ReportWire

Tag: arms control and disarmament

  • North Korea Nuclear Timeline Fast Facts | CNN

    North Korea Nuclear Timeline Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here is a look at North Korea’s nuclear capabilities and the history of its weapons program.

    North Korea signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) demands that inspectors be given access to two nuclear waste storage sites. In response, North Korea threatens to quit the NPT but eventually opts to continue participating in the treaty.

    North Korea and the United States sign an agreement. North Korea pledges to freeze and eventually dismantle its old, graphite-moderated nuclear reactors in exchange for international aid to build two new light-water nuclear reactors.

    January 29 – US President George W. Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an “axis of evil” in his State of the Union address. “By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger,” he says.

    October – The Bush Administration reveals that North Korea has admitted operating a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1994 agreement.

    January 10 – North Korea withdraws from the NPT.

    February – The United States confirms North Korea has reactivated a five-megawatt nuclear reactor at its Yongbyon facility, capable of producing plutonium for weapons.

    April – Declares it has nuclear weapons.

    North Korea tentatively agrees to give up its entire nuclear program, including weapons. In exchange, the United States, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea say they will provide energy assistance to North Korea, as well as promote economic cooperation.

    July – After North Korea test fires long range missiles, the UN Security Council passes a resolution demanding that North Korea suspend the program.

    October – North Korea claims to have successfully tested its first nuclear weapon. The test prompts the UN Security Council to impose a broad array of sanctions.

    February 13 – North Korea agrees to close its main nuclear reactor in exchange for an aid package worth $400 million.

    September 30 – At six-party talks in Beijing, North Korea signs an agreement stating it will begin disabling its nuclear weapons facilities.

    December 31 – North Korea misses the deadline to disable its weapons facilities.

    June 27 – North Korea destroys a water cooling tower at the Yongbyon nuclear facility.

    December – Six-party talks are held in Beijing. The talks break down over North Korea’s refusal to allow international inspectors unfettered access to suspected nuclear sites.

    May 25 – North Korea announces it has conducted its second nuclear test.

    June 12 – The UN Security Council condemns the nuclear test and imposes new sanctions.

    November 20 – A Stanford University professor publishes a report that North Korea has a new nuclear enrichment facility.

    October 24-25 – US officials meet with a North Korean delegation in Geneva, Switzerland, in an effort to restart the six-party nuclear arms talks that broke down in 2008.

    February 29 – The State Department announces that North Korea has agreed to a moratorium on long-range missile launches and nuclear activity at the nation’s major nuclear facility in exchange for food aid.

    January 24 – North Korea’s National Defense Commission says it will continue nuclear testing and long-range rocket launches in defiance of the United States. The tests and launches will feed into an “upcoming all-out action” targeting the United States, “the sworn enemy of the Korean people,” the commission says.

    February 12 – Conducts third nuclear test. This is the first nuclear test carried out under Kim Jong Un. Three weeks later, the United Nations orders additional sanctions in protest.

    March 30-31 – North Korea warns that it is prepping another nuclear test. The following day, the hostility escalates when the country fires hundreds of shells across the sea border with South Korea. In response, South Korea fires about 300 shells into North Korean waters and sends fighter jets to the border.

    May 6 – In an exclusive interview with CNN, the deputy director of a North Korean think tank says the country has the missile capability to strike mainland United States and would do so if the United States “forced their hand.”

    May 20 – North Korea says that it has the ability to miniaturize nuclear weapons, a key step toward building nuclear missiles. A US National Security Council spokesman responds that the United States does not think the North Koreans have that capability.

    December 12 – North Korea state media says the country has added the hydrogen bomb to its arsenal.

    January 6-7 – North Korea says it has successfully conducted a hydrogen bomb test. A day after the alleged test, White House spokesman Josh Earnest says that the United States has not verified that the test was successful.

    March 9 – North Korea announces that it has miniature nuclear warheads that can fit on ballistic missiles.

    September 9 – North Korea claims to have detonated a nuclear warhead. According to South Korea’s Meteorological Administration, the blast is estimated to have the explosive power of 10 kilotons.

