BOSCMUN DELEGATES’ TOPIC MANUAL

FOR

Weapons of Mass Destruction

(WMD)Subtopics include:

1. Terrorism2. Disarmament

3. Non-proliferation4. Current Events (Iran, N. Korea, Syria, START)

Vocabulary listManhattan Project Cold WarProliferation Arms raceFirst Strike SanctionsDisarmament Nuclear Regulatory CommissionSDI: Strategic Defense Initiative Ballistic MissilesSLBM: Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)ICBM: Inter-continental Ballistic Missile SALT: Strategic Arms Limitation TreatyCTBT: Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Non-proliferation TreatySTART: Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (1,2 & 3) ABM: Anti-ballistic Missile TreatyDirty Bomb IAEA

Current international issues/status

Countries that possess or want to possess WMDsAcknowledged Nuclear Weapons Capability

*China *Pakistan*France *Russia*India *United Kingdom*Iran *United States*North Korea

Unacknowledged Nuclear Weapons Capability

*Israel

Abandoned Nuclear Weapons Development South Africa—Constructed but then voluntarily dismantled 6 uranium bombs. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine—When Soviet Union broke up, these former states possessed nuclear

warheads that they have since given up.

Background information

Types of WMD’s---Nuclear

Nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction powered by atomic, rather than chemical, processes. Nuclear weapons produce large explosions and hazardous radioactive byproducts by means of either nuclear fission or nuclear fusion. Nuclear weapons can be delivered by artillery, plane, ship, or ballistic missile (ICBM); some can also fit inside a suitcase. Tactical nuclear weapons can have the explosive power of a fraction of a kiloton (one kiloton equals 1,000 tons of TNT), while strategic nuclear weapons can produce thousands of kilotons of explosive force. After World War II, the proliferation of nuclear weapons became

2

an increasing cause of concern throughout the world. At the end of the 20th century the vast majority of such weapons were held by the United States and the USSR; smaller numbers were held by Great Britain, France, China, India, and Pakistan. Over a dozen other countries can, or soon could, make nuclear weapons. In addition to the danger of radioactive fallout, in the 1970s scientists began investigating the potential impact of nuclear war on the environment. The collective effects of the environmental damage that could result from a large number of nuclear explosions has been termed nuclear winter. Treaties have been signed limiting certain aspects of nuclear testing and development. Although the absolute numbers of nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles have declined since the end of the cold war, disarmament remains a distant goal.

Atomic bomb or A-bomb, weapon deriving its explosive force from the release of atomic energy through the fission (splitting) of heavy nuclei (see nuclear energy). The first atomic bomb was produced at the Los Alamos, N.Mex., laboratory and successfully tested on July 16, 1945. This was the culmination of a large U.S. army program that was part of the Manhattan Project, led by Dr. Robert Oppenheimer. It began in 1940, two years after the German scientists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman discovered nuclear fission. On Aug. 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima with an estimated equivalent explosive force of 12,500 tons of TNT, followed three days later by a second, more powerful, bomb on Nagasaki. Both bombs caused widespread death, injury, and destruction, and there is still considerable debate about the need to have used them.

Atomic bombs were subsequently developed by the USSR (1949; now Russia), Great Britain (1952), France (1960), and China (1964). A number of other nations, particularly India, Pakistan, and Israel, are believed to have atomic bombs or the capability to produce them readily. The three smaller Soviet successor states that inherited nuclear arsenals (Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus) relinquished all nuclear warheads, which have been removed to Russia.

Hydrogen bomb or H-bomb, weapon deriving a large portion of its energy from the nuclear fusion of hydrogen isotopes. In an atomic bomb, uranium or plutonium is split into lighter elements that together weigh less than the original atoms, the remainder of the mass appearing as energy. Unlike this fission bomb, the hydrogen bomb functions by the fusion, or joining together, of lighter elements into heavier elements. The end product again weighs less than its components, the difference once more appearing as energy. Because extremely high temperatures are required in order to initiate fusion reactions, the hydrogen bomb is also known as a thermonuclear bomb.

The first thermonuclear bomb was exploded in 1952 at Enewetak by the United States, the second in 1953 by Russia (then the USSR). Great Britain, France, and China have also exploded thermonuclear bombs, and these five nations comprise the so-called nuclear club—nations that have the capability to produce nuclear weapons and admit to maintaining an inventory of them. The three smaller Soviet successor states that inherited nuclear arsenals (Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus) relinquished all nuclear warheads, which have been removed to Russia. Several other nations either have tested thermonuclear devices or claim to have the capability to produce them, but officially state that they do not maintain a stockpile of such weapons; among these are India, Israel, and Pakistan. South Africa's apartheid regime built six nuclear bombs but dismantled them later.

Like other types of nuclear explosion, the explosion of a hydrogen bomb creates an extremely hot zone near its center. In this zone, because of the high temperature, nearly all of the matter present is vaporized to form a gas at extremely high pressure. A sudden overpressure, i.e., a pressure far in excess of atmospheric pressure, propagates away from the center of the explosion as a shock wave, decreasing in strength as it travels. It is this wave, containing most of the energy released that is responsible for the major part of the destructive mechanical effects of a nuclear explosion. The details of shock wave propagation and its effects vary depending on whether the burst is in the air, underwater, or underground.

3

Types of WMD’s---biological

Biological warfare, employment in war of microorganisms to injure or destroy people, animals, or crops; also called germ or bacteriological warfare. Limited attempts have been made in the past to spread disease among the enemy; e.g., military leaders in the French and Indian Wars tried to spread smallpox among the Native Americans. Biological warfare has scarcely been used in modern times and was prohibited by the 1925 Geneva Convention. However, many nations in the 20th century have conducted research to develop suitable military microorganisms, including strains of smallpox, anthrax, plague, and some non-lethal agents. Such microorganisms can be delivered by animals (especially rodents or insects) or by aerosol packages, built into artillery shells or the warheads of ground-to-ground or air-to-ground missiles and released into the atmosphere to infect by inhalation.

In 1972 the United States and the Soviet Union adopted an agreement, endorsed by the UN General Assembly and now ratified by more than 140 nations, to destroy existing stockpiles of biological weapons and refrain from developing or stockpiling new biological weapons. The treaty does allow research for defensive purposes, such as to develop antidotes to biological weapons. After the fall of the Soviet Union, however, it was disclosed that the Soviets had secretly increased research and production of a wide variety of deadly biological agents. Although Russian president Boris Yeltsin publicly ordered (1992) the abandonment of germ warfare, some expressed suspicion about the continued production of biological weapons in post–cold war Russia.

With the rise of extremist groups and the disintegration of the established international political order in the late 20th century, biological weapons again began to be perceived as a serious threat. In the 1990s, after the Persian Gulf War, five hidden germ-warfare laboratories and stockpiles of anthrax, botulism, and gas gangrene bacteria were discovered in Iraq. In addition to Iraq and Russia, North Korea, Iran, Egypt, Israel, China, and other nations are suspected of various violations of the 1972 agreement.

In 2001, shortly after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, anthrax was sent through the mail in bio-terrorist attacks against several locations in the United States. There was, however, no clear connection between the two terror attacks. In an attempt to develop a warning system for a bio-terror attack, the Environmental Protection Agency's air quality monitoring system was adapted (2003) to permit detection of an outdoor release of smallpox and other pathogens. Such a system, however, would not have detected the narrowly focused indoor anthrax attacks of 2001.

ANTHRAXWhat is it? Bacteria with spore-forming rods; likes to live in the soilHow it works: Humans become infected by coming into contact with spores, either by touch or inhalation. The spore then produces a toxin that can be fatal. The incubation period for inhalation anthrax is 1-6 days. Lethal amount: One billionth of a gram (the size of a speck of dust) How long can it survive? Tends to degrade rapidly in sunlight; if kept in the right environmental conditions, anthrax can survive for years. Symptoms: Flu-like symptoms, high fever, fatigue and cough. Shock and death can occur within 24-36 hours of the onset of severe symptoms. Treatment: Antibiotics, including penicillin Prevention: Vaccine

BOTULINUM TOXINWhat is it? Bacterium that develops only in the absence of oxygen.

