CSI in the Nuclear Age

Professor Michael May of Stanford University recently spoke on the topic of nuclear forensics at a CISAC forum. While certainly not a panacea for nuclear terrorism, Professor May believes that further development in identifying the origins of nuclear material (attribution) may take us another step closer to prevention. Like the popular TV show “CSI,” nuclear forensics is the scientific method for identifying the source of nuclear material. Typically, nuclear specialists use the unique isotopic signature found in radioactive material much like a fingerprint. Isotopes are any of the different forms of an element each having a different atomic mass (mass number). So if an amount of plutonium or uranium were to be intercepted on the black market, specialists would find its specific isotopic signature and determine its place of origin by comparing it to a database of known materials. Of course the actual scientific process is much more complex than this. But further development of the nuclear forensic field might offer some interesting possibilities in preventing nuclear terrorism.

Dr. May has pointed out that while nuclear attribution may not deter terrorist groups directly, it may lead to increased safety and security procedures on the part of those governments, businesses and individuals who handle nuclear related material. States, businesses and industry insiders would be less willing to proliferate and take extra care to avoid lapses in security if they knew a potential terrorist attack could ultimately be traced back to them.

Of course there are many hurdles to improved nuclear attribution; some scientific, others political and administrative. Scientifically, uranium remains harder to uniquely identify than plutonium. And with regard to nuclear terrorism, we are much more concerned with the use of uranium because it is more abundant and much easier to obtain, handle and deploy in a weapon. Politically a major hurdle is the development of a database containing isotopic signatures and their places of origin. Back to the “CSI” analogy, for a fingerprint identification to be successful the fingerprint must be matched to a fingerprint file in an established database. If not, it is simply a fingerprint with no name attached to it. Currently, there is no such comprehensive database for nuclear materials and some states may be reluctant to provide the information necessary to build one. According to Dr. May, the US has declassified all of its weapons’ isotopic signatures while Russia continues to regard this information as top-secret. Finally from an administrative point of view, the infrastructure for an international nuclear forensics program simply doesn’t exist yet. The equipment necessary for analysis exists but it isn’t mobile and therefore of little use to specialists who would need to be onsite in the event of a nuclear detonation. Other administrative questions about the structure of such an international forensics body loom large. What nations will compose the agency? In the event of an emergency will the agency get instant access to the blast zone for testing? How well can the agency coordinate activities with emergency response teams in the targeted country?

These are all big questions and nuclear forensics may not be the final answer to nuclear terrorism. But the ability to hold those in charge of the security of nuclear materials responsible for their actions (or inaction) may reduce the chances of a catastrophic nuclear attack.

For some further reading see the Stimson Center’s 2007 brief on nuclear forensics:

http://www.stimson.org/newcentury/pdf/NuclearForensicsWriteUp.pdf

Accountability

After the discovery last week that four nuclear warhead fuses were accidentally shipped to Taiwan in 2006, Defense Secretary Robert Gates ordered the Air Force, Navy and Defense Logistics Agency to conduct an inventory of all U.S. nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon-related materials. The purpose of such an inventory is to ensure that all materials are accounted for.

Well, that would be great a data on existing nuclear arsenals. The challenge is that neither US nor Russia can be 100 percent sure how much nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon-related materials there are in the nuclear arsenals. When the United States and the Soviet Union (now Russia), the largest holders of nuclear arsenals in the world, started their nuclear programs - it was a top secret. Since then some documentation was lost/destroyed/dismissed. While, it is important to be accountable for the nuclear arsenals, it is never possible to be sure that all nukes are accounted for. Additionally, safety poses a great concern - nuclear weapons can never be safe enough.

Accountability is one step forward to safety, but until nuclear materials and weapons exists, no one can feel safe enough.

How safe is safe enough?

The United States have the most updated, the strongest and of the highest security standards export control system. No doubt about that. Moreover, the United States government assists other countries through a number of programs to help secure their military facilities, first of all nuclear related. But safe can never be safe enough.

Last week it was announced all over the global news that the United States mistakenly (!) shipped nuclear warhead parts to Taiwan two years ago. Today, two years, later this fact was discovered. The US Government invests billions of dollars in ensuring national security and non-proliferation of highly sensitive materials and technology, but on the other hand - shipment of strategic technology by US takes place. This should be of a great international concern.

Also, one should recall one historical fact (and I did not see much in the newspapers on the matter): in the 1970s, Taiwan was one of the nations to pursue nuclear weapons program (!!!). Thanks to the US efforts it did not happen back in the 1970s, and today we discover facts about US shipment of some weaponry.