    January 1 – In a televised address, Kim claims that North Korea could soon test an intercontinental ballistic missile.

    January 8 – During an interview on “Meet the Press,” Defense Secretary Ash Carter says that the military will shoot down any North Korean missile fired at the United States or any of its allies.

    January 12 – A US defense official tells CNN that the military has deployed sea-based radar equipment to track long-range missile launches by North Korea.

    July 4 – North Korea claims it has conducted its first successful test of an intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, that can “reach anywhere in the world.”

    July 25 – North Korea threatens a nuclear strike on “the heart of the US” if it attempts to remove Kim as Supreme Leader, according to Pyongyang’s state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

    August 7 – North Korea accuses the United States of “trying to drive the situation of the Korean peninsula to the brink of nuclear war” after the UN Security Council unanimously adopts new sanctions in response to Pyongyang’s long-range ballistic missile tests last month.

    August 9 – North Korea’s military is “examining the operational plan” to strike areas around the US territory of Guam with medium-to-long-range strategic ballistic missiles, state-run news agency KCNA says. The North Korea comments are published one day after President Donald Trump warns Pyongyang that if it continues to threaten the United States, it would face “fire and fury like the world has never seen.”

    September 3 – North Korea carries out its sixth test of a nuclear weapon, causing a 6.3 magnitude seismic event, as measured by the United States Geological Survey. Pyongyang claims the device is a hydrogen bomb that could be mounted on an intercontinental missile. A nuclear weapon monitoring group describes the weapon as up to eight times stronger than the bomb dropped in Hiroshima in 1945. In response to the test, Trump tweets that North Korea continues to be “very hostile and dangerous to the United States.” He goes on to criticize South Korea, claiming that the country is engaging in “talk of appeasement” with its neighbor to the north. He also says that North Korea is “an embarrassment to China,” claiming Beijing is having little success reining in the Kim regime.

    November 1 – A US official tells CNN that North Korea is working on an advanced version of its intercontinental ballistic missile that could potentially reach the United States.

    November 28 – A South Korean minister says that North Korea may develop the capability to launch a nuclear weapon on a long-range ballistic missile at some point in 2018.

    January 2 – Trump ridicules Kim in a tweet. The president says that he has a larger and more functional nuclear button than the North Korean leader in a post on Twitter, responding to Kim’s claim that he has a nuclear button on his desk.

    January 10 – The White House releases a statement indicating that the Trump administration may be willing to hold talks with North Korea.

    March 6 – South Korea’s national security chief Chung Eui-yong says that North Korea has agreed to refrain from nuclear and missile testing while engaging in peace talks. North Korea has also expressed an openness to talk to the United States about abandoning its nuclear program, according to Chung.

    March 8 – Chung, standing outside the White House, announces that Trump has accepted an invitation to meet Kim.

    June 12 – The final outcome of a landmark summit, and nearly five hours of talks between Trump and Kim in Singapore, culminates with declarations of a new friendship but only vague pledges of nuclear disarmament.

    December 5New satellite images obtained exclusively by CNN reveal North Korea has significantly expanded a key long-range missile base, offering a reminder that Kim is still pursuing his promise to mass produce and deploy the existing types of nuclear warheads in his arsenal.

    January 18 – Trump meets with Kim Yong Chol, North Korea’s lead negotiator on nuclear talks, and they discuss denuclearization and the second summit scheduled for February.

    February 27-28 – A second round of US-North Korean nuclear diplomacy talks ends abruptly with no joint agreement after Kim insists all US sanctions be lifted on his country. Trump states that Kim offered to take some steps toward dismantling his nuclear arsenal, but not enough to warrant ending sanctions imposed on the country.

    March 8 – Analysts say that satellite images indicate possible activity at a launch facility, suggesting that the country may be preparing to shoot a missile or a rocket.

    March 15 – North Korea’s foreign minister tells reporters that the country has no intention to “yield to the US demands.” In the wake of the comment, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insists that negotiations will continue.

