Don't Bomb Iran

Category: UK nukes – Trident

US labs use British nuclear factory to build new bombs

The US has been using Britain’s atomic weapons factory to carry out research into its own nuclear warhead programme, according to evidence seen by the Guardian. This has been suspected for some years. The US weapons industry has long been prevented by Congress from researching a “replacement warhead”, and the UK denies it has such a programme. But the UK government has recently spent tens of billions mysteriously upgrading Britain’s factory at Aldermaston, and at Christmas it secretly sold it’s stake to US companies; thus creating a Guantanamo for nukes, an offshore legal black hole where US companies can design the next generation of weapons without Congressional oversight and without sharing the technical secrets with foreign companies or parliaments. US weapons labs last week unhappily revealed that Obama may end civilian control of bomb development after decades, and move such work to the Pantagon – a move seen to be an attempt to weaken the labs’ influence on policy. Article 1 of the Non-Proliferation treaty prohibits ‘transfer’ of nuclear weapons between countries, but the US and UK have a secret agreement on nuclear technology sharing – including recent warhead re-entry upgrades that gave British bombs the ability to destroy very hard targets in a first strike. Koffi Annan describes such modernisation as a swindle incompatible with the NPT

Guardian article below:

US Using British atomic weapons factory for its nuclear programme

Joint warhead research carried out at Aldermaston

Work breaches nuclear treaty, campaigners warn

Matthew Taylor and Richard Norton-Taylor

The Guardian Monday 9 February 2009

The US has been using Britain’s atomic weapons factory to carry out research into its own nuclear warhead programme, according to evidence seen by the Guardian.

US defence officials said that “very valuable” warhead research has taken place at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire as part of an ongoing and secretive deal between the British and American governments.

The Ministry of Defence admitted it is working with the US on the UK’s “existing nuclear warhead stockpile and the range of replacement options that might be available” but declined to give any further information.

Last night, opposition MPs called for a full parliamentary inquiry into the extent of the collaboration at Aldermaston and campaign groups warned any such deal was in breach of international law. They added that it also undermined Britain’s claim to have an independent nuclear weapons programme and meant British taxpayers were effectively subsidising America’s nuclear programme.

The US president, Barack Obama, while on the campaign trail said he wanted to eliminate nuclear weapons and that one of his first actions on taking office would be to “stop the development of new nuclear weapons”. But the Pentagon is at odds with the president. The defence secretary, Robert Gates, and other senior officials argue that the US’s existing arsenal needs to be upgraded and that would not constitute “new” weapons.

Kate Hudson, of CND, said: “Any work preparing the way for new warheads cuts right across the UK’s commitment to disarm, which it signed up to in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. That this work may be contributing to both future US and British warheads is nothing short of scandalous.”

Nick Harvey, defence spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said parliament and the country would react with “outrage” at the prospect of British taxpayers funding a new US nuclear weapon.

“All this backroom dealing and smoke and mirrors policy is totally unacceptable, the government must open the Aldermaston accounts to full parliamentary scrutiny,” he added.

The extent of US involvement at Aldermaston came to light in an interview with John Harvey, policy and planning director at the US National Nuclear Security Administration, carried out last year by the thinktanks Chatham House and the Centre for Strategic Studies.

Referring to “dual axis hydrodynamic” experiments which, with the help of computer modelling, replicate the conditions inside a warhead at the moment it starts to explode, Harvey said: “There are some capabilities that the UK has that we don’t have and that we borrow… that I believe we have been able to exploit that’s been very valuable to us.”

It is unclear whether the experiments are still being carried out but, in the same interview, Harvey admitted that the US and UK had struck a new deal over the level of cooperation, including work on US plans for a new generation of nuclear warhead known as the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). He said: “We have recently, I can’t tell you when, taken steps to amend the MDA [Mutual Defence Agreement], not only to extend it but to amend it to allow for a broader extent of cooperation than in the past, and this has to do with the RRW effort.”

Campaigners said the comments represent the first direct evidence that the US is using UK facilities to develop its nuclear programme. Lawyers acting on their behalf said the increasing levels of cooperation and the extension the MDA breach the non-proliferation treaty, which states: “Each nuclear weapon state party to the treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices indirectly or indirectly.”