The mistake is the second time in less then a year security procedures for handling nuclear components were breached. A B-52 bomber was accidentally loaded with six nuclear bombs in August 2007 during the flight from North Dakota to a Barksdale, Louisiana base (1,200 kilometers away).

I know only one clear solution to such problem - nuclear disarmament. While the latter is hard to achieve in a short time, a full scope of safeguards and controls should be installed on all weapons-related facilities and operations.

Finally they started to talk

For those who closely watch disarmament and nonproliferation field, it is one of the most exciting periods. Events, speaches and international discussions on nuclear take place every day, and hopefully draw attention of the general public.

It's no secret that everyone even outside the US closely watches presidential campaign developments in the United States. The results of the election will affect not only people inside the country, but are directly linked to the international political system.

My concern is nonproliferation regime.

Yesterday, John McCain published indeed a historical speach and I would like to draw your attention to the paragraph below:

We also share an obligation with the world’s other great powers to halt and reverse the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The United States and the international community must work together and do all in our power to contain and reverse North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and to prevent Iran — a nation whose President has repeatedly expressed a desire to wipe Israel from the face of the earth — from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We should work to reduce nuclear arsenals all around the world, starting with our own. Forty years ago, the five declared nuclear powers came together in support of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and pledged to end the arms race and move toward nuclear disarmament. The time has come to renew that commitment. We do not need all the weapons currently in our arsenal. The United States should lead a global effort at nuclear disarmament consistent with our vital interests and the cause of peace.

I hope Mr. McCain meant that the United States will adhere to its commitments of nuclear disarmament (see NPT) and negative security assurances to those nations who do not have nuclear weapons (see Security Council Resolution 984).

The speech by Mr. McCain is very significant, and despite the election results it is time to implemet those provisions!

Full article is available @ http://www.cfr.org/publication/15834/

Nuclear energy proliferation

Today it seems that nuclear energy renaissance is in full mode.

On March 24 the United States and Bahrain signed a deal on peaceful nuclear energy cooperation in contrast to the US atomic conflict with Iran.

The same day the United Arab Emirates stated that the country would developm peaceful nuclear program in partnership with other responsible nations.

Along the same lines, Russia and Egypt held talks on peaceful nuclear energy cooperation.

Due to stalled talks with the United States, India seeks partnership with Namibia on enhanicing uranium supply.

Japan's nuclear gian Toshiba signed alliance deal with Russian Atomenergoprom to enhancy the countries' civilian nuclear power operations and advance technologies.

While nuclear energy remains a great alternative to other sources, espeically in light of environment protection concerns, we should be very careful about technology proliferation.
It only takes several additional steps to convert peaceful nuclear program to weapons production.

Should we worry about Wikipedia smart posts?

http://www.dailytech.com/Wikileaks+Releases+Previously+Classified+Nuclear+Bomb+Schematics/article11115.htm

One can find a lot of interesting information on Wikipedia. Dailytech published an article about how "used to be classified information" about nuclear bombs drawings now is available for international public use in Wikipedia.

Interestingly enough, that UK retracted the information from public access in 2002, but the information remains available to the public in other countries/sources.

The drawings of a crude nuclear device were found in Kabul in 2001, and I am sure that if you get together three-four engineering and physics specialists they can assemble an explosive device within a short time.

The difficult part of a nuclear bomb is a fissile material and delivering the bomb to the target. Unfortunately (see previous posts on the blog) nuclear materials can be acquired through a black market and delivering bomb to a target is a matter of getting through the security. But don't drugs somehow get into the country from the outside world? A bomb does not have a significant smell, which to some extent makes it easer to get in.

Therefore, while I don't agree that those drawings should be on-line, security of nuclear materials and enormous nuclear weapons stockpiles remain the biggest concern.

Devalue nukes

Recently I learned about an author who suggests a very unusual approach to disarmament and nonproliferation. Ward Wilson argues that nuclear weapons are of no use. (www.rethinkingnuclearweapons.org.)

About a year ago Mr. Wilson wrote an article "The Winning Weapon? Rethinking Nuclear Weapons in Light of Hiroshima" which was publised in the International Security. The key argument of the article is that Japan surrended due to the Soviet Union invastion and not nulcear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

On his blog Mr. Wilson brings interesting facts: " If nuclear weapons didn't win World War II, is it possible that they're not very useful for winning wars? Is that why no one has found a way to use them effectively since? Both the US and Soviet Union lost wars - Vietnam and Afghanistan - despite possessing "the ultimate weapon." Peculiar, eh? Israel and Great Britain fought wars against non-nuclear opponents - the Yom Kippur War and the Falkland Islands War - in which they couldn't figure out a useful role for their nuclear weapons."

