course,” says Laicie Olson at Nukes of Hazard. http://bit.ly/RwtjsI

Tweet - @ArmsControlWonk: In light of Heritage's call to up deployed strategic nukes to 3,000, may I suggest a mascot: the Cold War troglodyte: http://bit.ly/UbqTdu