4

How it works: By inhalation. Botulinum neurotoxins generally kill by the relatively slow onset (hours to days) of respiratory failure. The individual may not show signs of disease for 24-72 hours. The toxin blocks biochemical action in the nerves that activate the muscles necessary for respiration, causing suffocation.Lethal amount: One billionth of a gramHow long can it survive? Relatively short life after it's released Symptoms: Dizziness, dry throat, blurred vision.Treatment: Anti-toxins can be injected soon after exposure to a lethal dose of toxin Prevention: Gas mask, protective clothing

Types of WMD’s---chemical

Chemical warfare, employment in war of incendiaries, poison gases, and other chemical substances. Ancient armies attacking or defending fortified cities threw burning oil and fireballs. A primitive type of flamethrower was employed as early as the 5th century B.C.; modern types are still in use. In the Middle Ages, before the introduction of gunpowder, a flammable composition known as Greek fire was used. Smoke from burning straw or other material was employed in early times, but its effectiveness is uncertain.

Poison gas was first used during World War I, when the Germans released (April, 1915) chlorine gas against the Allies. The Germans also introduced mustard gas later in the war. Afterward, the major powers continued to stockpile gases for possible future use and several actually used it: the British in Afghanistan, the French and Spanish in Africa, and the Japanese in China. Lethal gases were not employed in combat during World War II, but the Germans did use gases for mass murder during the Holocaust. The Germans also invented and stockpiled the first nerve gas. It is odorless and colorless and attacks the body muscles, including the involuntary muscles. It is the most lethal and insidious weapon of chemical warfare. Besides lethal gases, which attack the skin, blood, nervous, or respiratory system and require hospitalization of the victim, there are also non-lethal incapacitating agents, which, like tear gas, cause temporary physical disability. Such agents have often been employed in riot control, espionage, and warfare. Various forms of herbicides and defoliants are also used to destroy crops or vegetation, as Agent Orange was used by the United States during the Vietnam War.

The potential effectiveness of chemical warfare is increasing with improved methods of dissemination, such as artillery shells, grenades, missiles, and aircraft and submarine spray guns. Some protection against chemical weapons is possible using suits, sealed vehicles, and shelters. Such countermeasures usually protect against nuclear fallout and biological warfare as well. Lethal chemical weapons are held by many nations and they continue to be used. Iraq, for example, used mustard gas during its war with Iran and also against Kurdish rebels. The danger of the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is growing despite arms control because they are relatively easy to manufacture and deploy.

Efforts to control chemical and biological weapons began in the late 19th century. The Geneva Protocol of 1925, which went into force in 1928, condemned the use of chemical weapons but did not ban the development and stockpiling of chemical weapons. The United States did not ratify the protocol until 1974. In 1990, with the end of the cold war, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to cut their arsenals by 80% in an effort to create a climate of change that would discourage smaller nations from stockpiling and using such lethal weapons. In 1993 a international treaty banning the production, stockpiling (both by 2007), and use of chemical weapons and calling for the establishment of an independent organization to verify compliance was adopted. The agreement, which became effective in 1997, has been signed and ratified by 160 nations. The treaty is enforced by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is based in The Hague. The alleged Iraqi retention, after the Persian Gulf War cease-fire, of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction was the main pretext for the 2003 U.S.-British invasion of Iraq.

5

VXWhat is it? VX, considered one of the most lethal chemical weapons, is a colorless and odorless liquid that turns into a gas on contact with oxygen.How it works: VX is primarily toxic through the skin, but can also prove fatal when inhaled. VX is fast-moving, virtually undetectable, and can spread through air as well as water. In its liquid state it is roughly the same density as water. It blocks the transmission of impulses along the central nervous system, causing convulsions, respiratory paralysis, and death.Lethal amount: 10 mg (just a drop)Symptoms: Increased salivation, coughing, runny nose, headache and nausea. Prevention: Gas mask, protective clothing

MUSTARD GASWhat is it? Mustard gas is in its pure state a colorless, odorless liquid, but when mixed with other chemicals, it looks brown and has a garlic-like smell.How it works: Inhaling the vapors causes painful, long-lasting blisters all over the body.Symptoms: Itchy skin, watery eyes and burning sensation in lungs. The long-term effects on an individual may include chronic lung impairment, chest pain and cancer of the mouth, throat, respiratory tract, and skin. It has been linked to causing leukemia and birth defects.Prevention: Gas mask

SARINWhat is it? Sarin is a highly toxic gas, which attacks the central nervous system.How it works: It is chiefly absorbed through the respiratory tract; can be absorbed through the skin at higher environmental temperatures. Depending upon concentration of Sarin, toxicity can occur within minutes.Lethal amount: 100 milligramsSymptoms: In low levels, it causes severe headaches, increased salivation and constrict air passages to the lungs. In higher doses, it causes coughing, increased perspiration, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and breathing difficulties. Death can follow due to suffocation.

Types of WMD’s---radiological (dirty bombs)

Radiation weapon or radiological weapon, a bomb or warhead that uses conventional chemical explosives to disperse radioactive material, sometimes called a “dirty bomb.” Designed to produce radiation sickness in a military force or a civilian population instead of destroy a target, radiation weapons typically consist of a highly radioactive material encased in lead and surrounded by a high explosive. During the 1980s, Iraq developed and tested a radiation weapon that was intended to produce health effects that would be difficult to explain, but decided to abandoned the project because a radiation level low enough to escape detection was also insufficient to cause significant medical problems in the weeks following an attack.

History of problem-WMD’s

The first atomic bombs were used in the context of the Allies' World War II policy of strategic bombing. Early in the Cold War, U.S. policy was for massive retaliation with Strategic Air Command bombers in the event of war with the USSR. In 1949, after the Soviets exploded their first atomic device, the United States elaborated other policies, but these did not affect the ever-increasing numbers, types, and explosive force of nuclear arsenals throughout the world.

6

During the Cold War, the nuclear strategies of the United States and the USSR ranged from straightforward deterrence to the threat of massive retaliation during the early 1950s, to limited forward deployment in the late 1950s, to various forms of flexible response in the 1960s. These have included the options of aiming nuclear weapons at other nuclear weapons and aiming them at enemy cities. Behind all of these approaches is the idea that any nuclear war would involve mutual assured destruction (MAD) for the principals, and possibly for the world as well. As a result, the United States developed a weapons arsenal large enough to ensure that enough weapons would survive an enemy first strike to retaliate effectively.

The Cold War spawned a subculture of nuclear strategists who moved among jobs in academia, at think tanks, and in government departments. Some theorized on how to use nuclear weapons politically and militarily. They proposed various strategies for winning a nuclear war, including first, managing escalation so that the weaker nation withdraws before a full exchange occurs; second, staging a massive first strike that preempts an effective response; third, launching a surgical first strike that destroys enemy leadership; and fourth, a technological breakthrough that makes effective strategic defense possible.

Other strategists concluded that nuclear weapons were so unlike conventional weapons that they changed war fundamentally. Defense proposals, such as the civil defense complexes and antiballistic missile (ABM) defenses of the 1950s and 60s (and the later Strategic Defense Initiative), were seen as destabilizing because they included the concept of acceptable losses in a nuclear conflict. At various times the United States and the USSR pursued arms control proposals designed to improve the stability of the balance of power and to prevent nuclear proliferation. Opponents of nuclear war have popularized the theory that it could trigger a climatic disaster; pacifists consider nuclear weapons the ultimate argument against war. Some analysts point to the way that nuclear policy has served the interests of what President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex.”

The end of the Cold War eliminated the fear of a U.S.-USSR confrontation, but both the United States and Russia retain substantial forces. The danger now comes primarily from smaller, less stable nations in more volatile areas of the world that may develop or obtain nuclear weapons capabilities. During the Persian Gulf War, the United States and its allies were concerned about how close Iraq was to developing an operational nuclear weapon. The threat of nuclear war has profoundly shaped human language and culture in the late 20th century.

