Syndicate:
See All StaffRecent Work
Magazine Article
U.S.-Russian Nuclear Agreement Raises Serious Concerns
June 16 - On May 13, President George W. Bush submitted to Congress an agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation with the Russian Federation. The "123 agreement"--named after a provision of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act--would establish a 30-year framework for nuclear commerce between the former Cold War enemies, allowing the transfer of nuclear commodities such as reactor components and U.S. government-owned technologies and materials to Russia. A highly unusual bipartisan congressional coalition has arisen against it. By Robert Alvarez, published in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.
Report
The Unfinished Business of Nuclear Disarmament
April 3 - The legacy of the Cold War nuclear arms race remains a danger to the world. The United States and Russia are still possess tens of thousands of intact nuclear warheads with no clear plans for their dismantlement. Meanwhile, efforts to control the global spread of nuclear weapons are being undermined by the radical Bush Administration policy authorizing preemptive nuclear attacks against nations that may be seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.
Both Republican and Democratic Congresses have consistently rejected proposals to design and build new nuclear weapons. Also, Congress has convened two separate panels to conduct a "Nuclear Posture Review" that outlines future nuclear weapons policies. There appears to be growing sentiment, particularly among House members of the Armed Services Committee in reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal to 500 active and 500 reserve weapons.
The only verifiable nuclear arms agreement still in force is the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I). However, The expiration of the START I Treaty in 2009 will become an important benchmark for the future of nuclear arms reductions.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2010 provides an important opportunity for the United States to take bold steps in reducing nuclear arms.
Restructuring the U.S. government’s programs will be required to meet NPT policy goals. By the Nuclear Policy project.
Report
Risky Appropriations: Gambling U.S. Energy Policy on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
March 31 - The Global Nuclear Partnership (GNEP) is a major element of the Bush Administration’s energy policy. Its principal goal is to expand the world-wide growth of nuclear energy as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fostering economic development. Under Bush's plan, the United States and its nuclear partners would sell power reactors to developing nations who agree not to pursue technologies that would aid nuclear weapons production, notably reprocessing and uranium enrichment.
To sweeten the deal, the United States would take highly radioactive spent fuel rods to a recycling center in this country. The foreign reactor wastes, along with spent fuel from the U.S. reactor fleet, would be reprocessed to reduce the amount that would go deep underground. Nuclear explosive materials, such as plutonium, would also also be separated and converted to less troublesome isotopes in a new generation reactors operated in the United States.
However, our investigation found that:
- GNEP is a rushed, ill-conceived, poorly supported and technically and economically risky expansion and redirection of the nuclear industry. None of the technologies and processes proposed for GNEP current exist in commercially viable applications and only a few have been demonstrated in large, engineering scale projects.
- Even if its unproven technologies are shown to be viable, GNEP also has the potential to inhibit the adoption of more reasonable solutions to global climate change by diverting resources into an unproven and, most likely, a prohibitively expensive nuclear option.
- GNEP also would increase the danger of nuclear proliferation and the potential for weapons grade materials falling into the hands of hostile or unstable nations and terrorist groups.
- GNEP will likely worsen the radioactive waste disposal problem and would also make the United States the dumping ground for nuclear wastes from the other participating nations.