Dangerous shipments

How come that nations that have the most experience with deadly nuclear materials at the time of highest security alert ship radiological materials via poorly protected vessels?

Threats posed by nuclear terrorism discussed at the UN level, in think-tanks, at the governmental level and etc...Yet, a shipment of radiological material takes place in the UK.

'Dirty bomb' threat as UK ships plutonium to France
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/dirty-bomb-threat-as-uk-ships-plutonium-to-france-793488.html
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Sunday, 9 March 2008
Weapons-ready plutonium that terrorists could easily make into a nuclear bomb is to be carried hundreds of miles down the west coast of Britain in an unarmed ship, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.
Experts say that the plutonium dioxide powder, shortly to be taken to France from the Sellafield nuclear complex for the first time, would be an ideal material for creating a nuclear explosion and for use in a dirty bomb. One calls it "the worst possible material" to ship.
Yet the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which owns Sellafield, is to take it on an old roll-on roll-off ferry with few security and safety features – even though it has used armed and better-equipped vessels to transport less dangerous nuclear materials in the past.
The environment spokesmen for both main opposition parties voiced concern at the risk to national security and the environment.
Ministers have repeatedly warned that groups such as al-Qa'ida are seeking fissile material so that they can make nuclear bombs. Only last week the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific body, drew attention to "the potential threat of nuclear terrorism".
The shipment – expected to be the first of a series – arises from the highly embarrassing failure of a £473m plant at the complex, which was designed to make new nuclear fuel out of mixture of plutonium and uranium oxides recovered from used fuel. Sellafield humiliatingly had to turn to its chief competitor, the French firm Cogema, to fulfil its orders for the fuel – and says it must replace the plutonium it used on its behalf.
It will not give details of the shipments for "security reasons", or even disclose how much weapons-ready material it is having to return owing to "commercial confidentiality". But Core, a Cumbrian campaign group which monitors transport of nuclear material from the complex, said that shipments will start in "the next few days" and will involve hundreds of kilograms of plutonium, enough to make "a large number" of bombs.
Core is withholding the exact date of the shipment and The Independent on Sunday has decided not to publish the name of the ship or the route it will take, to avoid any chance of disclosing information that might be of use to terrorists. But an old ro-ro ferry with inferior safety and security features will be used.
When Sellafield sent mixed oxide fuel to Japan in 1999, it used two superior, purpose-built vessels, Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal, even though the fuel is less dangerous and useful to terrorists than the new weapons-ready cargo.
The two ships were both armed with naval guns and rode shotgun for each other, ensuring that terrorists would not know which one was carrying the material. Both had double hulls to enable them to withstand collisions, and two engines, in case one failed.
The vessel to be used for the new shipments will be manned by armed officers from the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, but will be otherwise unarmed and will not have an escort. And it is equipped with only a single hull and one engine.
Sellafield says that the less secure ship is being used as it has less distance to travel and carries less nuclear material. The dangerous cargo could be driven straight on and off. But John Large, an independent nuclear expert, said the size of the cargo and journey distance are "irrelevant". "They are showing incredible double standards. They are prepared to put the British public at greater risk than they pose when travelling on the high seas. It is the most dangerous and worst possible material that you could ship, and everyone knows that. This is cavalier."
Dr Frank Barnaby, one of Britain's leading experts on nuclear terrorism, said that "a reasonably resourced terrorist group would have no problem making a bomb out of this material" and that it was also ideal for a dirty radioactive bomb as the powder was enormously toxic and would vaporise, making it easy to breathe in. He added: "This is madness, totally irresponsible."
Martin Forwood of Core said: "Ministers should step in, and stop this shipment in the light of the terrorist threat." Steve Webb, the Lib Dem environment spokesman, described the shipment as "a risk to our national security". Peter Ainsworth, shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, said: "No risk should be taken with the environment and public safety."
Sellafield said its nuclear shipments were "safe and secure" and that the transport methods were approved by government and international regulators.
The Department for Business and Enterprise said that nuclear transports were subject to "the most stringent" security measures.

Nuclear energy - do we really need it?

I guess I cannot answer this question.
It is clear that all people in the modern world need energy. It is also clear that fossil fuels are getting scares and expensive and often lead to political and military conflicts.
Many developing countries are in great need of energy.
Climate change indicates the greater need for alternative and environment friendly sources of energy.
Nuclear energy is one of those sources. Nuclear energy is of high cost, maintenance and certain reactors may be used for production of materials for nuclear weapons. On the other hand, nuclear energy source gives any country relative energy independence and this factor is often forgotten today. However, energy independence was the reason why Charles de Gaulle made France run on nuclear energy (i.e., today France gets 80% of its energy from nuclear power plants). Additionally, today there are so many nuclear weapons, that nuclear energy can be a great solution for disarmament and utilization of nuclear weapons fuel for peaceful purposes.