SubtopicsTerrorism

International terrorism has been a constant reminder of the evils of which man is capable. From the days when terrorism included only airplane hijackings and hostage taking, the spread of new weapons technologies, along with the disintegration of the world’s balance of power following the cold war has led to a new kind of terrorism. Deadly and widespread, terrorists now have the capability to inflict devastating amounts of harm to innocent civilians. Now even the term, “Airplane Hijacking” has a new meaning with even greater implications. Many in the world are concerned that WMD’s could fall into the hands of terrorists.

The topic of terrorism is extremely expansive and encompasses several issues. The debate on a specific definition is one of the foremost points of concern and contention for the United Nations. The discussion of a definition has followed the perimeters of what is the difference between a “terrorist” and a “freedom fighter.” This aspect of the topic is infused into the debate about which countries sponsor terrorism actions. In turn the eastern world accuses the west as being imperialist- and often point to the Balkans, Israel and Northern Ireland as evidence of western terrorism. This aspect of the topic is extremely contentious and it may not be wise to let your committee get bogged down in this debate.

7

This issue has also been addressed in past United Nations conferences the need to develop security and reactionary responses to terrorism. In recent months we have seen many proposals and this part of the topic will probably continue to be a focus of debate. Obviously one of the most recent ideas proposed in combating terrorism is military action but certainly this is one of the most difficult aspects to form a consensus on. Key in this topic is also encouraging cooperation and governmental support of the United Nations. Early detection is also often addressed and can be a challenge to find substantive solutions. The United Nations had also supported the monitoring of terrorist activities and especially individuals. Airport security often comes up regarding terrorism and especially now. As one, can obviously see, the problem is multi-faceted and deserves a clear comprehensive response.

Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism

The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism entered into force on April 10, 2002, thirty days after the 22nd ratification was deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. As a result of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and the international campaign against terrorism that ensued, there has been a surge in the number of countries ratifying the convention, which was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on December 9, 1999. As of March 2004, 132 countries have signed the convention and 112 have completed the ratification, acceptance, approval or accession process and become states parties. Of these 112 states parties, 108 ratified the convention after September 11, 2001. The United States ratified the convention on June 25, 2002, when President Bush signed it into law.

The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism requires each state party to criminalize the funding of terrorist activities under its domestic law and to identify, detect, and seize or freeze funds used or allocated for terrorist purposes. States parties are also required to prosecute or extradite individuals suspected of unlawful and willful involvement, direct or indirect, in the financing of terrorism and to cooperate with other states parties in the investigation and/or prosecution of such suspects. In addition, states parties must ensure that their domestic laws require financial institutions to implement measures that identify, impede, and prevent the flow of terrorist funds.

ConclusionIn assuring international peace and security, the UN has created a program of work calling upon all

Member States to become party to the twelve international conventions and protocols that discuss combating international terrorism. In the absence of an international convention suppressing terrorism, the regional blocs from around the world including but not limited to; the European Union, the Organization of American States, the African Union, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference have developed regional conventions suppressing terrorism. These regional conventions “may not be the best solution to the suppression of terrorism, however, they are worthwhile as a deterrent and an exhibition of states’ desire to cooperate against the problems created by terrorism.” The United Nations has a limited but promising record in dealing with the problem of international terrorism. Its capacities in these areas should be enhanced. Terrorism is not just a military problem: it will require a wide range of policy responses in order to limit the financing of terrorism and the harboring of terrorism, among other things.

Disarmament and Non-proliferationThe atomic bombs dropped (1945) on Japan by the United States in World War II demonstrated the overwhelming destructive potential of nuclear weapons and the threat to humanity posed by the possibility of nuclear war and led to calls for controls on or elimination of such weapons.

Public Pressure

8

Some of the scientists who helped make the bomb started the Union of Concerned Scientists, and since then many public groups have formed to campaign for disarmament, including the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in the United Kingdom, SANE and the Nuclear Freeze in the United States, and the worldwide Physicians for Social Responsibility. In addition, many local antiwar, ecological, and women's groups have focused on nuclear issues. Disarmament advocates have used political campaigns, mass rallies, blockades of facilities where weapons are manufactured or stored, and even attacks on nuclear weapons themselves, called “ploughshare actions.” Disarmament groups have long opposed nuclear testing, beginning with the protests leading up to the Moscow Agreement of 1963, a partial test ban. More recently, the international ecological group Greenpeace has tried to disrupt French nuclear testing in the Pacific, and there have been coordinated protest campaigns against testing in Kazakhstan and in Nevada.

ICBM & SLBM’s

A guided missile is a self-propelled, unmanned space or air vehicle carrying an explosive warhead. Its path can be adjusted during flight, either by automatic self-contained controls or remote human control. Guided missiles are powered either by rocket engines or by jet propulsion. The American, R. H. Goddard, did important early work on rocket, but guided missiles were first developed in their military form by the Germans in World War II. They have become the key strategic weapon of modern warfare and a crucial, and much used, tactical weapon. Guided missiles are of various types and ranges; long-range missiles generally have nuclear warheads, while short-range missiles usually have high-explosive warheads. Aerodynamic missiles are of four types. Surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles supplement antiaircraft guns and are often guided by self-contained controls that detect and target the missile toward heat or electronic sources. Air-to-surface missiles, launched by aircraft against ground positions, are often radio-controlled. Surface-to-surface missiles (including ship and submarine launched versions) include many different types. All long-range missiles are ballistic; the intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) can reach targets up to 1,500 nautical miles away, while the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) has a range of many thousands of miles. The first operational U.S. ICBM, the Atlas D, was controlled by radio, but since then inertial guidance, which uses internal gyroscopes to calculate and correct direction has been used. The key U.S. offensive ballistic missiles are the Minutemen ICBMs, which are launched from silos, and the submarine-launched Tridents, which replaced the earlier Polaris and Poseidon. All currently deployed ballistic missiles can be equipped with Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs), which permit one booster to carry several warheads, each guided to a separate target. The Soviet Union completed the first operative ICBMs in

9

1958, and the United States, reacting to a supposed “missile gap,” gained overwhelming missile superiority by 1962, which in terms of accuracy and payload it never relinquished. Offensive and defensive ballistic missiles have been regulated by a number of arms control agreements between the United States and the former USSR.

Cruise missiles are low-flying, continuously powered offensive missiles designed to evade defense systems. The cruise missile did not realize its potential until the 1970s, when the United States sought to develop a relatively inexpensive method for delivering weapons over long distances with pinpoint accuracy. The missile, which flies at altitudes of about 50 ft (15 m), has a range of up to 2,000 mi (3,200 km). It uses internally stored computerized maps of its route to follow the contour of the terrain and can deliver conventional or nuclear weapons. In its various modifications, it can be launched from aircraft, ships, or ground installations against land or naval targets.

International treaties/agreements

International Agreements

Official efforts at arms control have made some progress, but only very slowly. The first resolution (1946) of the General Assembly of the United Nations set up an Atomic Energy Commission to make proposals for the peaceful uses of atomic energy and for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. The commission concentrated debate on the Baruch Plan for an international agency to control atomic power and weapons and passed it, but the plan was vetoed by the USSR in the Security Council. As the cold war progressed, the commission reached an impasse (1948). With the proliferation of nuclear weapons, concern over the situation became more acute.

In 1952 a UN Disarmament Commission was formed under the Security Council. It became the repository for all disarmament proposals under UN auspices. In 1953 a commission subcommittee was set up, consisting of Canada, France, Great Britain, the United States, and the USSR. In this subcommittee, which met intermittently from 1954 to 1957, there was basic disagreement between East and West. The West held that an international control system and on-site inspection must be developed before disarmament could proceed; the USSR stated that the Western position would result in inspection without disarmament and proposed instead an immediate ban on nuclear weapons, without inspection but with possible later, but unspecified, controls. Conferences among the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union on the formulation of a treaty to ban nuclear testing began in Geneva in 1958. The same year these three powers agreed to suspend nuclear testing for one year. The voluntary moratorium continued until it was broken by the Soviet resumption of testing (1961).