    May 4 – South Korea’s Defense Ministry states that North Korea test-fired 240 mm and 300 mm multiple rocket launchers, including a new model of a tactical guide weapon on May 3. According to the defense ministry’s assessment, the launchers’ range is about 70 to 240 kilometers (43 to 149 miles). The test is understood to be the first missile launch from North Korea since late 2017 – and the first since Trump began meeting with Kim.

    October 2 – North Korea says it test fired a new type of a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), a day after Pyongyang and Washington agreed to resume nuclear talks. The launch marks a departure from the tests of shorter range missiles North Korea has carried out in recent months.

    December 3 – In a statement, Ri Thae Song, a first vice minister at the North Korean Foreign Ministry working on US affairs, warns the United States to prepare for a “Christmas gift,” which some interpret as the resumption of long-distance missile testing. December 25 passes without a “gift” from the North Korean regime, but US officials remain watchful.

    October 10 – North Korea unveils what analysts believe to be one of the world’s largest ballistic missiles at a military parade celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Workers’ Party broadcast on state-run television.

    August 27 – In an annual report on Pyongyang’s nuclear program, the IAEA says North Korea appears to have restarted operations at a power plant capable of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. The IAEA says that clues, such as the discharge of cooling water, observed in early July, indicated the plant is active. No such evidence had been observed since December 2018.

    September 13 – North Korea claims it successfully test-fired new long-range cruise missiles on September 11 and 12, according to the country’s state-run KCNA. According to KCNA, the missiles traveled for 7,580 seconds along oval and figure-eight flight orbits in the air above the territorial land and waters of North Korea and hit targets 1,500 kilometers (930 miles) away. The US and neighboring South Korea are looking into the launch claims, officials in both countries tell CNN.

    October 14 – An academic study finds that North Korea can get all the uranium it needs for nuclear weapons through its existing Pyongsan mill, and, based on satellite imagery, may be able to increase production above its current rate.

    January 12 – The United States announces sanctions on eight North Korean and Russian individuals and entities for supporting North Korea’s ballistic missile programs.

    January 20 – North Korea says it will reconsider its moratorium on nuclear and long-range missile tests, according to state media.

    March 24 – North Korea fires what is believed to be its first intercontinental ballistic missile since 2017. Analysts say the test could be the longest-range missile yet fired by North Korea, possibly representing a new type of ICBM.

    September 9 – North Korean state media reports that North Korea has passed a new law declaring itself a nuclear weapons state. Leader Kim Jong Un vows the country will “never give up” its nuclear weapons and says there will be no negotiations on denuclearization.

    October 4 – North Korea fires a ballistic missile without warning over Japan for the first time in five years, a highly provocative and reckless act that marks a significant escalation in its weapons testing program.

    October 10 – North Korea performs a series of seven practice drills, intended to demonstrate its readiness to fire tactical nuclear warheads at potential targets in South Korea. Quoting leader Kim Jong Un, who oversaw the drills, KCNA says the tests, which coincided with nearby military drills between the United States, South Korea and Japan, showed Pyongyang was ready to respond to regional tensions by involving its “huge armed forces.”

    January 1 – Pyongyang’s state media reports that Kim Jong Un is calling for an “exponential increase” in his country’s nuclear weapons arsenal in response to what he claims are threats from South Korea and the United States.

    July 18 – South Korea’s Defense Ministry announces the presence of a nuclear capable US Navy ballistic missile submarine in the South Korean port city of Busan. The arrival of the submarine follows a period of heightened tensions on the peninsula, during which North Korea has both tested what it said was an advanced long range missile and threatened to shoot down US military reconnaissance aircraft.

    September 28 – The state-run Korean Central News Agency reports North Korea has amended its constitution to bolster and expand its nuclear force, with leader Kim Jong Un pointing to the growing cooperation between the United States, South Korea and Japan. The law added into North Korea’s constitution reinforces North Korea’s view that it is a forever nuclear power and that the idea of denuclearizing or giving up its weapons is not up for discussion.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Wagner chief to leave Russia for Belarus in deal that ends armed insurrection | CNN

    Wagner chief to leave Russia for Belarus in deal that ends armed insurrection | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Yevgeny Prigozhin, the head of the Wagner paramilitary group, has agreed to leave Russia for Belarus, the Kremlin said Saturday, in a deal that ends an armed insurrection, which posed the greatest threat to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s authority in decades.