The MoD admitted the two countries are working together, “examining both the optimum life of the UK’s existing nuclear warhead stockpile and the range of replacement options that might be available to inform decisions on whether and how we may need to refurbish or replace the existing warhead likely to be necessary in the next parliament”.

Congress has stopped funding research into RRW but campaigners believe the US military may have used facilities in the UK to get around the restrictions at home.

“Billions of pounds have been poured into the Atomic Weapons Establishment over recent years to build new research facilities,” said Hudson. “If these are being used to support US programmes outside Congress’s controls on spending, it raises even more serious questions about why the British taxpayer is paying for a so-called ‘independent deterrent’.”

February 10, 2009
Britain sells its nuclear weapons factory to US in secret

Britain no longer has any stake in the production of its nuclear warheads after the Government secretly sold off its shares in the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston reports The Independent. US companies Lockheed Martin and Jacobs engineering will now build UK bombs on contract. Many speculate that US companies are designing new nuclear warhead there, which Congress will not allow them to do in the USA, and which would be illegal under Article 1 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The Independent

Secret nuclear sell-off storm

Aldermaston bomb factory is sold to American company in bid to boost Treasury coffers provoking fury as Parliament is bypassed
By Ben Russell, Home affairs correspondent

Saturday, 20 December 2008

Britain no longer has any stake in the production of its nuclear warheads after the Government secretly sold off its shares in the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston.

Ministers agreed to sell the remaining one-third ownership to a Californian engineering company. The announcement, which means that Americans will now produce and maintain Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent, was slipped out on the eve of the parliamentary Christmas holiday. Officials refused to say how much the deal raised.

Opposition MPs last night expressed concern that the stake may have been sold off below market value to raise much-needed money for the Treasury. They accused the Government of trying to conceal the sale of the stake in AWE Management Limited by failing to make an announcement in Parliament.

There was also anger that Britain would no longer directly control the site where Britain’s nuclear warheads are produced and maintained.

A terse one-paragraph statement posted on the website of the state-owned nuclear firm BNFL confirmed that its one-third stake in the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) had been sold to the California-based Jacobs Engineering Group, a global engineering firm which already carries out work for the nuclear weapons and research establishment in Berkshire.

Yesterday, the MoD insisted that it had retained a “special share” in the establishment which allows it to intervene in the site or sack the operators if necessary. A spokesman said the deal would protect the independence of the nuclear deterrent and ensure Britain’s strategic interests were maintained.

The Ministry of Defence owns the site and equipment at the establishment, but contractors have carried out the work of the base since 1993.

The AWE, based at Aldermaston and Burghfield in Berkshire, employs 4,500 people and more than 2,000 contractors. It designs, assembles, maintains and decommissions nuclear warheads, but the organisation is also a major centre for nuclear weapons research with expertise in advanced physics, materials science and super-computing.

The current contractors, a joint venture between BNFL, the business services group Serco and the American defence giant Lockheed Martin, were appointed in 2000 and will run the base until 2025.

The successful bidder, Jacobs, is an $11bn-a-year engineering concern with interests ranging from aerospace to the oil and gas industries. Last year, it lost out in bidding to operate 10 Magnox nuclear power stations in Britain.

MPs expressed anger that Parliament had not been informed of the sale of the AWE. The shadow Defence minister, Gerald Howarth, said: “The AWE is critical to Britain’s nuclear deterrent capability and we find it astonishing that the decision regarding the increase in US involvement in the company was not announced to Parliament. It is now imperative that the Government spells out its understanding of the implications of this move for the United Kingdom and our nuclear deterrent.”

Richard Bacon, a Conservative member of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, said the sale needed to be urgently scrutinised: “This is the type of thing we would raise with the National Audit Office. There are a number of economic questions, but there are national security questions.”

Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, added: “It is staggering that the Government could do something of such strategic importance without informing Parliament.