The UN Disarmament Commission, expanded (1958) to include all members of the United Nations, was reduced in 1962 to 18 members. Soon afterward, France withdrew. In 1963 the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union reached the Moscow Agreement, which banned testing in the atmosphere, in outer space, and underwater. Other discussions were conducted simultaneously by the 18-member UN Disarmament Commission. No agreement was reached on arms limitation, although the Soviet Union and the United States moved closer together on the issue of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The two countries proposed (1968) to the commission a 25-year nonproliferation agreement that was later approved by the UN General Assembly and took effect in 1970; it was made permanent in 1995. The treaty has been ratified by over 180 nations. North Korea threatened to withdraw in 1993 and 1994, and non-signatory nations that have or develop nuclear weapons are not bound by the treaty. A comprehensive test ban treaty was approved by the UN General Assembly and signed in 1996; over 150 nations have now signed. The treaty prohibits all nuclear testing, establishes a worldwide network of monitoring stations, and allows inspections of suspicious sites. Conservative opposition to the treaty in the United States led the Senate to reject ratification in 1999.

10

The Soviet Union and the United States had begun Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) in the late 1960s, and in 1972 agreed to limit antiballistic missiles and reached an interim accord limiting intercontinental ballistic missiles. Another interim SALT agreement was reached in Nov., 1974, that limited ballistic missile launchers. SALT II, which banned new ICBMs and limited other delivery vehicles, was signed in 1979. It was never ratified, but both countries announced they would adhere to it.

In 1982 the United States and Soviet Union began a new set of negotiations, called START (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks). In 1987, President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the INF treaty to eliminate intermediate-range nuclear forces, and a START treaty, signed by President Bush and Gorbachev in 1991, called for additional reductions in U.S. and Soviet nuclear arsenals and on-site inspections. In response to increasing Soviet political instability, Bush announced (1991) the elimination of most U.S. tactical nuclear arms, took strategic bombers off alert status, and called for reductions in ballistic missiles.

With the USSR's disintegration, its nuclear arms passed to Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine. The republics pledged to abide by existing treaties and remove outlying weapons to Russia for destruction. In 1993, Bush and Russian President Yeltsin signed a START II treaty that called for cutting nuclear warheads by two thirds by 2003 (and probably sooner under modifications agreed to in 1994) and eliminating those weapons most likely to be used in a first strike. Ukraine, fearing Russian domination, did not ratify START and the 1970 nonproliferation treaty until 1994, but by 1996 the nuclear arsenals of Belarus, Kazakstan, and Ukraine had been dismantled.

On September 10, 1996 the UN General Assembly adopted the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty and on September 16, 1996 member states were given the opportunity to sign the treaty. To date the status of countries who have signed or ratified this treaty are as follows: (Countries that are italicized only have signed the treaty, while countries that are italicized and underlined have both signed and ratified the treaty.)

Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Romania, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Viet Nam.

In 2010 The United States and Russia negotiated a new START treaty, with the US Senate ratifying the treaty in December 2010, and Russia expected to ratify the treaty in January 2011. The treaty reduces the number of warheads and launchers each country may have.

Current hot spots or hot topics

Nuclear winter is the theory that the smoke and dust produced by a large nuclear war would result in a prolonged period of cold on the earth. The earliest version of the theory, which was put forward in the early 1980s in the so-called TTAPS report (named for last initials of its authors, Richard P. Turco, Owen B. Toon, Thomas P. Ackerman, James B. Pollack, and Carl Sagan), held that the ensuing low temperatures and prolonged periods of darkness would obliterate plant life and seriously threaten the existence of the human species. Later models, which took into account additional variables, confirmed the basic conclusions of the TTAPS report and suggested that the detonation of 100 megatons (the explosive power of 100 million tons of TNT) over 100 cities could produce temperature drops ranging from 5 to 15 degrees.

Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) is the U.S. government program responsible for research and development of a space-based system to defend the nation from attack by strategic ballistic missiles (see

11

guided missile). The program is administered by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (until 1993 the Strategic Defense Initiative Office), a separate agency in the U.S. Dept. of Defense. SDI, popularly referred to as “Star Wars,” was announced by President Ronald Reagan in a speech in Mar.,1983, and was derided by his critics as unrealistic. Space programs from other agencies were brought together in the organization. It has investigated many new technologies, including ground-based lasers, space-based lasers, and automated space vehicles. Critics argued that the original SDI program would encourage the militarization of space and destabilize the nuclear balance of power, and was technologically infeasible, based on untested technologies, and unable to defend against cruise missiles, airplanes, or several other possible delivery systems. In addition, some countermeasures to SDI technologies, (decoy missiles and shielding of armed missiles) would be simple to implement. In 1987 the Soviet Union revealed it had a similar program.

The end of the Cold War led to criticism that SDI was unnecessary, and in 1991 President Bush called for a limited version using rocket-launched interceptors based on the ground at a single site. Deployment of this system was scheduled for 2005; planned to protect all 50 states from a rogue missile attack, it would contravene the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Apparently successful tests of the system's ground-launched interceptors were revealed to have been flawed (1999) or to have occurred after odds of success had been enhanced (1984, 1991). Emphasis has been placed on developing missile defenses for battlefield.

North Korea

When the south declared independence in 1950, North Korean forces invaded, sparking the Korean War. That prompted the United Nations to authorize a "police action" led by the United States in an attempt to repel North Korea. A 1953 ceasefire agreement established a demilitarized zone between the two Koreas, halting a conflict that killed two million Koreans. The Korean People's Army (North Korea) has more than a million troops, making it one of the largest militaries in the world. Tens of thousands of soldiers guard the demarcation line between the two Koreas.

At times, the north has allowed nuclear inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency through its borders to monitor for signs of nuclear activity. The country has even agreed to dismantle programs in exchange for food and fuel. But just when it appears progress has been made, North Korea takes a step back by kicking inspectors out of the country, launching test missiles and encroaching on South Korean territory.

On Oct. 21, 1994, it appeared a breakthrough was at hand. North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for fuel and two nuclear power reactors, an agreement struck with the U.S. during negotiations in Geneva. But within two years, North Korea was sending troops into the demilitarized zone and launching a rocket — which it claimed was a satellite, not missile — into the Pacific Ocean near Japan.

By 2002, the hope had all but faded and North Korea's reputation was hitting an all-time low.U.S. President George W. Bush accused North Korea of having a secret weapons program and halted oil shipments to the country.North Korea responded by withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 and declaring it had enough plutonium to start making nuclear bombs.

By 2006, North Korea was test-firing a long-range missile, experimenting with medium-range missiles and in October, tested a nuclear weapon. In May 2009 North Korea announced it successfully completed another test. In 2010 tensions on the Korean penisula increased with South and North Korean military action. In December 2010 North Korea revealed a complex with nuclear capabilities to an American scientist.

BBC

12

Q&A: North Korea nuclear talksHigh tension on the Korean peninsula and Pyongyang's recent revelation of a modern uranium enrichment plant come as the latest obstacles to the resumption of international talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear ambitions. The BBC looks at the background to the stop-start talks.

Who and what is involved?Negotiations over North Korea's nuclear programme have been a stop-start process The international negotiations on North Korea's nuclear programme involve South Korea, China, the US, Russia and Japan, as well as Pyongyang. China hosts the talks. In September 2005, after more than two years of on-off talks, North Korea agreed a landmark deal to give up its nuclear ambitions in return for economic aid and political concessions. But implementing the deal has proved extremely difficult, and the talks have been stalled since April 2009.

Why are they stalled?

Early wrangling involved the timeline for implementing the deal - the stages at which North Korea and its negotiating partners, primarily the US, should take particular steps. On 9 October 2006, with the talks deadlocked, North Korea conducted its first nuclear test. The UN responded with sanctions - but talks resumed three months later. They stalled again for several more months over the issue of $25m (£13m) in North Korean funds frozen because of the sanctions in a bank in Macau. Once the funds had been released, the talks appeared to begin moving forward.

In June 2007, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were allowed to visit the Yongbyon reactor - North Korea's source of plutonium - for the first time since 2002. A month later, North Korea shut the reactor down and was rewarded with a US pledge to take it off the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Dismantling work began on the reactor and North Korea began handing over details of its nuclear programmes. On 27 June 2008, in a symbolic gesture, it blew up the cooling tower at Yongbyon. But the talks then became deadlocked over the issue of how Pyongyang's negotiating partners should verify that the information it had handed over was correct and complete, particularly on the issue of a possible uranium enrichment programme.