    In a conference call with reporters, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said an agreement was struck with Prigozhin, referring to an apparent deal brokered by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko.

    “You will ask me what will happen to Prigozhin personally?” Peskov said. “The criminal case will be dropped against him. He himself will go to Belarus.”

    The Wagner boss had earlier turned his troops around “toward our field camps, in accordance with the plan.” Peskov said those troops would face no “legal action” for marching to Moscow, and Wagner fighters will sign contracts with Russia’s Ministry of Defense.

    The announcement defuses a crisis that began when Wagner troops took control of a key military facility in the southern Russian city of Rostov-on-Don and some fighters advanced towards the capital.

    Prigozhin has been publicly critical of Russia’s military leadership and their handling of the war in Ukraine – with few consequences. But he crossed numerous red lines with Putin over the weekend.

    A somber-looking Russian president addressed the nation and called Wagner’s actions “a stab in the back of our country and our people.”

    The president described events as an insurrection and Moscow began to scale up its security measures.

    But by Saturday evening, Prigozhin’s calculus appeared to have changed, and the mercenary said his troops, who were 124 miles (200 kilometers) from Moscow, were stopping their advance in order to avoid bloodshed.

    Videos, authenticated and geolocated by CNN, also showed Prigozhin and Wagner forces withdrawing from their positions at Russian military headquarters in Rostov-on-Don.

    In the video, Prigozhin is seen sitting in the backseat of a vehicle. Crowds cheer and the vehicle comes to a stop as an individual approaches it and shakes Prigozhin’s hand.

    Saturday’s dramatic events come off the back of Prigozhin’s very public and months-long feud with Russia’s military leadership. He has previously accused Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Russia’s top general, Valery Gerasimov of not giving his forces ammunition and was critical of their handling of the conflict, but has always defended the reasoning for the war.

    On Friday, Prigozhin accused Russian forces of striking a Wagner military camp and killing “a huge amount” of his fighters – a claim Russia’s Ministry of Defense has denied and called an “informational provocation.”

    The private military chief seemingly built influence with Putin over the course of the conflict, with his Wagner forces taking a leading role in the labored but ultimately successful assault on Bakhmut earlier this year. The capture of that city was a rare Russian gain in Ukraine in recent months, boosting Prigozhin’s profile further.

    But it appears that Prigozhin had turned not merely against the military leadership’s handling of the invasion of Ukraine, but also against the longtime Russian leader and his strategy.

    On Friday, he said Moscow invaded Ukraine under false pretenses devised by the Russian Ministry of Defense, and that Russia is actually losing ground on the battlefield.

    “There are 25,000 of us and we are going to find out why there is such chaos in the country. There are 25,000 of us waiting as a tactical reserve and a strategic reserve. It’s the whole army and the whole country, everyone who wants to, join us. We must end this debacle,” he said on Telegram.

    Wagner upped the gambit and went on to take control of military facilities in Rostov-on-Don and Voronezh, a city that lies some 600 kilometers (372 miles) to the north of Rostov. Russia’s domestic intelligence service, FSB, opened a criminal case against Prighozhin for his threats, accusing him of calling for “an armed rebellion.”

    Wagner troops were then reported to be moving towards the capital, prompting a major security operation in the Moscow region and a counter-terrorist regime being put in place, according to Russian officials.

    Russian security forces in body armor and equipped with automatic weapons took a position near a highway linking Moscow with southern Russia, according to photos published by Russian media. Monday was declared a non-working day and public and other large-scale events have been suspended until July 1 in the Moscow region, according to Russian state run media TASS.

    During his speech Saturday, Putin said Wagner’s “betrayal” and “any actions that fracture our unity,” are “a stab in the back of our country and our people.”

    Responding to Putin’s speech, Prigozhin said on Telegram that the president was “deeply mistaken.”

    “We are patriots of our Motherland, we fought and are fighting,” he said in audio messages.The Wagner chief claimed his forces seized the Russian Southern Military Headquarters in the city of Rostov-on-Don “without firing a single shot,” suggesting that “the country supports us.”

