Edition

North Korea’s Yongbyon Facility: Probable Production of Additional Plutonium for Nuclear Weapons

IN THIS ISSUE: North Korea’s Yongbyon Facility: Probable Production of Additional Plutonium for Nuclear Weapons, Trump Recertifies Iran Nuclear Deal, But Only Reluctantly, The Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty: Opportunities Lost, KHNP to Block Suspension of Nuclear Reactor Construction, Nuclear Ban Treaty Doesn’t Contribute to Customary International Law: India, Rethinking Corporate Active Cyber Defense

Published on July 18, 2017

North Korea’s Yongbyon Facility: Probable Production of Additional Plutonium for Nuclear Weapons

Joseph S. Bermudez Jr., Mike Eley, Jack Liu and Frank V. Pabian | 38 North

While commercial satellite imagery is now widely used to analyze important developments overseas, including in North Korea, thermal imagery can provide additional important insights. Landsat 7 imagery from September 2016 through June 2017 was used for this analysis, although heavy cloud cover precluded the use of imagery from last November and no night-time imagery was available for the entire time period of this study. A total of 19 images are available and of these, 10 were chosen with approximately one-month time intervals between them to provide a consistent periodicity for the analysis. Seven images were deemed too cloudy for analysis and thus weren’t considered.

Trump Recertifies Iran Nuclear Deal, But Only Reluctantly

Peter Baker | New York Times

President Trump agreed on Monday to certify again that Iran is complying with an international nuclear agreement that he has strongly criticized, but only after hours of arguing with his top national security advisers, briefly upending a planned announcement as a legal deadline loomed. Mr. Trump has repeatedly condemned the deal brokered by President Barack Obama as a dangerous capitulation to Iran, but six months into his presidency he has not abandoned it. The decision on Monday was the second time his administration certified Iran’s compliance, and aides said a frustrated Mr. Trump had told his security team that he would not keep doing so indefinitely.

The Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty: Opportunities Lost

Scott Sagan and Benjamin A. Valentino | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

On July 7, almost 72 years after the first atomic bomb was detonated in the New Mexico desert, 122 nations voted at the United Nations headquarters in New York to permanently ban nuclear weapons under international law. None of the nine states that possess nuclear weapons even attended the negotiations. The Netherlands was the sole NATO member to participate, and it cast the sole no vote. The ban treaty will be open for signatures from all UN member states beginning in September and will officially enter into force after 50 states have accepted it.

KHNP to Block Suspension of Nuclear Reactor Construction

Yoon Ja-young | Korea Times

Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) will focus on promoting the safety of nuclear energy to prevent the permanent suspension of the construction of new nuclear reactors here, its CEO said Monday. "A total of 1.6 trillion won has been spent on the construction of reactors 5 and 6 at the Shin Kori Nuclear Power Plant in Ulsan. Cancellation of the project will lead to problems such as compensation," Lee Kwan-sup said.

Nuclear Ban Treaty Doesn’t Contribute to Customary International Law: India

Wire

India on Tuesday asserted that not only was New Delhi not bound by obligations arising from the nuclear ban treaty which it refuses to sign, but also that it doesn’t recognise any change in international law relating to disarmament from its promulgation. On July 7, the United Nations negotiating conference adopted the treaty on prohibition of nuclear weapons with 122 votes in favour, one vote against and one abstention. The treaty aims to prohibit states from developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, possessing, transferring, receiving, encouraging, stockpiling, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons.

Rethinking Corporate Active Cyber Defense 

Wyatt Hoffman and Ariel Levite

The recent WannaCry and NotPetya global cyber incidents have fueled the debate already raging over the role of and limits on corporate self-defense in cyberspace. The emerging international practice of “active cyber defense” (ACD) moves this debate beyond the merely theoretical realm. Private sector active defense potentially shifts the balance in favor of defenders and would improve companies’ ability to complicate and disrupt attacks and mitigate damages. Enhancing private sector defense might also deter future attacks by denying gains and imposing costs to attackers, including by making it easier for law enforcement to identify and punish attackers. Cumulatively, the impact could significantly alter the calculus of malicious actors.

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.