As relations deteriorated, North Korea carried out what it said was the launch of a satellite. Western nations said it was a pretext to test a type of missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. Then on 14 April 2009 Pyongyang announced that it was pulling out of the six-party talks and, a month later, conducted its second nuclear test. Since then the talks have not resumed. And tensions on the Korean peninsula have been high since an international panel blamed North Korea for sinking a South Korean navy warship in March, with the loss of 46 lives.

Does the news about the uranium enrichment plant change things?

US and South Korean officials have expressed surprise at the scale and modernity of the plant - which is equipped with at least 1,000 centrifuges - but not at the fact that it exists. Christopher Hill, America's former top delegate to the six-party talks, said that North Korean purchases 10 years ago, as well as evidence found at Yongbyon more recently, had pointed to the presence of such a facility. He said that this was why the US had sought a stringent verification process for the information that North Korea had handed over.

Siegfried Hecker, the US scientist to whom the new facility was shown, said that while it appeared primarily aimed at civilian nuclear power, it could be "readily converted to produce highly enriched uranium bomb fuel". As such, it would give North Korea a second way of making nuclear bombs, in addition to its plutonium-based programme.

Is North Korea concealing anything else? Both the US and South Korea say they believe North Korea has additional sites linked to a uranium enrichment programme. In December 2010 US state department spokesman Philip Crowley said that the work being done at the site shown to Siegfried Hecker could not have been achieved if other related sites did not already exist.

"We're very conscious of the fact that, in the recent revelations to American delegations, what they saw did not come out of thin air," he said. "It certainly reflects work being done at at least one other site."

13

So are the six-party talks dead?

Stephen Bosworth, the current US delegate to the six-party talks, said he did not rule out further engagement with North Korea but that he did not believe in "talking just for the sake of talking". North Korea had to approach negotiations with a "measure of seriousness", he said. China has consistently called for the talks to resume, while Japan has called for greater regional co-operation to tackle the issue.

South Korea has said that the talks cannot resume until the issue of the sunken warship, the Cheonan, has been fully addressed. In the wake of North Korea's 23 November 2010 shelling of a South Korean island - which left four people dead - tensions between the two Koreas remain very high.

As for North Korea, it certainly wants the economic incentives and political concessions promised if it denuclearises. And it has called for the talks to resume in the wake of the 23 November incident. But some analysts believe that North Korea will never fully give up its atomic capability because the impoverished and isolated regime has few other cards to play.

The two Koreas remain technically at war, since no peace treaty was signed after the 1950-53 Korean conflict. North Korea has a million-strong army. The North-South border is one of the most heavily militarised in the world.

Pyongyang's nuclear tests have sparked debate in Japan on allowing its military the option to launch a pre-emptive strike if it fears a missile attack. A fully nuclear North Korea could trigger an East Asian arms race, as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, for instance, consider whether to go nuclear as well.Could North Korea drop a nuclear bomb now?

North Korea is believed to have enough plutonium to make about six bombs, but it is not thought to have yet developed a ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. The second nuclear test, however, added to suspicions that the North is moving closer to becoming a fully fledged nuclear-armed state.

Story from BBC NEWS: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11813699 Published: 2010/12/20 10:41 GMT© BBC MMX

The New York TimesMay 26, 2009 Tested Early by North Korea, Obama Has Few OptionsBy DAVID E. SANGER

Facing the first direct challenge to his administration by an emerging nuclear weapons state, President Obama declared Monday that the United States and its allies would “stand up” to North Korea, hours after that country defied international sanctions and conducted what appeared to be its second nuclear test.

Mr. Obama reacted to the underground blast as White House officials scrambled to coordinate an international response to a North Korean nuclear capacity that none of his predecessors had proved able to reverse.

Acutely aware that their response to the explosion in the mountains of Kilju, not far from the Chinese border, would be seen as an early test of a new administration, Mr. Obama’s aides said they were determined to organize a significantly stronger response than the Bush administration had managed after the North’s first nuclear test, in October 2006.

Speaking in the Rose Garden after returning to the White House from Camp David and meeting with his top aides in the Oval Office, Mr. Obama vowed to “take action” in response to what he called “a blatant violation of international law” and the North’s declaration that it was repudiating past commitments to dismantle its nuclear program.

But as they had meetings every few hours — including a lengthy session in the Situation Room on Monday evening — some of Mr. Obama’s aides acknowledged that the administration’s options were limited.

14

Much depends, they said, on the new president’s ability to persuade Russia and China to go significantly beyond the strong condemnations that they issued Monday against North Korea, their former ally and a vestige of cold-war communism.

“I think we were all impressed with the fact that the Russians and the Chinese denounced this so strongly,” Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, said in a telephone call. Yet turning that into effective action will prove a challenge.

Efforts by the Clinton administration to entice the North to halt its weapons program by providing it with oil and nuclear power plants, and by the Bush administration to push the country to collapse and then to try to seize its leaders’ assets, all failed. So did Mr. Bush’s second-term strategy reversal, when he alienated hard-liners in his administration by reaching a deal with the North to dismantle its main nuclear plant, a step the North began last year.

In recent months, the North has renounced the accord and taken the first steps to restart operations and manufacture more plutonium for bomb fuel. Now Mr. Obama must decide how to mix what he called “stronger international pressure” with a new set of diplomatic overtures at a moment when, his aides are acutely aware, Iran and other nations are taking his measure, examining the confrontation with North Korea for hints of how he will handle complex confrontations to come.

While Mr. Obama delivered a Memorial Day speech and then took the afternoon off to play golf, aides tried to sift through the sparse data to determine exactly what abilities North Korea had proved, if any. Initial seismic readings showed the blast at Kilju, exactly where North Korea conducted its 2006 test, was “a several kiloton event,” according to one senior administration official. If that judgment is correct, the test yielded a somewhat bigger explosion than the 2006 test, which was later judged a partial fizzle.

But it will take days or weeks of testing radioactive particles vented into the atmosphere to calculate the size of the device, and even then there will be continuing debate about whether the North has the engineering ability to make a weapon compact enough to fit in the warhead of a missile, much less to deliver it to a target.

The White House said that on Monday evening Mr. Obama called the leaders of the two strongest American allies in northeast Asia, President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea and Prime Minister Taro Aso of Japan, promising that he would press for “concrete measures to curtail North Korea” and vowing an “unequivocal commitment” to the defense of both countries.

While hardly unexpected, that statement was considered an important signal by American officials who are eager to tamp down any nervousness among Asian allies about whether a new and untested president is willing to face down a regime that has been defying Washington since Eisenhower was in the Oval Office.

But as Japanese and South Korean officials acknowledge, they are less concerned about a direct attack from the North — which would almost certainly result in a devastating, American-led response — than about North Korea selling its twice-tested nuclear weapons technology on the black market, much as it has sold missile and reactor technology in the Middle East.

“We’re back to the same problem Bush had,” one intelligence official said. “The threat is not that they will shoot off a nuclear weapon; it’s that they will sell nuclear material.” In emergency conference calls after the North gave less than an hour’s notice through its mission to the United Nations that it would conduct a test early Monday, Mr. Obama’s team agreed on some preliminary strategy.

One senior administration official said that the United States would never grant full diplomatic recognition to North Korea, or sign a peace treaty formally ending the Korean War, unless its nuclear capability is dismantled.

To devise a common response, administration officials began planning to meet with Asian leaders, and eventually with the central player in the diplomatic drama: China. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates will begin the effort this week on a previously scheduled trip for an annual defense meeting, and his spokesman, Geoff Morrell, said, “There is

15

simply no greater security challenge facing Asia than a nuclear-armed North Korea.” He said Mr. Gates would work “to figure out how we collectively can prevent that from becoming a reality.”

Outside experts say it is probably a reality already. A C.I.A. assessment concluded that North Korea had built one or two nuclear weapons during the administration of the first President Bush, and in the spring of 2003, while the United States was focused on Iraq, the North expelled inspectors and harvested the fuel for six or more weapons. The second Bush administration said it would never “tolerate” a nuclear North Korea, but by the time it left office, none of that fissile material had been recovered.