    The Rostov base plays a key role in Russia’s war on Ukraine, due to its proximity to the countries’ shared border.

    The temperature cooled following the deal apparently brokered by Belarus’ leader. Yet Prighozhin has provided scant details about his agreement to about-face.

    When asked what position Prigozhin would take in Belarus, Peskov said he “cannot answer the question.” Peskov said Lukashenko was able to draw on a personal relationship with Prigozhin to broker the deal.

    “The fact is that Alexander Grigoryevich [Lukashenko] has known Prigozhin personally for a long time, for about 20 years,” he said. “And it was his personal proposal, which was agreed with Putin. We are grateful to the President of Belarus for these efforts.”

    Many top Russian officials had rallied to Putin’s side over the past day. Russian intelligence official, Lt. Gen. Vladimir Alekseev, posted a video about Prigozhin’s actions that day, describing it as a coup attempt.

    Sergei Naryshkin, who heads Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, described the events as an “attempted armed rebellion.”

    Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, another key player in the war, spoke of a “vile betrayal” by Prigozhin on Telegram. “The rebellion must be crushed, and if this requires harsh measures, then we are ready!” he said.

    Russian officials said detachments of Chechen special forces had been seen in Rostov to suppress the rebellion. However, CNN was unable to independently confirm that Chechen units have arrived in Rostov.

    Wagner fighters stand guard near the headquarters of the Southern Military District in the city of Rostov-on-Don, Russia, on June 24.

    The FSB also responded on Friday, urging Wagner fighters to detain their leader and opening a criminal case against the militia boss accusing him of “calling for an armed rebellion.”

    As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine stalled earlier this year, top US officials said they saw indications of tensions between the Kremlin and the Prigozhin. Officials said the US determined as early as January there was an internal power struggle underway and have been gathering and closely monitoring intelligence on the volatile dynamic ever since.

    But US and Western officials are being careful not to weigh in on the events because of how Putin could weaponize any perceived outside involvement in the escalating crisis, sources familiar with the administration’s thinking told CNN.

    The Russian Foreign Ministry has warned Western countries against using Prigozhin’s rebellion “to achieve Russophobic goals.”

    The European Union, which borders Russia, has activated its crisis response center to coordinate between member nations in reaction to the developments in Russia.

    Meanwhile, Ukraine took advantage of Russia’s chaotic security situation on Saturday, launching simultaneous counter-offensives in multiple directions, Hanna Maliar, Ukraine’s deputy Defense Minister, said in a Telegram post.

    “The eastern grouping of troops today launched an offensive in several directions at the same time,” Maliar said, naming Orikhovo-Vasylivka, Bakhmut, Bohdanivka, Yahidne, Klishchiivka and Kurdyumivka among the places where the offensive was launched.

    Maliar said that “there is progress in all directions” without giving any further detail. Maliar said that “heavy fighting continues in all directions of the offensive in the south.” In the South “the enemy is on the defensive, making great efforts to stop our offensive actions,” Maliar added.

    A spokesperson for the Ukrainian military in eastern Ukraine earlier told CNN that Ukraine will benefit from the events in Russia. “The fact that Prigozhin took all his Wagner fighters into Russia now will definitely have an effect on our frontline,” Serhii Cherevatyi said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Opinion: The other nuclear threat you might have missed from Putin’s speech | CNN

    Opinion: The other nuclear threat you might have missed from Putin’s speech | CNN

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s Note: Marion Messmer is a senior research fellow in the International Security Programme at think tank Chatham House. Her focus is on arms control, nuclear weapons policy issues and Russia-NATO relations. The views expressed in this commentary are her own. Read more opinion on CNN.



    CNN
     — 

    Easy to miss in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech to parliament last week was a glancing reference to the possibility of Russia resuming nuclear testing.

    In a surprise move, Putin said that Russia was ready to resume nuclear weapons tests if the US conducted one first.

    While most of the media focus has been on Russia suspending its participation in the New START nuclear arms treaty, this announcement was just as significant, with potentially devastating consequences.

