Edition

Proliferation News 5/20/25

IN THIS ISSUE: Iran warns US nuclear talks will fail if enrichment demand stands, Presidential candidates spar over need for ‘nuclear balance’ with North Korea, NNSA Delivers First B61-13 Nuclear Bomb For Military Certification, Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ missile shield could cost hundreds of billions, A Scientist Fighting Nuclear Armageddon Hid a 50-Year Secret, Trump’s “wins” on nuclear power are losses for taxpayers and public safety

Published on May 20, 2025

Abbas Al Lawati and Mostafa Salem | CNN

An Iranian official has warned that nuclear talks with the United States “will not actually get anywhere” if Washington insists Tehran abandons enrichment of uranium – a process that can also be used to make a bomb… “Regarding zero enrichment, we said from the beginning that if this is their (American) position, it is natural that the work will not actually get anywhere,” Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht Ravanchi was cited as saying by Iran’s Nour News on Monday.

Jeongmin Kim | NK News

Disagreements about Seoul’s need for nuclear weapons, the feasibility of North Korean denuclearization and the future of the U.S.-ROK alliance bubbled to the surface during South Korea’s first presidential debate on Sunday, as the ruling party’s candidate fought to take the sheen off frontrunner Lee Jae-myung. While not explicitly endorsing an ROK nuclear weapons program, Kim Moon-soo of the conservative People Power Party emphasized the need for “nuclear balance” on the Korean Peninsula, casting doubt on the possibility of Pyongyang giving up its weapons of mass destruction.

Steve Trimble | Aviation Week

A U.S. agency finished building the first B61-13 nuclear gravity bomb nearly a year early, adding a new and controversial munition to the U.S. arsenal for striking hardened, deeply buried and large area targets. Unlike other members of the B61 family of nuclear bombs that can be carried by fighters and bombers, the B61-13 will be certified only on a strategic bomber based in the U.S., the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) said in the May 19 announcement. In a statement, Energy Secretary Chris Wright described the new weapon as “essential to delivering President Trump’s peace through strength agenda.”

Zachary Cohen, Katie Bo Lillis, and Nathasha Bertrand | CNN

The Pentagon has submitted small, medium and large options to the White House for developing “Golden Dome,” President Donald Trump’s vision for a cutting-edge missile shield that can protect the US from long-range strikes that will likely cost hundreds of billions of dollars, according to multiple sources familiar with the plans. Trump is expected to announce his preferred option – and its price point – in the coming days, a decision that will ultimately chart a path forward for funding, developing and implementing the space-based missile defense system over the next several years.

William J. Broad | The New York Times

Richard Garwin’s role in designing the hydrogen bomb was obscured from the public, even his family, as he advised presidents and devoted his life to undoing the danger he created. Dr. Garwin, the designer of the world’s deadliest weapon, died last Tuesday at age 97, leaving behind a legacy of nuclear horrors he devoted his life to countering. But he also left a strange puzzle.

Edwin Lyman | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

The US nuclear power industry is justifiably apprehensive about its future under the second Trump administration. President Donald Trump’s predilection for taking a sledgehammer to both the federal budget and the administrative state would appear to be the exact opposite of what the industry crucially needs to move forward: a predictable, long-term expansion of the billions of dollars in public funding and tax benefits it received under Joe Biden, arguably the most pro-nuclear power president in decades… However, if made final, the draft White House executive orders meant to bolster nuclear power growth that were leaked earlier this month would be a huge lurch in the wrong direction.

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.