“The whole argument used for Britain having a separate weapons establishment is that this is required by the [nuclear] non-proliferation treaty, as technology-sharing is not allowed. We must therefore query the rationale of a US company having a majority shareholding in AWE … There has always seemed to be a lot of cloak and dagger around Aldermaston, and now it appears the Government has concealed something of huge significance from Parliament. If the company has declared the deal is going ahead to the New York Stock Exchange, they must be fairly sure this is the case.”

Anti-nuclear campaigners claimed the sale would compromise the independence of Britain’s nuclear deterrent. Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour MP for Islington North, called it “astonishing”, adding: “It’s almost unbelievable that something as serious as the development of nuclear weapons should be privatised to an American company.” Kate Hudson, chairman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said: “It is outrageous that control of Britain’s so-called ‘independent’ nuclear weapons is being handed over to American corporations.”

But a spokesman for the MoD said: “The safe operation of AWE will remain unaffected by the sale. MoD worked closely with colleagues in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, and BNFL, during the sale process to ensure British strategic interests were taken into account. UK sovereign interests remain protected at all times, as does the independence of the UK deterrent.”

What’s for sale next?

The Treasury is considering privatising other state assets in what critics have called a recession “fire sale”. These include:

*Ordnance Survey

*The Met Office

*The Forestry Commission

*The Queen Elizabeth II conference centre in W

December 23, 2008
Women or machines may be solution to ‘manning bulge’ problems on Trident submarines

Spending years underwater waiting to blow up a few hundred thousand people is not a very fun job, so it is hard find crew for nuclear missile submarines. The British Navy always has trouble getting men for this job (which of course is Necessary to Keep Us Free), but it will need even more crew when it starts to replace its old Trident boomers with a new generation of submarines – running two sets of boats concurrently will need more crew and will thus cause a ‘manning bulge’ . 0ne of the solutions being considered is to let women go to sea with 50 or more Hiroshimas for the first time. (Another option is to use machines instead of women). The UK’s chief auditor has reported in his National Audit Office report on Trident replacement (pg 16 below) that there are other ‘risk areas’ in the project such as:
the warhead: which might need to be replaced, but the UK and US are working on this, and sorry, no cost figures are available at present. (Such cooperation might well breach Article 1 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which criminalises giving nuclear weapons to other countries; but that is not the Auditor’s problem)

the submarine cost: well, we don’t know: the company has made an offer: Somewhere between 12 and 20 billion pounds, (that’s a Lot of Money, so as the government auditor, we might look into it sometime in the future). The auditor acknowledges a major problem: negotiating a good price is hard when one company has a monopoly on building such submarines, and that company can tell you when to throw away your old submarines, can charge what it likes, deliver when it likes, and blackmails you with the argument that it has to build new submarines now or else it’s submarine-building-experts will retire without teaching new engineers the tricks (unfinished…)….

some quotes from the report:

1.16 There are currently shortages of various trades … within the submarine branch of the Royal Navy. This problem is exacerbated by the introduction of the future class of submarines, since more crews will be required to manage the so-called ‘manning bulge’- the transition phase in which crews will be required to operate both Vanguard and the future class [of submarines] concurrently.

1.17 Possible mitigation actions such as automating processes to reduce crew numbers and introducing female personnel are likely to have a major impact on both operating procedures and submarine design and therefore need to be taken while there is still scope for their incorporation in the latter. The Royal Navy is currently undertaking two studies to determine the likely impact of this issue. The Royal Navy’s Second Sea Lord is responsible for all naval crewing issues and is the owner of this risk, but the Senior Responsible Owner for the deterrent will have a key role in ensuring that the Royal Navy’s work is incorporated into the future deterrent timetable in a timely way.

November 10, 2008
UK new nuclear High Surety Warhead under development ?

Various analysts are alleging that the new nuclear warhead under development in the UK is designated the High Surety Warhead. UK warheads are virtually copies of US W76 warheads, and although Congress has delayed funding for a “Reliable Replacement Warhead”, the UK weapons factory at Aldermaston is under less democratic control and is receiving billions of pounds under shadowy government contracts. An MoD spokesman said: “No decisions on any replacement for Trident have yet been taken and there is no programme to build a successor warhead” – a careful form of words which would be true even if work on a successor warhead is actually going on.

