by Kingston Reif The ink is barely dry on the New START treaty, and Russia has nearly met the 2018 deadline for reductions. On June 1 the State Department released a fact sheet detailing the aggregate numbers for the strategic nuclear weapons limited by the treaty. New START limits the U.S. and Russia to no […]
Fukushima and the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit
I wrote an op-ed for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on March 18th on the implications of the Fukushima nuclear disaster for the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit. It can be found here.
There are two op-eds worth reading written by the Center’s Board members:
Frank von Hippel at Princeton University wrote in the New York Times on March 23rd on the need to learn from the Fukushima disaster and reduce dangers around the world. He writes, “We therefore must make existing reactors safer, develop a new generation of safer designs and prevent nuclear power from facilitating nuclear proliferation. As tragic as the Fukushima disaster has been, it has provided a rare opportunity to advance those goals.”
Matthew Bunn at Harvard University wrote in the Washington Post on March 23rd on ways to reduce a Fukushima-like disaster elsewhere. He writes, “Ultimately, regular independent, international reviews should be the norm in nuclear operations worldwide. All countries must demonstrate that they are doing everything practicable to prevent the next Fukushima — or something far worse.”
What Would States Sacrifice for Nonproliferation?
by Leonard Weiss Published in the March 2011 issue of The Nonproliferation Review 18:1, 2011, p.11 Christopher Paine and Thomas Cochran have produced an interesting variation on an old idea for enhancing nonproliferation by internationalizing the fuel cycle (see “Nuclear Islands: International Leasing of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Sites to Provide Enduring Assurance of Peaceful Use,” […]
New START’s Nuclear Compromise
by Kingston Reif The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) between the United States and Russia officially entered into force in a low-key ceremony in Munich in early February–much to the delight of our military leadership, intelligence community, and just about every national security expert on the planet. The national security case for the […]
Pakistan rapidly increasing arsenal, still says no to FMCT
Last week the public learned a few new things about Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. The size of its deployed stockpile is now estimated to be more than 100 weapons. It also is believed to possess the nuclear material for somewhere between 40-100 additional weapons, a capability which could make Pakistan the 4th or 5th largest nuclear weapon state – surpassing both France and the United Kingdom .
As David Sanger and Eric Schmitt pointed out in the New York Times and Karen DeYoung in the above article in the Washington Post—Pakistan’s nuclear-lust is a challenge to the twin goals of prohibiting the production of fissile material for weapons purposes and reducing nuclear stockpiles globally.
Pakistan is the only country publically opposing the beginning of negotiations on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) in the 65-nation UN Conference of Disarmament (CD). Their chief concern is India and the disparity between the two country’s arsenals. Even though, the latest estimates suggest that Pakistan may have more weapons than India. New Delhi does have the capacity to produce more weapons due to a larger fissile material stockpile.
Clearly Pakistan has more than enough weapons and material to deter any potential nuclear threat from India. But, as Daryl Kimball stated in the October 2010 edition of Arms Control Today, “Pakistan’s concerns about an FMCT likely will not be alleviated as long as India’s production potential remains greater.” Note production potential. It is negligible that Pakistan has more weapons now. India can, at any time, increase the size of its arsenal and Pakistan sees that potential as a threat–even more so now because of the U.S.-India nuclear deal, which could give India even more added potential to produce bombs.
Most observers are in agreement that this will not be an easy task. Still, there is a lot that can be done to lay the groundwork for future negotiations and to put added pressure on Pakistan to change its thinking. Kimball laid out some of the options in the Arms Control piece above. So long as Pakistan and India continue their quest to build more bombs, it is only a matter of time before a FMCT will have to be pursued outside the auspices of the Conference on Disarmament.