Perhaps the most powerful untapped sanction available to Mr. Obama and his allies is contained in a United Nations Security Council resolution passed after the 2006 test. It authorizes the United States and other nations to halt and inspect shipping into and out of North Korea for contraband missile parts or nuclear materials. The sanction has never been enforced, partly because of concerns that it could escalate hostilities with North Korea, the poorest and least predictable state in Northeast Asia.

When asked whether Mr. Obama would seek to intercept North Korean shipping, a step that could paralyze the country’s trade, an administration official said, “That’s getting ahead of ourselves.” Another senior official, however, said, “Other than having the Chinese cut off their oil, it might be the only step that would show them we are serious.”

The calculation about how hard to press the North is made more complex by doubts about who is making decisions in Pyongyang. Kim Jong-il, whom North Koreans call the Dear Leader, appeared to have suffered a debilitating stroke last year. Mr. Kim reappeared recently, looking gaunt, thin and greatly aged, but intelligence officials say they believe he is again making day-to-day decisions. Nonetheless, they say, a succession struggle has begun.

In the past, the two countries most cautious about pushing North Korean leaders to change course were China and Russia, so it was significant on Monday that when work began at the Security Council on a new resolution, both appeared to support stiffer penalties, after having blocked steps in that direction after the North’s test of a missile in April. The Russians were surprisingly adamant. Vitaly I. Churkin, the Russian ambassador to the United Nations, said that the world had to face down threats to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which many view on the brink of collapse, and the still-unapproved Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Reporting was contributed by William J. Broad from New York; Thom Shanker and Mark Landler from Washington; and Neil MacFarquhar at the United Nations.

IranIran's nuclear program began in the Shah's era, including a plan to build 20 nuclear power reactors. Two power reactors in Bushehr, on the coast of the Persian Gulf, were started but remained unfinished when they were bombed and damaged by the Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq war. Following the revolution in 1979, all nuclear activity was suspended, though subsequently work was resumed on a somewhat more modest scale. Current plans extend to the construction of 15 power reactors and two research reactors.

Research and development efforts also were conducted by the Shah's regime on fissile material production, although these efforts were halted during the Iranian revolution and the Iran-Iraq war.

The current nuclear program is headed by the President, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Gaurd Corps (IRGC), the head of the Defense Industries Organization, and the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO). These leaders continue the pursuit of WMD's and support Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear programs against all pressures from the United States and its allies. Iran ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, and since February 1992 has allowed the IAEA to inspect any of its nuclear facilities. Prior to 2003 no IAEA inspections had revealed Tehran's violations of the NPT.

16

Since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Tehran redoubled its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missiles. In addition to Iran's legitimate efforts to develop its nuclear power-generation industry, it is believed to be operating a parallel clandestine nuclear weapons program. Iran appears to be following a policy of complying with the NPT and building its nuclear power program in such a way that if the appropriate political decision is made, know-how gained in the peaceful sphere (specialists and equipment) could be used to create nuclear weapons (dual-use technologies have been sold to Iran by at least nine western companies during the early 1990's). Also, in this atmosphere of deception, unconfirmed reports have been made that Tehran purchased several nuclear warheads in the early 1990's

It is evident that Iran's efforts are focused both on uranium enrichment and a parallel plutonium effort. Iran claims it is trying to establish a complete nuclear fuel cycle to support a civilian energy program, but this same fuel cycle would be applicable to a nuclear weapons development program. Iran appears to have spread their nuclear activities around a number of sites to reduce the risk of detection or attack.

If Iran did acquire atomic bombs, it would put pressure on other countries in the region to do the same. Many Arab countries believe it is unfair that Israel has nuclear weapons. If Arab countries, notably Saudi Arabia but also Egypt and possibly Syria, found themselves caught between a nuclear-armed Israel and a nuclear-armed Iran, it would greatly increase pressures to pursue their own nuclear options. This could result in a regional arms race in the Middle East that is likely to be quite destabilizing, given the number and intensity of conflicts and instabilities in the region.

Q&A: Iran nuclear issue9 November 2011 Last updated at 08:00 ETThe International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its latest report on Iran's nuclear programme, presenting evidence suggesting Iran is secretly working to obtain a nuclear weapon. Iran has dismissed the claims as fictitious.

What does the IAEA report say?Iran's nuclear facilities remain under IAEA monitoring and the IAEA produces regular reports. It has long expressed concern about Iran's nuclear programme, but the latest report lays out the case in much greater detail than before.Drawing on evidence provided by more than 10 member states as well as its own information, the IAEA said Iran had carried out activities "relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device".

It said that some of these activities could only be used to develop nuclear weapons - though it did not say that Iran had mastered the process, nor how long it would take Iran to make a bomb. The report documents alleged Iranian testing of explosives, experiments on detonating a nuclear weapon, and work on weaponisation - the processes by which a device might be adapted and hardened to fit into the nose-section of a missile.

There are some allegations that are listed openly for the first time, including the claim that Iran has used computer modeling on the behaviour of a nuclear device. The report says that prior to 2003 the work was carried out as part of a structured programme. It is less detailed on the subsequent period, though it does state that some of the work may be continuing. Previously, the IAEA complained that Tehran had not fully co-operated with its inspectors, though it did say that Iran had displayed "greater transparency" during an inspection visit in August.

The UN Security Council has ordered Iran to stop enrichment. Why?Because the technology used to enrich uranium to the level needed for nuclear power can also be used to enrich it to the higher level needed for a nuclear explosion. Iran hid an enrichment programme for 18 years, so the Security Council says that until Iran's peaceful intentions can be fully established, it should stop enrichment and othernuclear activities. Under international law, an order from the Security Council is held to supersede rights granted by other international organisations. The Council has ordered sanctions under Article 41 of the UN Charter, which enables it to decide "what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions". The Council has also called on Iran to ratify and implement an arrangement allowing more extensive inspections as a way of establishing confidence.

17

How does Iran justify its refusal to obey the Security Council resolutions?Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a signatory state has the right to enrich uranium to be used as fuel for civil nuclear power. Such states have to remain under inspection by the IAEA. Iran is under inspection, though not under the strictest rules allowed because it will not agree to them. Only those signatory states with nuclear weapons at the time of the treaty in 1968 are allowed to enrich to the higher level needed for a nuclear weapon. Iran says it is simply doing what it is allowed to do under the treaty and intends to enrich only for power station fuel or other peaceful purposes. It says the UN resolutions are politically motivated. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said: "The Iranian nation will not succumb to bullying, invasion and the violation of its rights."

What does Iran say about developing nuclear weapons?It says it will not make a nuclear bomb. In comments apparently addressed to the US following the IAEA report, President Ahmadinejad declared: "We do not need an atomic bomb. The Iranian nation is wise. It won't build two atomic bombs while you have 20,000 warheads." He told the UN in 2010 that nuclear weapons were "a fire against humanity". Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who is reported to have issued a fatwa some time ago against nuclear weapons, has said: "We fundamentally reject nuclear weapons."

How soon could Iran make a nuclear bomb?This would depend on Iran taking the decision to make a nuclear device and Iran says it will not do so. But experts believe that technically it could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb within a few months. A US general said in April 2010 that Iran could still take several years after that to make a device. The CIA chief Leon Panetta said in June 2010 that it could take two years. Israel's retired intelligence chief Meir Dagan has said it could take until 2015. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in January 2011 that sanctions had slowed down Iran's nuclear work. She also said that Iran had faced technical difficulties, possibly a reference to a computer virus said to have affected its centrifuge machinery. But in July 2011, Iran said it was installing new, faster centrifuges to speed progress in uranium enrichment. If successful, it could shorten the time needed to stockpile material that canhave civilian as well as military purposes, if processed much further. In theory Iran could leave the NPT with three months notice and it would then be free to do what it wanted. However, by doing that it would raise suspicions and leave itself open to attack. If, while remaining in the treaty, it enriched to nuclear weapons level or was found diverting material for a bomb in secret, it would lay itself open to the same risk.