    It would signify a further step towards escalation in Ukraine by demonstrating Russia’s intent to use nuclear weapons and could begin another, more devastating, nuclear arms race.

    Neither Russia nor the US have conducted a nuclear weapons test since the early 1990s – soon after that, they negotiated the nuclear Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in Geneva – and although both India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in 1998, only North Korea has continued to test nuclear warheads since.

    If Russia were to resume tests, other nuclear armed states might follow. North Korea would certainly take this as carte blanche for further tests and there would be concern in the US about potentially falling behind Russia in the development of new nuclear capabilities. All potentially leading to a new arms racing dynamic.

    The US has no reason or intention to resume such tests. But by inserting this into his ‘State of the Nation’ speech, Putin appears to be creating a false narrative that the US is working towards a nuclear weapons test to justify Russia breaking the CTBT and once again conducting its own tests.

    Indeed, the Russian news agency TASS reported in early February, days before Putin’s speech, that the Novaya Zemlya nuclear test site is ready to resume if needed.

    Firstly, as a signal of intent to ride roughshod over all nuclear agreements, demonstrating its capability and resolve – domestically and internationally – to use nuclear weapons.

    And secondly, because Russia is developing new nuclear capabilities and has insufficient data without new warhead tests.

    Neither reason is comforting. A Russian nuclear weapons test would shatter several decades of international agreements and any sense of certainty in non-proliferation efforts. The CTBT underpins the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by creating a credible premise that states will reduce their nuclear arsenals over time rather than continuing to expand.

    It would foment concerns in other nuclear-armed states that Russia can gain valuable insights from test data which they are currently missing out on.

    This could lead to more states testing as they modernize their arsenals. In the US, some political figures would be likely to call for nuclear weapons tests, not wanting to be outdone by Russia or fall behind. A new nuclear arms race would emerge with several nuclear powers competing, amid few remaining treaty constraints.

    By abandoning the CTBT and expanding its nuclear arsenals, Russia and any other states joining in a new series of tests would seriously damage the NPT. It is hard to see how it could recover from such a drastic departure of its central promise – that the five Nuclear-Weapon States will reduce their reliance on nuclear weapons – resulting in complete and irreversible disarmament.

    It would also increase the potential of other states pursuing nuclear weapons again. South Korea has already hinted several times this year at investing in a nuclear program if the threat from North Korea does not diminish. A return to a global nuclear arms race may push them over the edge.

    Nuclear testing could also be read as a signal of further escalation, demonstrating Russia’s resolve to use nuclear weapons in war or an escalation of the conflict between Russia and NATO. It would mean a step change from Putin’s rhetorical threats, to a dangerous reality which could easily spin out of control.

    A Russian nuclear weapons test would not come out of the blue. Intelligence services would be able to see preparations ahead of time. The US and the UK have been sharing regular defense intelligence updates since before the invasion of Ukraine, to signal to Russia that its motives are transparent and to help allies coordinate. They could use this same mechanism to draw attention to an upcoming test and to try to prevent it.

    In such an event, the international community should work together to impress upon Russia its seriousness and coherence against a nuclear weapons test.

    The response should be to immediately increase sanctions until Russia reverses any test preparations. The European Union should act more quickly on sanctions than it has previously. Knowing the risks, other states who so far have avoided taking a position might switch and join the transatlantic pressure on Russia.

    China and India have a key role to play. So far, they have taken an ambivalent stance on Ukraine, abstaining on UN votes and refusing to condemn Russia outwardly. However, they have criticized its nuclear threats.

    China has shown that it is not comfortable with such nuclear brinksmanship and equally does not want to see Russia or the US investing in expansion and development of their arsenals. Seeing such test preparations could see China threaten to withdraw its political and economic support for Russia, which would be a heavy blow to Putin’s military ambitions.

    By conducting a nuclear weapons test, Putin may well want to frighten Western states into no longer supporting Ukraine. However, it is far more likely that NATO member-states, worried about escalation, would simply double down on their support.

    There are no good options in this scenario: a conventional response from NATO might also be an escalation. A change in nuclear alert levels would send a strong signal to Russia but could also provoke further escalation.

