Should the U.S. go nuclear?

Arjun Makhijani, President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, said that using more nuclear power plants to advance U.S. energy would be “inherently proliferation prone.” Patrick Moore, Co-Chairman of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition and Co-Founder of Greenpeace, countered saying nuclear power was “one of the safest technologies ever invented” and “You’d have to take over the United States of America to steal this stuff.”

At a debate today, Moore claimed that nuclear energy is clean and does not emit greenhouse gases. He also stated that “nuclear waste” is 95 percent reusable which can lead to recycling potential energy. He remarked that nuclear energy is the only type of alternative power that can “effectively replace fossil fuels.” Makhijani believed that using other forms of energy like wind and solar would allow the U.S. to be free of energy carbon emissions in 40 years.

Moore said that wind and solar energy are “inherently intermittent” and these types of energy can disappear “three or four days at a time” while nuclear energy is “reliable.” Makhijani stated he would rectify this problem by allowing for “some storage” of these types of energy so people could use it whenever they wanted. Makhijani also questioned Moore’s statements about power and cleanliness of nuclear power saying that if they were true, Wall Street “would be lining up” to build nuclear power plants. Makhijani joked that Wall Street thought it was okay to give out subprime mortgages, but they felt nuclear power was “too risky.”

Makhijani felt that using wind energy would be cheaper than nuclear energy, and one must take that into account in this economic crisis. He also said that the U.S. has the capacity to do it within its borders. Moore submitted that it would cost more presently but nuclear power eventually “pays for itself” and Moore added that solar energy presently would cost five times what nuclear energy costs.

Press Conference by East-West Institute on Disarmament at the United Nations


Sergio Duarte, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs (TBC); Sergey Kislyak, Russian Ambassador to the U.S. and an expert on weapons of mass destruction; Max Kampelman, Former Head of the U.S. Delegation to the Negotiations with the Soviet Union on Nuclear and Space Arms; Ved Malik, Former Chief of Army Staff of India (TBC); and John Mroz, President of the East West Institute, to brief on a new initiative to break the logjam on nuclear non-proliferation
This was discussed as an action agenda and seizing the moment. They said that many people are asking questions about armaments. The concept is to launch an effort to build consensus.

Ambassador Kislyak: It is not a Russian initiative , but they have been invited to comment and participate in the debate. Russia has put forth initiatives. What is missing is a willingness to work on this. Nuclear weapons security is important to be worked on. The START treaty expires next year. Russia has always been supportive a nuclear free Mid-East. On the issue of regional enrichment centers the issue is to make it attractive to countries like Iran but you need to make it a joint venture. The proposal is to have Russians servicing the centrifuges. So far the Iranian government has not accepted this proposal but they have not rejected it. Other former Soviet Bloc countries have been interested in the proposal. The current treaty is for reductions and verification of those reductions. It is being implemented successfully. What the Russians want is to also cover delivery systems and that includes a number of rules that they have established such as accounting rules. Some of our American friends do not see the post START treaty in the same way. There are things that must go first before you start the zero option such as START. The question is how do you move to zero? It has to be practical not just theoretical.

Ved Malik: When it comes to nuclear weapons this must be discussed on a global level not regional.

John Mroz: It is now possible to speak in the US for the first time to get rid of all nuclear weapons. It could not have been spoken about before. This is a mobilization to work with many other NGO’s. Assumption that this is a new time and that also the global economic crises is related to this. There was real verification that the North Korean’s nuclear facility was destroyed. In the Secretary General’s Five points that he proposed today were actionable items. Things are in flux and the question is how you can use this time.

Ambassador Kampleman: This is an effort by both Democrats and Republicans to understand that the world is in serious danger. There is a keen and not a partisan interest in disarmament. Recent public opinion polls show that this issue concerns the American people. The task is to have a coordinated effort. The human race is theoretically in some danger. The Zero option is not making a campaign for fewer weapons we are making a campaign for zero weapons. One weapon can do enormous damage.

House Republicans demand vote from Pelosi at RNC

House Republicans held a press conference today calling for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to allow a vote on comprehensive energy reform. Speakers said the Republican strategy would solve America's energy crisis by developing renewable and alternative fuels, using clean coal and nuclear energy, and increasing the levels of American-produced oil and gas.

Rep. Thad McCotter (R-Mich.) attacked the "do-nothing, don't-care" Congress via phone, saying Pelosi has allowed Congress to stay on vacation while the energy crisis remains unsolved.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) outlined the Republican standpoint on energy, saying that "energy security is in effect national security." Boehner also said that revenues gained by the US government from increased oil exploration would be used to fund renewable sources of energy. He concluded his statement, asking Pelosi to "give [Congress] a chance to show the American people we can produce what they want."