What sanctions has the UN imposed on Iran?The UN has imposed four sets of sanctions, in Security Council resolutions 1737, 1747, 1803 and 1929. These seek to make it more difficult for Iran to acquire equipment, technology and finance to support its nuclear activities. They ban the sale to Iran of materiel and technology related to nuclear enrichment and heavy-water activities and ballistic missile development, restrict dealings with certain Iranian banks and individuals, stop the sale of major arms systems to Iran (Russia has cancelled the sale of an anti-aircraft missile system) and allow some inspections of air and sea cargoes. However, they do not stop the trade in oil and gas, the major source of Iran's income.

What about additional sanctions by the US and EU?The US brought in restrictions on trade with Iran after the taking of American hostages in 1979, which it tightened in 1995, and in 2010 has additionally targeted Iranian finances, shipping and the Revolutionary Guard. The US Congress has also passed legislation which would prevent those companies that do significant business in Iran's energy sector from trading in the US. This is aimed at squeezing Iran's oil and gas industry and the import of finished petroleum products. In July 2010, the EU approved its own ban on investment in Iran's petroleum and gas sector.

What are the chances of an attack on Iran?After the latest IAEA report, a US official told the BBC that nothing was off the table, but there was "plenty of space" to build more pressure through sanctions. American officials have stressed the instability that would result from any attack on Iran. They appear to be hoping that even if Iran continues to develop its nuclear expertise, it will not try to build a bomb. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu constantly stresses what he sees as a potential existential threat from Iran, so the possibility of an attack, by Israel at least, remains. However, recent rhetoric by Israeli officials is widely seen as saber-rattling. Wikileaks revelations have shown Gulf Arab states have urged the US to attack Iran.

A US intelligence assessment was issued on Iran in 2007. What did it say?

18

The National Intelligence Estimate played down any early threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. It assesses "with high confidence" that Iran did have a nuclear weapons programme until 2003, but this was discovered and Iran stopped it. The NIE added: "We do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons." However, Israel does not accept the conclusions and there is also doubt elsewhere. In March 2008, a senior British diplomat said: "Many of us were surprised by how emphatic the writers [of the NIE] were... " Even Director of US National Intelligence, MikeMcConnell, appeared to backtrack and on 28 February 2008 said: "We remain concerned about Iran's intentions... Tehran at a minimum is keeping the option open to develop nuclear weapons."

How does the nuclear plant at Bushehr fit in?This reactor was started in the 1970s under the Shah but then put on hold until recently when the Russians finished it. The Russians will provide raw fuel and take away the spent fuel, which could potentially be used to make a plutonium-based nuclear bomb. Bushehr is technically separate from the issue of enrichment. However, the US says that because Russia is providing the fuel, Iran does not need its own enrichment programme. Iran says that the reactor shows that it does have a civil nuclear power plan and that it needs to develop enrichment to serve this in the longer term.

What about fuel for the Tehran research reactor?There is a small research reactor in Tehran making medical isotopes, installed by the Americans many years ago. This is running low on fuel, which has previously been provided from abroad. The US, Russia and France proposed taking Iran's stock of low-enriched (3.5%) uranium out of the country and return it as higher-enriched (20%) fuel rods. The idea was to get the low-enriched stock out of Iran and prevent it from being potentially used for a nuclear device. On 17 May 2010 it was announced in Tehran that, after talks with Turkey and Brazil, Iran had agreed to ship low-enriched uranium to Turkey. However, Iran also said it would continue to enrich other uranium to 20%. Western governments rejected the deal and said it did not solve the basic enrichment issue.

What about Iran's secret enrichment plant at Qom?A new and previously secret enrichment plant being built underground near Qom was revealed in 2009. The IAEA said it should have been declared much earlier and is demanding that construction stop. Iran says it broke no rules - there is a dispute about its obligations to the IAEA - and states that it is constructing the plant in a mountain in order to safeguard its technology from an air attack. The IAEA has since inspected the plant and says that it will have room to house 3,000 centrifuges. A confidential IAEA report that emerged in September said Tehran was preparing uranium enrichment at an underground bunker near Qom.

Don't existing nuclear powers have obligations to get rid of their weapons under the NPT?Article VI commits to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament". The nuclear powers claim they have done this by reducing warheads, but critics say they haven’t really moved towards disarmament. They argue that US and UK have broken the treaty by transferring nuclear technology from to one another. The US and UK say that this isn’t covered by the NPT.

Doesn't Israel have a nuclear bomb?Yes. Israel, however, is not a party to the NPT, so is not obliged to report to it. Neither are India or Pakistan, both of which have developed nuclear weapons. North Korea has left the treaty and has announced that it has acquired a nuclear weapons capacity. On 18 September 2009, the IAEA called on Israel to join the NPT and open its nuclearfacilities to inspection. The resolution said the IAEA "expresses concern about Israeli nuclear capabilities, and calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT and place its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards... " Israel refuses to join the NPT or allow inspections. It is reckoned to have 400 warheads but refuses to confirm or deny this.

BBC News - Q&A: Iran nuclear issue http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428?print=tru

SyriaAugust 26, 2013

Kerry Cites Clear Evidence of Chemical Weapon Use in SyriaBy MICHAEL R. GORDON and MARK LANDLER

19

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the use of chemical weapons in attacks on civilians in Syria last week was undeniable and that the Obama administration would hold the Syrian government accountable for a “moral obscenity” that has shocked the world’s conscience.

In some of the most aggressive language used yet by the administration, Mr. Kerry accused the Syrian government of the “indiscriminate slaughter of civilians” and of cynical efforts to cover up its responsibility for a “cowardly crime.”

Mr. Kerry’s remarks at the State Department reinforced the administration’s toughening stance on the Syria conflict, which is now well into its third year, and indicated that the White House was moving closer to a military response in consultation with America’s allies.

Administration officials said that although President Obama had not made a final decision on military action, he was likely to order a limited military operation — cruise missiles launched from American destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea at military targets in Syria, for example — and not a sustained air campaign intended to topple Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, or to fundamentally alter the nature of the conflict on the ground.

In the coming days, officials said, the nation’s intelligence agencies will disclose information to bolster their case that chemical weapons were used by Mr. Assad’s forces. The information could include so-called signals intelligence — intercepted radio or telephone calls between Syrian military commanders.

Officials said it was conceivable that military action could still be averted by a dramatic turnabout on the part of the Assad government, or by the Russian government that has been supporting it. But they said there were few expectations that this would happen.

Although the United States was consulting with allies, administration officials said they had largely abandoned hopes of obtaining any authorization for action in the United Nations Security Council, given the all-but certain veto from Russia.

In a move that reflected its differences with the Kremlin over a possible American-led military operation against Syria, the Obama administration has decided to postpone a coming meeting with the Russians on the crisis. A Russian delegation had been scheduled to meet this week in The Hague with Wendy R. Sherman, the under secretary of state for political Affairs, and Robert S. Ford, the senior American envoy to the Syrian opposition, to discuss plans for a peace conference to end the fighting in Syria.

A senior State Department official said Monday night that the session would be postponed because of the administration’s  “ongoing consultations about the appropriate response to the chemical weapons attack in Syria.”

20

Other signs of Western momentum toward a military response also took shape on Monday. Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, cut short a vacation to deal with Syria, and the foreign ministers of Britain and Turkey suggested that bypassing the United Nations Security Council was an option. France’s foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, said inaction was unacceptable.

“The only option I do not envisage is to do nothing,” Mr. Fabius told Europe 1, a French radio station. France has been a close ally of the rebels seeking Mr. Assad’s ouster in the country’s civil war.

News media in Cyprus, where Britain maintains a military air base that is less than 100 miles from Syria’s coast, reported stepped-up flights there in recent days, although such activity may not have been unusual.

Mr. Kerry spoke hours after United Nations inspectors were finally allowed access to one of the attack sites, despite shooting from unidentified snipers that disabled their convoy’s lead vehicle. The inspectors still managed to visit two hospitals, interview witnesses and doctors and collect patient samples for the first time since the attack last week that claimed hundreds of lives.

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement after the assault that he had told his top disarmament official, Angela Kane, who was visiting Damascus, to register a “strong complaint to the Syrian government and authorities of opposition forces” to ensure the inspectors’ safety. There was no indication that any inspection team member had been hurt.