    A new nuclear arms race would look different from that of the Cold War. It would no longer be largely a race between Russia and the US and would certainly include China – and have other regional nuclear dynamics implications.

    In case of a Russian nuclear test, all other nuclear-armed states (with the exception of North Korea which would be unlikely to join) would need to stand together against nuclear testing and work to bring Russia back into compliance.

    History has several examples where the world came close to a devastating nuclear war and was saved by good fortune. Relying on good luck is not a great strategy, especially in such a complex and tense situation.

    Adding an increasingly isolated Russia, with a president who makes decisions without the potentially tempering input of other senior officials, is a set up for disaster.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Time to treat North Korea’s nuclear program like Israel’s? | CNN

    Time to treat North Korea’s nuclear program like Israel’s? | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Seoul, South Korea
    CNN
     — 

    As a statement of intent, it was about as blunt as they get.

    North Korea has developed nuclear weapons and will never give them up, its leader, Kim Jong Un, told the world last month.

    The move was “irreversible,” he said; the weapons represent the “dignity, body, and absolute power of the state” and Pyongyang will continue to develop them “as long as nuclear weapons exist on Earth.”

    Kim may be no stranger to colorful language, but it is worth taking his vow – which he signed into law – seriously. Bear in mind that this is a dictator who cannot be voted out of power and who generally does what he says he will do.

    Bear in mind too that North Korea has staged a record number of missile launches this year – more than 20; claims it is deploying tactical nuclear weapons to field units, something CNN cannot independently confirm; and is also believed to be ready for a seventh underground nuclear test.

    All this has prompted a growing number of experts to question whether now is the time to call a spade a spade and accept that North Korea is in fact a nuclear state. Doing so would entail giving up once and for all the optimistic – some might say delusional – hopes that Pyongyang’s program is somehow incomplete or that it might yet be persuaded to give it up voluntarily.

    As Ankit Panda, a Stanton senior fellow in the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, put it: “We simply have to treat North Korea as it is, rather than as we would like it to be.”

    From a purely factual point of view, North Korea has nuclear weapons, and few who follow events there closely dispute that.

    A recent Nuclear Notebook column from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists estimated that North Korea may have produced enough fissile material to build between 45 and 55 nuclear weapons. What’s more, the recent missile tests suggest it has a number of methods of delivering those weapons.

    Publicly acknowledging this reality is, however, fraught with peril for countries such as the United States.

    One of the most compelling reasons for Washington not to do so is its fears of sparking a nuclear arms race in Asia.

    South Korea, Japan and Taiwan are just a few of the neighbors that would likely want to match Pyongyang’s status.

    But some experts say that refusing to acknowledge North Korea’s nuclear prowess – in the face of increasingly obvious evidence to the contrary – does little to reassure these countries. Rather, the impression that allies have their heads in the sand may make them more nervous.

    “Let’s accept (it), North Korea is a nuclear arms state, and North Korea has all necessary delivery systems including pretty efficient ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles),” said Andrei Lankov, a professor at Kookmin University in Seoul and a preeminent academic authority on North Korea.

    A better approach, some suggest, might be to treat North Korea’s nuclear program in a similar way to Israel’s – with tacit acceptance.

    That’s the solution favored by Jeffrey Lewis, an adjunct professor at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey.

    “I think that the crucial step that (US President Joe) Biden needs to take is to make clear both to himself and to the US government that we are not going to get North Korea to disarm and that is fundamentally accepting North Korea as a nuclear state. You don’t necessarily need to legally recognize it,” Lewis said.

    Both Israel and India offer examples of what the US could aspire to in dealing with North Korea, he added.

    North Korea held what it called

    Israel, widely believed to have started its nuclear program in the 1960s, has always claimed nuclear ambiguity while refusing to be a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while India embraced nuclear ambiguity for decades before abandoning that policy with its 1998 nuclear test.

    “In both of those cases, the US knew those countries had the bomb, but the deal was, if you don’t talk about it, if you don’t make an issue out of it, if you don’t cause political problems, then we’re not going to respond. I think that’s the same place we want to get to with North Korea,” Lewis said.