Britain in top-secret work on new atomic warhead
Exclusive by IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent, The Herald September 04 2007
Comment | Read Comments (30)

Scientists are secretly working on the design of a revamped British nuclear warhead.

The new device, designated the High Surety Warhead is understood to be under development at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire.

The top-secret project is being run in conjunction with US efforts to build a range of modernised “failsafe” nuclear firepower for its own submarine-launched Trident missiles.

…

An MoD spokesman said: “No decisions on any replacement for Trident have yet been taken and there is no programme to build a successor warhead.”

September 4, 2007
Trident: UK tells one story to the UN, the opposite at home

In the 17th century, Sir Henry Wooton is credited with saying “An Ambassador is an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.” At the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) meeting in Vienna, Britain’s ambassador claimed the UK is not modernizing its Trident nuclear weapons system, not changing Trident’s capability, and there is no change in the UK’s nuclear posture. He should talk to his ministers in London, who say the UK IS doing all these things. Ambassador Duncan, phone home.

Trident: UK Government tells one story to the UN, the opposite at home

On April 30 2007 at the first preparatory meeting of the NPT review conference, in Vienna, the head of the UK delegation’s introductory speech [i] included the following claims which do not tally with what ministers have revealed in London (his emphases below):

19…… The UK is retaining not modernizing its deterrent. There is no change in the capabilities of the system, no move to produce more useable weapons and no change in nuclear posture or doctrine. The UK’s nuclear weapon system will not be designed for war-fighting use in military campaigns. It is a strategic deterrent that we would only ever contemplate using in extreme circumstances of self-defence..

21 …The UK reaffirms its support for Nuclear Weapon Free Zones … The UK has now signed and ratified protocols in respect of 3 Nuclear Weapon Free Zones

Taking these claims one at a time, it is easy to find completely different statements by ministers in Britain:

Not modernizing?

“The UK is retaining not modernizing its deterrent.” said the Ambassador. Perhaps he should ask his boss, the UK Foreign Secretary, who told Parliament on March 14 “all nuclear-armed states have indeed taken steps to modernise and keep up to date the weapons and facilities that they have. That is exactly the decision that the United Kingdom is making, no more and no less”.[ii] As Kofi Annan said in one of his last official speeches in 2006 “States which ‘modernise’ their nuclear weapons “should not imagine that this will be accepted as compatible with the NPT” [iii]

No capability change?

The UK is currently upgrading Trident missiles with the US Mark 4A reentry vehicle. giving it a ground burst fuse device (the MC4700). As the Federation of American Scientists told the Guardian [iv] “The bottom line is that the new [device], which we now know is being added to the British system, is part of an effort to increase the warfighting effectiveness [of the Trident D5 missiles].” The head of the US Navy’s Strategic Systems Command, Rear Admiral George P Nanos reportedly said: “just by changing the fuse in the Mk4 re-entry body, you get a significant improvement”. The US re-entry vehicles are also said to be maneuverable and with GPS guidance have an accuracy of less than 10 metres, making them ‘useful’ as non-nuclear conventional weapons. “I had GPS signal all the way down and could steer it.” said a US admiral of a March 2005 test[v]. These and other capability improvements cast doubt on the UK’s proud claim to uphold the Hague Code of Conduct, where it signed up to “maximum possible restraint” on such developments [vi]

Increased warheads and targeting capability: This year the UK announced it is reducing the total number of warheads on Trident from ‘under 200’ to ‘under 160’, and claims this is a disarmament measure. However, Trident’s predecessor in the 1990s, Polaris, deployed a total of 128 warheads at most, capable of hitting 64 targets. From 128 warheads to about 160 is not much of an arms reduction. Further, Polaris delivered two warheads to each target, (a total of 64 targets); while Trident’s 160 warheads can be delivered to 160 different targets[vii]. From 64 targets to 160 targets is not much of an arms reduction since the 1990s.

No change in nuclear posture?

The UK nuclear posture for years has been changeable and contradictory, so perhaps the Ambassador simply means there is no change in the unclear ambiguity! Sometimes the UK ‘guarantees’ no-first-use against non-nuclear states, but this guarantee was abandoned during the illegal invasion of Iraq. UK defence minister Geoff Hoon said Britain was prepared to use nuclear weapons in preventive strikes if it thought there was a threat of chemical or biological weapon attack on British forces: “If there is a threat to our deployed forces, if they come under attack by weapons of mass destruction, and by that specifically chemical biological weapons, then we would reserve the option” [to use nuclear weapons] [viii]

Not designed for warfighting?