On 12 March 2008 in her testimony to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming Sharon Squassoni stated that nuclear energy cannot make a real difference to global climate change. As demand for electricity will most likely to doubly by 2030, the nuclear industry have to grow rapidly to maintain energy market demand, which is almost impossible due to a complicated features of nuclear industry: nuclear fuel production, nuclear power plant construction and monitoring, and finally energy delivery.

Maybe nuclear energy is not the remedy to reverse climate change. It, however, does represent an alternative source of energy and, more importantly, nuclear energy should and must use nuclear materials used in enormous stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

Graham Allison on Nuclear Terrorism

Graham Allison recently published a new piece on nuclear terrorism in Yale Global Online (http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10503) called "Time to Bury a Dangerous Legacy – Part I"

Graham Allison is known for its warnings about dangers posed by nuclear proliferation, unsecured nuclear materials and a high probability of nuclear terrorism. It is true, that such threat exists. In fact, with growing demand and construction of nuclear power plants in the world, proliferation of nuclear materials and technology can lead to a disastrous catastrophe - terrorists get hands on the material and ...

There are other specialists, including Professor Muller, who argue that such threats are minimal and the general public should pay attention to other security matters. There are governments, especially US and Russia, which do not commit to their promises - nuclear disarmament. Consequently, enormous amount of "haves" with nuclear weapons creates anger and concerns from "have nots".

In his article Mr. Allison argues that "There’s no established methodology for assessing the probability of an unprecedented event that could have such catastrophic consequences. Nonetheless, in “Nuclear Terrorism” I state my considered judgment that if the US and other governments just keep doing what they are doing today, a nuclear terrorist attack in a major city is more likely than not by 2014."

Unlike many other authors dealing with this issue, Mr. Allison proposes some solutions and states his vision:
"A global strategy to prevent this ultimate catastrophe can be organized under a Doctrine of Three No’s: No loose nukes, no new nascent nukes, no new nuclear weapons. The first requires securing all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material, on the fastest possible timetable, to a new “gold standard.” The second does not allow for any new national capabilities to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium. The third draws a line under the current eight and a half nuclear powers – the five members of the Security Council and India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea – and says unambiguously: “Stop. No More.”

Allison's conclusion does not need no comments and we all need to carefully think what we, as ordinary citizens can do to prevent he ultimate catastrophe: " Faced with the possibility of an American Hiroshima, many are paralyzed by a combination of denial and fatalism. This is unwarranted. Through a combination of imagination, a clear agenda for action and fierce determination to pursue it, the countdown to a nuclear 9/11 can be stopped."

Recycling nuclear warheads into electricity.

As reported by the World Nuclear News on 7 March 2008

A total of 325 tonnes of Russian ex-military highly enriched uranium – equivalent to 13,000 nuclear warheads - has so far been downblended for use in civilian nuclear power stations under the so-called Megatons to Megawatts programme, USEC has announced.

FYI: Megatons to Megawatts program is an agreement between the US government and Russia to purchase 500 tonnes of Russian surplus weapons-grade high-enriched uranium from nuclear disarmament and military stockpiles for downblending to low-enriched uranium suitable for use in nuclear power stations.The 20-year programme is now in its 14th year, and by the time it is completed in 2013 the equivalent of 20,000 nuclear warheads will have been downblended.
Up to 2007, Russia has received more than $5.1 billion from USEC. The price USEC pays Russia is set by a market-based pricing formula that has risen steadily since 2002 along with world prices for SWU (separative work units).

While many can argue that nuclear energy is not the best and safest solution, I believe that it is better to produce energy than sit on nuclear stockpiles. Moreover, nuclear energy does not have effects on the environment like fossile fuel does.

Every tenth lightbolb in the United States is lit by electricity produced by nuclear materials downblened from Russian warheads.

The Royal Society Report: Detecting Nuclear and Radiological Materials

The UK's Royal Society published a report "Detecting Nuclear and Radiological Materials" which highlights the need for the world to share technical data on nuclear and other radioactive materials. The report suggests that shared international databases would help international nuclear forensics in identifying the origins of nuclear materials. Additionally, such shared database on radiological and nuclear materials, may deter future terrorism attempts.