    At present though, Washington shows no signs of abandoning its approach of hoping to persuade Pyongyang to give up its nukes.

    Indeed, US Vice President Kamala Harris underlined it during a recent visit to the DMZ, the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea.

    “Our shared goal – the United States and the Republic of Korea – is a complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” Harris said.

    That may be a worthy goal, but many experts see it as increasingly unrealistic.

    “Nobody disagrees that denuclearization would be a very desirable outcome on the Korean Peninsula, it’s simply not a tractable one,” Panda said.

    One problem standing in the way of denuclearization is that Kim’s likely biggest priority is ensuring the survival of his regime.

    And if he wasn’t paranoid enough already, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (in which a nuclear power has attacked a non-nuclear power) will have served as a timely reinforcement of his belief that “nuclear weapons are the only reliable guarantee of security,” said Lankov, from Kookmin University.

    A TV screen at a railway station in Seoul, South Korea, shows an image of a North Korean missile launch on October 10, 2022.

    Trying to convince Kim otherwise seems a non-starter, as Pyongyang has made clear it will not even consider engaging with a US administration that wants to talk about denuclearization.

    “If America wants to talk about denuclearization, (North Korea is) not going to talk and if the Americans are not talking, (North Korea) will launch more and more missiles and better and better missiles,” Lankov said. “It’s a simple choice.”

    There is also the problem that if North Korea’s increasingly concerned neighbors conclude Washington’s approach is going nowhere, this might itself bring about the arms race the US is so keen to avoid.

    Cheong Seong-chang, a senior researcher at the Sejong Institute, a Korean think tank, is among the growing number of conservative voices calling for South Korea to build its own nuclear weapons program to counter Pyongyang’s.

    Efforts to prevent North Korea developing nuclear weapons have “ended in failure,” he said, “and even now, pursuing denuclearization is like chasing a miracle.”

    Still, however remote the denuclearization dream seems, there are those who say the alternative – of accepting North Korea’s nuclear status, however subtly – would be a mistake.

    “We (would be) basically (saying to) Kim Jong Un, after all of this tug of war and rustling, (that) you’re just going to get what you want. The bigger question (then) of course is: where does that leave the entire region?” said Soo Kim, a former CIA officer who is now a researcher at US think tank RAND Corporation.

    That leaves one other option open to the Biden administration and its allies, though it’s one that may seem unlikely in the current climate.

    They could pursue a deal in which Pyongyang offers to freeze its arms development in return for sanctions relief.

    In other words, not a million miles away from the deal Kim offered then US President Donald Trump at their summit in Hanoi, Vietnam, in February 2019.

    This option has its backers. “A freeze is a really solid way to start things out. It’s very hard to get rid of weapons that exist, but what is possible … is to prevent things from getting worse. It takes some of the pressure off and it opens up space for other kinds of negotiations,” said Lewis of the James Martin Center.

    However, the Trump-era overtones might make this a non-starter. Asked if he thought President Biden might consider this tactic, Lewis smiled and said, “I’m a professor, so I specialize in giving advice that no one is ever going to take.”

    But even if the Biden administration was so inclined, that ship may have sailed; the Kim of 2019 was far more willing to engage than the Kim of 2022.

    And that, perhaps, is the biggest problem at the heart of all the options on the table: they rely on some form of engagement with North Korea – something entirely lacking at present.

    Kim is now focused on his five-year plan for military modernization announced in January 2021 and no offers of talks from the Biden administration or others have yet turned his head in the slightest.

    As Panda acknowledged, “There’s a set of cooperative options which would require the North Koreans being willing to sit down at the table and talk about some of those things with us. I don’t think that we are even close to sitting down with the North Koreans.”

    And, in fairness to Kim, the reticence is not all down to Pyongyang.

    “Big policy shifts in the US would require the President’s backing, and I really see no evidence that Joe Biden really sees the North Korean issue as deserving of tremendous political capital,” Panda said.

    He added what many experts believe – and what even some US and South Korean lawmakers admit behind closed doors: “We will be living with a nuclear armed North Korea probably for a few decades to come at least.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link