Mr. Ban’s spokesman, Farhan Haq, told reporters at a regular daily briefing at United Nations headquarters in New York that the assailants, who had not been identified, fired on the first vehicle in the convoy, which was “hit in its tires and its front window.”

“Ultimately,” he said, “it was not able to travel farther.”

Antigovernment activists posted videos online of United Nations inspectors in blue helmets arriving in the Moadamiya area, southwest of the capital, where they were shown entering a clinic and interviewing patients.

The visit by the United Nations inspectors to the Damascus suburb, in a half-dozen vehicles escorted by Syrian security forces, came shortly after Mr. Assad denied that his forces had used poison gas.

In an interview with the Russian newspaper Izvestia, published on Monday, Mr. Assad said accusations that his forces had used chemical weapons were an “outrage against common sense” and warned the United States that military intervention in Syria would bring “failure just like in all the previous wars they waged, starting with Vietnam and up to the present day.”

Obama administration officials said that Mr. Kerry’s statement was calculated to rebut the claims made by Syria and its longtime patron, Russia, that the rebels were somehow responsible for the chemical weapons

21

attack, or that Mr. Assad had made an important concession by giving the United Nations investigators access.

Mr. Kerry said that on Thursday he told Walid al-Moallem, the Syrian foreign minister, that if the Assad government had nothing to hide it should provide immediate access to the attack site.

“Instead, for five days, the Syrian regime refused to allow the U.N. investigators access to the site of the attack that would allegedly exonerate them,” Mr. Kerry said. “Instead, it attacked the area further, shelling it and systematically destroying evidence.”

For Mr. Kerry, the denunciation of Mr. Assad carries a personal edge. As a senator in 2009, he met with Mr. Assad in Damascus to explore the possibility of building a more constructive relationship with Syria after a long chill. On Monday he accused him of “the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.”

On Capitol Hill, top House and Senate Republicans called on the administration to confer with lawmakers before any military strike and to make the case to a skeptical public. The White House on Monday reached out to Speaker John A. Boehner after Mr. Boehner’s office noted publicly that he had not heard from the president on Syria.

“The speaker made clear that before any action is taken there must be meaningful consultation with members of Congress, as well as clearly defined objectives and a broader strategy to achieve stability,” said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner.

Others welcomed the signals from the administration that it was preparing to take action. Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Assad “has crossed more than a red line and the United States must act in the interest of our national and global security.”

In Israel, a senior government official made a similar argument and suggested that Iran would be monitoring how the United States and its allies responded.

Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s minister of international affairs, strategy and intelligence, told reporters at a briefing on Monday morning in Jerusalem that it was “crystal clear” that Mr. Assad’s forces used chemical weapons last week and called the United Nations investigation a “joke.”

Mr. Steinitz said Iran, which provided arms to the Assad government and sent members of its paramilitary Quds force to fight with the Syrian military, should also be held responsible.

In the latest round of American consultations on Syria, Mr. Obama spoke by telephone on Monday with Prime Minister Kevin M. Rudd of Australia about possible responses to the attack, and Susan E. Rice, the national security adviser, met with a delegation of senior Israeli officials for talks that covered Iran, Egypt, Syria and other security issues.

22

The Israeli delegation was led by Yaakov Amidror, the chairman of Israel’s National Security Council and the national security adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Even as the United States and its allies considered their next steps, the toll from the attack continued to mount.

Doctors Without Borders reported Saturday that 3,600 patients had been treated at three hospitals it supports for symptoms that appeared to stem from exposure to chemical weapons.

On Monday, the group said that 70 volunteers who had taken care of these patients in one of the hospitals had also become ill and that one had died.

BBC NEWS –START The New Start treaty, signed by US and Russian presidents, replaces the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start), proposed by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 and signed in 1991, as the USSR sped towards collapse.

How does New Start differ from Start?It puts new, lower limits on the size of each country's nuclear arsenal, and updates the verification mechanism.

What are the new limits?There are limits on warheads and on launchers, which must be implemented within seven years of the treaty's entry into force.

Warheads: Under the New Start treaty each side is allowed a maximum of 1,550 warheads. This is about 30% lower than the figure of 2,200 that each side was meant to reach by 2012 under the Start treaty (as revised in the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty).

Launchers: Each country is allowed, in total, no more than 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear arms. Another 100 are allowed if they are not operationally deployed - for example, missiles removed from a sub undergoing a long-term overhaul.

The new limit on delivery systems is less than half the ceiling of 1,600 specified in the original Start treaty.

How dramatic are these cuts?Not as dramatic as they might appear. The rules for counting warheads contain a big loophole. While each warhead on a ballistic missile is counted as one warhead, a heavy bomber is counted as carrying "one warhead" even though it may carry (in the case of a US B-52) up to 20 of them.

According to the Arms Control Association, a pro-disarmament pressure group, the US could theoretically meet the new limits by cutting just 100 warheads, while Russia would only need to cut 190.

In addition, the agreed ceilings refer to deployed warheads, not to warheads in storage. A warhead could, in theory, be put into storage, and then redeployed when needed. The cuts in launchers are also, in practice, not all that challenging. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists estimates that Russia currently has 566 - well under the permitted ceiling of 700. It estimates that the US has 798, necessitating a cut of about 12%.

So is President Obama failing to make real progress towards his goal of cutting nuclear arms?

Supporters of the deal say that while it does not make big cuts, it is a useful confidence-building measure, which could pave the way for further nuclear deals with Russia. They say it also signals to the rest of the world that the US and

23

Russia are not ignoring their commitment under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to progressively disarm.

How does the new verification regime differ from the old one?The important difference, according to the Arms Control Association, is that each side will now be able to carry out on-site inspections to verify how many warheads a missile is carrying. Together with satellite imagery, this should give an accurate picture of the other country's nuclear strength. Some other forms of verification will cease.

Does the new treaty mention missile defence?Yes, it says that both sides can engage in "limited" missile defence. Russia has warned that it will withdraw from the treaty if a future US missile defence shield weakens its nuclear deterrent.

Does the treaty need to be ratified by legislators?The US Senate ratified it on 22 December, after much delay, so now all it needs is Russia's final approval. Russia's parliament, the Duma, is expected to ratify it - and the process may begin on 24 December.

What could be included in future arms control negotiations?The US wants further cuts in strategic nuclear arms, but is also keen to negotiate a reduction in Russia's short-range nuclear missile arsenal. Russia wants the US to remove its 200 nuclear bombs from Europe (based in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Turkey) and would like to restrict the US's ability to put conventional warheads on long-range missiles.

US and Russia Nuclear Weapons

Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8605857.stmPublished: 2010/06/8 18:15:49 GMT© BBC MMX

24

SOURCES

Caldicott, Helen, Dr. The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush’s Military-Industrial Complex. New York: New York, 2002.

Cirincione, Joseph. Deadly Arsenal: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: Washington D.C., 2002.

“Kerry Cites Clear Evidence of Chemical Weapon Use in Syria” Michael Gordon and Mark Landler, New York Times. August 26, 2013.

“North Korea talks reach stalemate.” BBC NEWS. December 10, 2008.http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/7774663.stm

“Q&A: North Korea nuclear talks” BBC NEWS. December 10,2010< http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11813699>

“Q&A: New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start)”BBC NEWS. April 8, 2010.<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8605857.stm>

“Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue.” BBC NEWS. December 14, 2009.<http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co>

Sanger, David E. “Tested Early by North Korea, Obama Has Few Options.” The New York Times. May 26, 2009. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/world/asia/26nuke.html?pagewanted=print>

“Weapons of Mass Destruction.” The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2005,

Websites used:cns.miis.edumoticello.avenue.gen.va.us/Community/Agencies/CCPJteachers.infoplease.comwww.cbc.comwww.cdc.govwww.cnduk.orgwww.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/20/iran.funds/index.htmlwww.infoplease.comwww.opcw.nl/chemhazwww.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontlinewww.ucsusa.orgwww.un.orgwww.wagingpeace.orgwww.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/CTBT.shtml

25