Whatever the announced nuclear use policy is, and however that may change in time of war such as Iraq, clearly the Trident system is designed for and capable of being used for war fighting. Furthermore, although Trident warheads were originally designed to be of a fixed yield, the government has revealed that they now have a variable yield warhead (though the UK refuses to reveal the power of such mini-nukes, such weapons are regarded as for use in a warfighting capability).

Only a strategic weapon?

Perhaps the ambassador should tell this to the Navy, whose website currently (May 2007) states [ix] the opposite: it “provides the United Kingdom‘s strategic and sub-strategic nuclear deterrent”. In 1998, Blair’s Strategic Defence Review announced that “in addition to its strategic deterrent role, Trident would also perform the sub-strategic nuclear role, formerly assigned to RAF Tornado aircraft”[x] Tornado nukes were described to Parliament in 2006 as also serving “in the tactical role for use against enemy troops and equipment on the battlefield”[xi]. Trident is also assigned to NATO, which has a clear possible-first-use doctrine. The Government says it has dropped the sub-strategic role for Trident, but clearly the Navy hasn’t.

Support Nuclear Weapons Free Zones?

The UK claims it supports the Pelindaba Treaty (African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty), which it has signed and ratified. But it specifically excludes[xii] it’s African island possession of Diego Garcia, whose population it illegally removed and where the USA almost certainly has deployed nuclear weapons.

Ambassador Duncan’s weblog reveals an email address for any comments: ukdis.geneva2@fco.gov.uk

Footnotes

[i] Statement by Ambassador John Duncan, head of UK delegation to the 1^st preparatory committee for the eighth review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Vienna 30 April 2007 http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom07/statements/30aprilUK.pdf

[ii] Hansard March 14 2007, column 302 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070314/debtext/70314-0005.htm
[iii] Speaking at Princeton in Nov 2006 http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10767.doc.htm

[iv] see https://fla.beb.mybluehost.me/website_150218b2/?p=283 and Guardian Wednesday March 14, 2007
[v] Cited in http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/us_nuclear_forces_2006.htm

[vi] Hague Code of Conduct: Article 3c To exercise maximum possible restraint in the development, testing and deployment of Ballistic Missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction, including, where possible, to reduce national holdings of such missiles, in the interest of global and regional peace and security;

[vii] Although Trident has the same number of missiles as its 1990’s predecessor Polaris, each Trident missile can deliver warheads to 12 different targets in comparison to Polaris missiles, which could only hit one target, with two warheads per target. There is also doubt about the sincerity of the UK government boast it is now reducing the total number of deployable warheads beingfrom ‘under 200’ to ‘under 160’ – although many analysts believe including SIPRI believe that only about 144 warheads were ever deployed on Trident.

[viii] Geoff Hoon, March 2003 “If there is a threat to our deployed forces, if they come under attack by weapons of mass destruction, and by that specifically chemical biological weapons, then we would reserve the option in an appropriate case, subject to the conditions that I have referred to when I was talking to the select committee, to use nuclear weapons. http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/uknukepolicy.htm

See also http://www.middlepowers.org/pnnd/UnitedKingdomsNuclearDoctrine.htm

See also “Clearly if there were strong evidence of an imminent attack if we knew that an attack was about to occur and we could use our weapons to protect against it.”