According to the world nuclear news (http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS/Report_calls_for_global_sharing_of_data_on_radioactive_materials_060308.html?jmid=2263&j=89110595)
Professor Roger Cashmore, chairman of the advisory group that produced the report, said: "To reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism we need to increase our ability to detect and respond to the misuse of nuclear materials. This can help the international collection and sharing of information about nuclear materials." He continued, "For example, nuclear reactors may use a specific type of fuel, such as uranium pellets. This fuel is then processed to produce nuclear waste products with particular characteristics. Indicators such as these make nuclear materials inherently traceable."


The report represents the views of over 70 of the world's leading scientific and policy experts highlights the need for countries that have a nuclear power industry or nuclear weapons to share technical data. For instance, information on the types of nuclear fuel used by their commercial reactors, or nuclear material used for defence. According to the Royal Society such information is crucial to trace the source of the material after smuggling or a nuclear incident.

For example, if a bomb made from a certain type of uranium or plutonium was detonated, knowing where that material was processed would enable authorities to trace it back to a specific country's industrial or defence facility.

More nukes or disarmament?

On March 4, the commander of US strategic forces stated the United States will need nuclear weapons as a deterrent for the rest of the 21st century and should move now to field more modern weapons. Air Force General Kevin Chilton said "As we look to the future -- and I believe we are going to need a nuclear deterrent for this country for the remainder of this century, the 21st century -- I think what we need is a modernized nuclear weapon to go with our modernized delivery platforms."

My questions: Why? Deterrence against whom?

A week prior to the General Chitlon's statement a conference “The Vision of a World Free of Nuclear Weapons” took place in Oslo. The aim of the conference was to explore what nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states can do to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in national security policies.

While the international community is working day and night at the international forums and conferences to find the ways to disarm, some countries test their new missiles (Iran, India), develop new launching capabilities (China) or directly state the need for nuclear weapons in their national security (USA).

My key concern is: Will 2010 NPT Review Conference take place? Does nonproliferation regime have a chance to survive? Can we prevent the fall into the deepest canion of proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials?

Will Arab nations, who strongly support establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East and disarmament, come to the Conference? Nuclear-weapon-states have not fullfilled any of their commitments stated at the 1995 and 2000 NPT Review Conferece.

We are not disarming, but do arms save us from wars and terrorism?

"Dirty Bomb" in Colombia. Do we need to be concerned?

After the A.Q. Khan network was revealed no dobuts remain that a black market of nuclear materials and technology exists. Moreover, with growing amount of nuclear reactors and information available on the Internet, one can assemble not only a "dirty bomb" but a small nuclear device (a.k.a. IND).

On March 4 media reported that Colombian rebels were seeking to buy radioactive material to be used in making ``dirty bombs,'' as declared by Colombian Vice President Francisco S. Calderon.

Therefore, even relatively small militant groups got their interest in radioactive materials for their terrorist actions. It is well known, that Al Qaeda attempted to purchase nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s, and later CNN found a drawing of a nuclear device in Kabul.

All these factors indicate crutial importance of securing nuclear materials and eliminating enourmous amounts of weapons grade material before it is too late.

Can nuclear bombs save from a terrorist attack and help protect national security?

With recent developments between Israel and Pakistan I really start to doubt wether Israeli nuclear arsenal worth anything for Israel. Russia would never use its nukes against militants in Chechnya and the United States would not imply their nuclear warheads against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in Iraq.

Nuclear weapons have not protected even the former Soviet Union or the United States against military conflicts in Africa and Afghanistan.

Yet, as I heard again several days ago from a businessman, the United States should maintain its nuclear arsenal and even develop new nuclear weapons. But can they really protect the country? I can only find examples where nuclear weapons did not work, enourmous arsenals suck all the resources and cause even more security concerns over nuclear stockpiles.

National security and business

Recently I overheard a conversation among business people from the Wall Street, New York City. They were talking about effects of terrorism on business and profits, and whether the U.S. economy can survive another 9/11.

Businessmen can relate to threats posed by a potential terrorist attack. Moreover, entrepreneurs often support politicians to promote certain policies favorable for business profits or certain industries. In the United States military industry generally is represented by private companies that receive contracts from the government.

However, private sector is not interested in developing new technologies that allow nuclear waist recycling, development of nuclear reactors operating on MOX-fuel or natural uranium instead of deadly weapons grade uranium. US ports are not secured enough and a small nuclear device can be smuggled in due to the lack of radiation detectors and sufficient security system in the US ports.

Private sector and profits directly depend on sufficient national security, but unfortunately business is not involved enough in addressing national security needs and related decision-making process.