Nuclear Security Summit: Progress, Stopgaps and Next Steps

March 25, 2014 | Edited by Lauren Mladenka and Geoff Wilson

Uphill battle - “A proposal in a draft communique for the Nuclear Security Summit beginning on Monday to constrain holdings of a key nuclear explosive is concise and modest,” writes Douglas Birch in a piece for The Center for Public Integrity. “But its uncertain fate symbolizes the uphill battle Washington faces in moving the biennial summits beyond what critics depict as stopgap measures, small ambitions, and vague promises to tighten security for the world’s stockpile of nuclear explosives. A January draft of the communique to be released at the March 24-25 summit in the Netherlands — convened at President Obama’s initiative — for the first time includes a suggestion that nations try to limit their stocks of plutonium, the type of fuel in the bomb that devastated Nagasaki in August 1945.”

--The statement reads “We encourage states to minimize their stocks of HEU [highly-enriched uranium] and to keep their stockpile of separated plutonium to the minimum level, consistent with national requirements.” However, “But that promise — cautious and hedged as it is — had not yet been accepted by the summit participants, according to markings on the draft and interviews with sources familiar with the preparations… The call to minimize plutonium stocks, which applies to both military and civilian programs, is a departure and obviously nettlesome to some countries… As a result, while the global stocks of weapons uranium have been shrinking after the Cold War, the stocks of plutonium have been growing. They are now estimated at 490 metric tons — enough in theory to fuel tens of thousands of weapons.” Full report here. http://bit.ly/1feTryA

Tweet - @macfound: President Obama tells world leaders at @NSS2014: Next Nuclear Security Summit will be in #Chicago in 2016

Phase out - “U.S. officials confirmed on Monday that they will launch an effort to help limit the prospect of ‘dirty bomb’ attacks by working to phase out certain radiological materials,” Douglas P. Guarino reports for Global Security Newswire. A statement released Monday says that, “he United States intends to establish an international research effort on the feasibility of replacing high-activity radiological sources with non-isotopic replacement technologies, with the goal of producing a global alternative by 2016."

--“This unilateral ‘house gift’ that U.S. officials offered at the biennial gathering of world leaders follows calls from nonproliferation advocates for the United States and United Kingdom to lead an effort that could enable a global phase-out of selected radiological materials used in the medical field… Paired with conventional explosives, such substances could potentially be dispersed over a wide area in a dirty bomb attack, creating dangerous contamination.” Full story here. http://bit.ly/1jxabnO

Tweet - @BulletinAtomic: Last day of Nuclear Security Summit is today! Here's what they're talking about: #medicalwaste http://bit.ly/1dKmqd6

Reducing the threat - “Thanks to the priority Obama and others have given [the nuclear terrorism] threat, and the work they have done to combat it, in just the last five years, the number of states with nuclear-weapons material that could fuel a terrorist’s bomb has shrunk by more than one-third: from 38 to 25,” writes Graham Allison in The Atlantic.

--“The core truth about preventing nuclear terrorism is this: no nuclear-weapons material means no mushroom clouds and no nuclear terrorism,” Allison says. “States that are free of highly enriched uranium or separated plutonium can be certain that they will not be the source of the core of a terrorist’s nuclear bomb. Regions that are free of nuclear-weapons material, and commit themselves to remain so, should be recognized as nuclear-weapons-material-free zones (NWMFZ)...Vulnerable weapons material anywhere is a threat to citizens everywhere. An NWMFZ, however, reduces the risk that states in a given region will be the targets of a nuclear attack by terrorists.” Read the full piece here. http://bit.ly/1nXdStb

Speaking from experience - “While in global terms, ours is a young country, I believe none can bring greater relevant experience than Kazakhstan. When my country gained independence in 1991, we found ourselves the inheritor of the world’s fourth-largest nuclear arsenal. We immediately decided to renounce these weapons and transferred them under great security to the Russian Federation,” writes Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev in The Washington Times.

--“There was good reason for Kazakhstan to set such a bold lead and for the decision to be so popular among our citizens. No country — nor people — has suffered more in peacetime from the terrible impact of nuclear weapons than our own. For more than 40 years, the Semipalatinsk test site in northern Kazakhstan was the scene for nearly 500 Soviet nuclear explosions. These tests, in our atmosphere and under our land, saw more than 1 million unprotected people exposed to radioactive fallout and left vast tracts of land seriously contaminated. We continue to pay a heavy price in terms of human health and on our environment.

--“One of the legacies of the [Soviet nuclear] tests at Semipalatinsk [in northern Kazakhstan] was a large volume sensitive information, infrastructure and radioactive material left unsecured around the vast complex. The very real danger was that this knowledge, equipment and materials could fall into the wrong hands and be used to make an atomic bomb. Over 10 years, experts from Kazakhstan, Russia and the United States carried out an unprecedented joint program to find and secure the remnants of the Soviet nuclear program.”

