Edition

Russia Secretly Offered North Korea a Nuclear Power Plant, Officials Say

IN THIS ISSUE: Russia Secretly Offered North Korea a Nuclear Power Plant, Officials, Denuclearizing North Korea: The Case for a Pragmatic Approach to Nuclear Safeguards and Verification, U.S. Plans Suspension of Nuclear Treaty With Russia, Official Says, Ballistic Missiles Can Hit Moving Ships, China Says, but Experts Remain Skeptical, Trump Administration Begins Production of a New Nuclear Weapon

Published on January 29, 2019

Russia Secretly Offered North Korea a Nuclear Power Plant, Officials Say

John Hudson and Ellen Nakashima | Washington Post

Russian officials made a secret proposal to North Korea last fall aimed at resolving deadlocked negotiations with the Trump administration over its nuclear weapons program, said U.S. officials familiar with the discussions. In exchange for dismantling its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, Moscow offered the country a nuclear power plant. The Russian offer, which intelligence officials became aware of in late 2018, marks a new attempt by Moscow to intervene in the high-stakes nuclear talks as it reasserts itself into a string of geopolitical flash points from the Middle East to South Asia to Latin America. Its latest bid is expected to unsettle Chinese and U.S. officials wary of granting Moscow an economic foothold on the Korean Peninsula. As a part of the deal, the Russian government would operate the plant and transfer all byproducts and waste back to Russia, reducing the risk that North Korea uses the power plant to build nuclear weapons while providing the impoverished country a new energy source.

Denuclearizing North Korea: The Case for a Pragmatic Approach to Nuclear Safeguards and Verification

John Carlson | 38 North

North Korea’s (the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or DPRK) decisions on nuclear verification matters will not be made in isolation but will be influenced by political, economic and strategic developments. Realistically, the DPRK will seek to retain what it regards as an effective nuclear deterrent until it is convinced it no longer needs nuclear weapons to ensure its survival and the survival of the regime—and until it is convinced that the risks involved with having nuclear weapons, and the political, economic and opportunity costs, exceed the perceived benefit. Accordingly, progress on denuclearization and associated verification will depend on progress on broader issues, especially the development of a peace process and a sustainable relationship with the United States.

U.S. Plans Suspension of Nuclear Treaty With Russia, Official Says

Margaret Talev | Bloomberg

The U.S. plans to suspend its obligations under a 1987 nuclear weapons treaty with Russia after a deadline passes this weekend and the Trump administration inches closer to full withdrawal from a pillar of Cold War diplomacy, a White House official said Monday. Unless Russia destroys all its ground-launched cruise missiles known as 9M729s, associated equipment and launchers by Feb. 2, the U.S. will suspend its obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, according to the official, who asked not to be identified because a decision hasn’t been announced. The official did not say whether the U.S. will simultaneously announce a full withdrawal from the INF treaty, triggering a process that would take six months to complete. North Atlantic Treaty Organization officials have been preparing for a collapse of the accord for months.

Ballistic Missiles Can Hit Moving Ships, China Says, but Experts Remain Skeptical

Brad Lendon | CNN

Chinese state-run media has offered a pointed defense of the capabilities of its so-called “Guam killer” missile, challenging an earlier CNN report that doubted its ability to hit moving ships at sea. A slickly produced short video touting the missiles’ advanced technology was first televised in China on Thursday. This was followed Monday by a series of articles backing up the claims made in the video that the missiles can hit an aircraft carrier. The media push appears to be part of a concerted propaganda campaign designed to impress domestic audiences while underscoring China’s military strength on the international stage. Experts say the release of the video, which purports to show DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missiles being launched from an undisclosed location, actually reveals very little. “The video doesn't show a missile hitting a moving target at sea,” military expert Carl Schuster told CNN. “For all the audience can see, it is a standard ballistic missile launch with no indication of whether the target is moving or static.”

Trump Administration Begins Production of a New Nuclear Weapon

Geoff Brumfiel | NPR

The U.S. Department of Energy has started making a new, low-yield nuclear weapon designed to counter Russia. The National Nuclear Security Administration says production of the weapon, known as the W76-2, has begun at its Pantex Plant in the Texas Panhandle. The fact that the weapon was under production was first shared in an e-mail to the Exchange Monitor, an industry trade magazine, and independently confirmed by NPR. The weapon is a variant of the Navy’s primary submarine-launched nuclear weapon, the W76-1. That warhead is a “strategic weapon,” meaning it makes a very big boom. The W76-1 is believed to have a yield of around 100 kilotons, according to Hans Kristensen, director of the nuclear information project at the Federation of American Scientists, an arms control advocacy group. By contrast, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of about 15 kilotons.

The Next Six Months Could Define America’s Missile Defense for a Generation

Aaron Mehta | Defense News

When the Missile Defense Review was rolled out Jan. 17, it represented the culmination of almost two years’ worth of work. So some experts were left scratching their head when they opened up the document and found a significant number of items that still need reviewed or hashed out, the majority of which involve a six-month study period. “I was surprised that the MDR was not more decisive on some of these issues considering how long they worked on it and that Congress asked specifically for this document to address them,” said Laura Grego of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “I would have expected the Pentagon to do this analysis first and use it to inform U.S. strategy and prioritize these different missions.”

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.