The House of Representatives yesterday approved the FY 2014 Energy and Water Appropriations bill (H.R. 2642) by a vote of 227-198. All but 8 Democrats voted against the bill.
On Hagel, Kerry, and Iran (But not necessarily in that order…)
Two more pieces in PolicyMic this week, so be sure to take a look. You can find the links and a couple of clips below.
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.”
Quote of the Day – Congressman Making Puns Edition
“The question is what was he thinking?….Did anybody tell Samore he should say less?” Representative Rick Larsen (D-WA), March 3, 2010. Larsen was responding to comments made by White House coordinator for arms control and weapons of mass destruction,…
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.