--“No matter what the immediate difficulties, we need to find the same vision and level of international co-operation at The Hague. I hope that through our discussions, we can identify a range of practical measures to improve nuclear security and, most importantly, demonstrate the political will to put them into action. In the end, we must prove that the global security system rests on our collective ambitions for peace and international law rather than on history and the destructive power of a nuclear arsenal.” Read the full piece here. http://bit.ly/1jBZosx

Nuclear trends - “By nearly any objective measurement, the world is winning the war against nuclear weapons,” writes Zachary Keck in The National Journal. “Nuclear weapons have spread far more slowly than anyone predicted, and today the threat of nuclear proliferation is at an all-time low. Moreover, the trend lines are all positive,” including the global race to nuclear disarmament, nuclear apathy, nuclear failures, the success of the NPT, and Al-Qaeda’s waning interest in nuclear weapons. Read the full article here. http://bit.ly/QbCVtS

Nukes won’t save you - “In 1994, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan gave up the Soviet nuclear weapons they inherited after the breakup of the USSR. Now, the usual suspects, including the strategic planning staff at the Wall Street Journal editorial page and peacocking Ukrainian politicians, are arguing that none of the past weeks' nastiness would have happened if Kiev had kept the Bomb,” says Jeffrey Lewis in a piece for Foreign Policy. “The reality is that nuclear weapons wouldn't have saved Crimea and can't protect Kiev from Moscow,” writes Lewis in an analysis of how useful nuclear weapons have been at protecting sovereignty and deterring low-level conflict. Full post here. http://atfp.co/1ljtNQH

Sanctions under a deal - “It is clear that any final nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 will require deep and creative thinking on how to provide the US and its European partners confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program, all the while respecting Iran’s nuclear rights. Understandably, lots of expert opinion has focused on forging a delicate balance between the parties and their respective interests in this regard,” write Trita Parsi and Tyler Cullis in Iran Matters. “Less discussed, however, is what will need to happen in the US should that balance be found.”

--President Obama “is deeply constrained in his ability to lift the robust energy and financial sanctions Congress has imposed on Iran. Under current law, the best the President can offer Iran are time-limited waivers that he promises to renew for as long as Iran keeps to its commitments under a nuclear deal and for as long as he remains in office. Whether succeeding Administrations would feel similarly bound to a nuclear deal that might well prove a political thunderbolt is unclear. If this is supposed to inspire the confidence required for Iran to agree to strong and sustained nuclear concessions, we’d do well to reconsider. Any deal that allows Congress to litigate and re-litigate the issue every six months (as would happen if waiver were used as the primary means of sanctions relief) is not one that Iran will feel comfortable hanging its hat on.”

--“That is why it is critical that the White House and allies in Congress look closely at the current authorizations for the President to relieve the sanctions and consider what needs to take place if and when a nuclear deal is reached. It is entirely possible that Iran and the P5+1 reach agreement in the next several months. If so, the White House must be prepared to meet its commitments under a nuclear deal and, in so doing, ensure that Iran does the same.” Full piece here. http://bit.ly/1ljuTvK

Recon - “Employees at the federal government's troubled nuclear waste dump in southeastern New Mexico are preparing to enter the facility's underground mine for the first time since a radiation leak contaminated workers last month,” the AP reports. “The U.S. Department of Energy announced Saturday that 35 workers have undergone training simulations at a Potash mine before re-entry next week into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).” Full story here. http://abcn.ws/Qbx3B3

Quick-hits:

--“Security Lapse at Volkel” by Jeffrey Lewis for Arms Control Wonk. http://bit.ly/1h5zZbR

--“Arms Control Advocates Lose Hope on European Tactical Nukes” by Global Security Newswire. http://bit.ly/1gxtLmg

--“Move Over Uranium, Now It’s Time for Plutonium” by Douglas Birch in Foreign Policy. http://atfp.co/1dKe7xZ

--“We’re Not Prepared for a Nuclear Heist” by Eben Harrell in Time. http://ti.me/1h5qWaJ

--“Losing Sleep Over Russia and Nuclear Proliferation” by the Star Tribune editorial board. http://strib.mn/ORamkH

Events:

--“Overcoming Pakistan’s Nuclear Dangers.” Book launch with Mark Fitzpatrick. March 26 from 10:00-11:00 at IISS-US, 2121 K St. NW, suite 801. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1fUo3Vy

--“Implications on Deterrence Stability and Escalation Control of Tactical Nuclear Weapons in South Asia.” Discussion with Jeffrey McCausland. March 26 from 12:30-2:30 at the Stimson Center, 1111 19th St. NW, 12th floor. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1kBZQbR

--“Separated Plutonium: Friend or Foe?” Discussion with Andrew Worrall. March 26 from 4:00-5:30 at George Washington University, room 111, 1957 E St. NW. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1kXIZjN

--“Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom.” Discussion with Elaine Scarry. March 27 from 5:00-7:00 at George Washington University, room 505, 1957 E St. NW. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1psdNJx

--“Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons Initiative and its Relationship to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.” Discussion with Ira Helfand and Guakhar Mukhatzhanova. March 31 from 9:30-11:30 at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/NxfOaY

--“Creating a Legacy for the Nuclear Security Summit.” Discussion with Kenneth Luongo and Sharon Squassoni. April 2 from 12:00-1:30 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2nd floor conference room A, 1616 Rhode Island Ave. NW. RSVP by email to PPP@csis.org