Edition

Pentagon’s Rehab of Nuclear-Missile Arsenal Hit by Soaring Costs

IN THIS ISSUE: Underlying Challenges and Near-Term Opportunities for Engaging China, Pentagon’s Rehab of Nuclear-Missile Arsenal Hit by Soaring Costs, North Korea Says it Tested a Nuclear-Capable Underwater Drone in Response to Rivals’ Naval DrillsUS Urges Discussions with China on Practical Nuclear Risk Reduction Steps, Is Kim Jong-un Really Planning an Attack This Time?, The US Plan to Break Rus

Published on January 23, 2024

Underlying Challenges and Near-Term Opportunities for Engaging China

Tong Zhao | Arms Control Association

As China increasingly seeks to win the hearts and minds of the international community, the United States and other countries have an opportunity to focus on engaging Beijing in endorsing broad guiding principles for collaborative management of international security challenges rather than presenting specific arms control proposals.

Pentagon’s Rehab of Nuclear-Missile Arsenal Hit by Soaring Costs

Doug Cameron | Wall Street Journal

The projected cost of replacing the aging nuclear missiles buried in silos across the Great Plains has soared by more than a third to $107 billion, the Pentagon said, a development that comes as China pushes ahead with an expansion of its arsenal…The Pentagon in a statement cited poor budget forecasting, supply-chain challenges and pandemic-driven inflation for a 37% increase in costs for the highly classified Air Force program, known as Sentinel. The surge has triggered an automatic review by the Defense Department and Congress, either of which could terminate the program.

North Korea Says it Tested a Nuclear-Capable Underwater Drone in Response to Rivals’ Naval Drills

KIM TONG-HYUNG | Associated Press

North Korea said Friday it has tested a nuclear-capable underwater attack drone in response to a combined naval exercise by South Korea, the United States and Japan this week, as it continues to blame its rivals for raising tensions in the region. The test of the drone, purportedly designed to destroy naval vessels and ports, came days after North Korean leader Kim Jong Un declared he is scrapping his country’s long-standing goal of a peaceful reunification with South Korea and that his country will rewrite its constitution to define South Korea as its most hostile foreign adversary.

US Urges Discussions with China on Practical Nuclear Risk Reduction Steps

Reuters

The United States does not expect formal nuclear arms-control negotiations with China anytime soon, but does want to see a start of discussions on practical risk-reduction measures, a senior White House official said on Thursday. Pranay Vaddi, the senior White House official for arms control and non proliferation, told a Washington think tank it had been important to have initial arms-control talks in November with China, but stressed the need for them to involve key Chinese decision makers or influencers on the country's nuclear posture.

Is Kim Jong-un Really Planning an Attack This Time?

Choe Sang-Hun | New York Times 

That new drumbeat of threats, while the United States and its allies have been preoccupied with the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, has set foreign officials and analysts wondering whether the North’s leader, Kim Jong-un, has moved beyond posturing and is planning to assert more military force.

The US Plan to Break Russia’s Grip on Nuclear Fuel

Jamie Smyth and Sarah White | Financial Times 

Moscow’s invasion exposed many vulnerabilities in US and European energy supplies, not least in the nuclear sector, where more than a fifth of the enriched uranium fuel required to power both regions’ nuclear fleets comes from Russia. For the US energy sector, it was a call to action. Utilities companies have spent two years stockpiling nuclear fuel in case Russian supplies are disrupted. At the same time, Washington is undertaking a multibillion-dollar push to rebuild its nuclear supply chain, which was ravaged by a collapse in demand after the Fukushima accident in 2011 and years of neglect.

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.