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said that by 2030, America's energy needs will have increased by 30 to 40 percent. He adds that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has discussed the need to increase the US' nuclear energy supplies by 50% by that time, which the Arizona Senator believes would create 750,000 new jobs. "We cannot stay at home with [this] job undone," Upton said.

India getting nuclear go-ahead

The Brookings Institution held a panel discussion on the U.S.-India Nuclear Agreement. Former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said the agreement is a victory for the strategic partnership pursued by Presidents Clinton and Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Burns noted Singh's survival of a confidence vote in the Indian Parliament last week brought forth by opponents of strengthened Indian relations with the United States.

Burns, who voiced his support for the agreement, said the deal pulls India out of 35 years of nuclear isolation. He emphasized that the agreement gives India, soon-to-be largest most populous country, increased access to nuclear fuel and technology and does not recognize India as a nuclear power. Burns also said the agreement promotes non-proliferation, saying counties like Iran that try to cheat the international community will see the benefits of adhering to international agreements.

Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings Institution, said he is not entirely supportive of the nuclear deal between the world's two largest democracies. He said the agreement creates a moral hazard that has the potential of causing other states to question their non-proliferation. He reminded the panel that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty made exceptions for five countries with nuclear weapons prior to 1970. He suggested an acceptance of India's nuclear status unravels the NPT since India became nuclear in 1975. He also noted that the NPT's intention was to prevent additional states from gaining arms and to bring forth an eventual abolition of nuclear weapons.

Pentagon brief: Iran has long-range missiles

We must take the missile threat from Iran seriously.

Such was the statement of Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. General Henry A. “Trey” Obering III at a Missile Defense Status briefing at the Pentagon. Iran, he says, is working on an extended-range variant of the Shahab-3 missile and a new 2,000 km medium-range ballistic missile known as the “Ashura.” Iran is acquiring “advanced ballistic missile capabilities,” and they’re doing it with foreign assistance and an “aggressive development and test program.”

So what was Iran testing last week? Intelligence provides that info, Obering said, but the Iranians themselves are the ones providing the information. Although this may call into question the accuracy of the information due to bias, Obering said that based on what he has seen, they [Iran] have the capability to have long range missiles. And by having Iran talk about the possibility of a space launch brings to mind something else: the ability to have an umbrella of cover under which they could make booster missiles capable of traveling intercontinental distances.

The thought of a nuclear missile capable of reaching the United States from Iran strikes fear into the heart of every American, and Obering stressed that this is the very reason the missile defense system in Europe is needed. Based on azimuth trajectories (the arc a missile would have to travel in order for it to intercept another target), we need radar detection in the Czech Republic, and our actual interceptors located in Poland. Any closer, and they could not travel the proper trajectory to destroy an enemy missile in time to avoid significant damage.

But what if the attack isn’t nuclear, and is, in fact, an EMP? EMP’s are missiles that deploy an electromagnetic pulse, capable of disabling electronics across a large area. The amount of disabling caused is proportional to how close it is to the target when it goes off, hence the desire to intercept those types of missiles as far above the ground as possible. The House Armed Services Committee discussed that threat and said the potential damage would be significant.

The United States has eighteen nations around the globe that we can do missile defense interaction with. “It’s not the United States only” that is concerned, and there are a growing number of nations that want defense. Placing our interceptors in Poland is where it makes the most sense. Although Russia says that we’re exaggerating a missile threat from Iran, and has also come to a misconception that we are pointing missiles at Russia themselves, there are three fundamental problems with that theory. One, the angle of the missiles would actually fire them 256 kilometers into space if they went all the way to their apex, two, interceptors don’t carry the same payload such as an actual destructive missiles does- they’re only designed to hit things that do have that payload, and make them explode on themselves, and three, a European interceptor site (up to 10 interceptors) “would be easily overwhelmed by Russia’s strategic missiles force,” should we fire at them.

Russia, apparently, has been invited to “come have a look,” and we’ve made a proposal: we will set the defense system up but we won’t bring it completely operational unless the Iranian threat emerges. Obering said that an Iranian threat has emerged when there is proof they have the capability to fire off a missile that can travel 2,000 - 2,500 kilometers, and, if we wait till they actual fire off those missiles, it’s too late to get our own defenses up to defend against it. There is the need to be ready now, not later. Yes, Obering said, they [Iran] have long-range missiles.

Tests have been conducted utilizing missiles fired at the proper trajectories from Alaska and California, to emulate an actual airstrike. Obering said they’re concerned that Iran and North Korea will develop the ability to counteract our defense, and shoot our interceptors down before they can do what they are meant to do: protect. That is why by the end of this year we hope to have two tracking satellites that can track launched missiles more precisely than we do with our current ground radar, such as the one located in Japan. Since we have fielded an initial capability to defend the United States against ballistic missile attacks, we must take into account future uncertainties. Right now, we’re hitting our targets within centimeters from where we’re aiming.