See also “We have always made it clear that we would reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in conditions of extreme self defence.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2717939.stm 2 feb 2003

[ix] http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2420

[x] G. Robertson, Secretary of State for Defence, House of Commons Written Answers March 1999 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo990326/text/90326w06.htm

[xi] . 32. By the final decade of the Cold War, the UK‘s strategic nuclear deterrent had three main elements: strategic, sub-strategic and tactical. Polaris Chevaline served in the strategic role for use against multiple targets in the adversary’s homeland. The sub-strategic role for a more limited strike against individual targets on enemy territory was fulfilled by the WE 177 free-fall bomb carried by the RAF’s Vulcan and Tornado aircraft. Lower yield WE 177 devices served in the tactical role for use against enemy troops and equipment on the battlefield. [25]. Defence Select committee Eight Report, June 2006 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/98605.htm#a3 [25]

[xii] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Pelindaba#Diego_Garcia

May 5, 2007
Congress slows new warhead, Star Wars

A Congress subcommittee on strategic forces voted to slow the Reliable Replacement Warhead program and cut $764 million from missile defense programs. Although only the start of the allocations process, they called for commissions to evaluate posture, the need for new warheads, and the politics of Bush’s wish to deploy Star Wars in Europe (which was cut by 50%, to $150 million). Cuts to the Bush’s replacement warhead and new nuclear weapons factories were also made. Critical of Star Wars testing program, the chair of the commitee said “I wish when I was in school that I could have made up the test, given myself the test and then graded it,”

U.S. House Panel Cuts Funds for Missile Defense, New Warhead

By WILLIAM MATTHEWS

May 2. 2007

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2730267&C=america

A U.S. House Armed Services subcommittee voted to slow the Reliable Replacement Warhead program and cut $764 million from missile defense programs during a budget-writing session May 2.

Led by Rep. Ellen Tauscher, the Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee cut $1.3 billion from the $52.7 billion President George W. Bush requested for nuclear weapons, space and missile defense programs for 2008.

Amid the $51.4 billion left, the subcommittee shifted spending from higher-risk, future programs to more proven programs that meet immediate military needs, Tauscher said.

The budget modifications, which were approved during a “markup,” represent the first step in a multistep process toward producing the strategic forces part of the 2008 defense budget. At least seven more steps remain.

On one of the more controversial decisions, Tauscher, D-Calif., said her subcommittee wants the National Nuclear Security Administration “to walk before they run” when it comes to modernizing nuclear weapons and building a new weapons production complex.

Thus, members voted unanimously to cut $45 million of the $119 million sought for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. And the subcommittee eliminated a $25 million request for the new weapons complex.

Rather than proceeding at the pace the president wants, Tauscher said her subcommittee wants “to create a public discussion about future requirements for nuclear weapons.” To that end, members approved appointing a commission to re-evaluate the U.S. strategic posture.

The $764 million in cuts to missile defense programs come from an $8.9 billion budget request.

Tauscher said her subcommittee took aim at “programs that are either less mature or higher risk.”

Among the cuts: $400 million of the $517 million requested for the Airborne Laser program and $160 million from missile defenses to be installed in Europe. Bush had requested about $300 million.

The subcommittee called for an “independent study” of the politics and cost of the Bush administration’s plan to install a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, and for a study of the future of the Missile Defense Agency.

The subcommittee added money to “programs that offer near-term war-fighter benefits,” including $66 million for the Navy’s Aegis ship-based missile defenses and $12 million for Army Patriot Advanced Capability-3 air defense systems.

Worried that military space programs cannot be completed on schedule and within budget, the subcommittee cut $200 million from the Alternate Infrared Satellite System, $150 million from the Global Positioning Systems (GPS) III and $80 million from High Integrity GPS.

However, subcommittee members added $130 million for space situational awareness and space control capabilities, $100 million to the Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite and another $100 million to the Space-Based Infrared System High.

Despite a unanimous vote for the budget changes, Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., told Tauscher he is “very concerned about the deep cuts in missile defense.” Franks warned that the United States is confronting nuclear weapons, “the most dangerous weapons ever invented,” yet is still debating whether to build a missile defense system.

He said he was hopeful that the full House Armed Services Committee would restore $764 million the subcommittee cut from missile defense.

Tauscher replied that cutting $764 million from a nearly $9 billion request “is not a deep cut.” She said Congress needs to restore “accountability and fiscal responsibility.”

Tauscher said the nation needs a missile defense system, “one that works,” and she ridiculed the program’s testing regimen.

“I wish when I was in school that I could have made up the test, given myself the test and then graded it,” she said.

Franks voted with Tauscher and all other subcommittee members to approve the markup — including the cuts to missile defense

May 4, 2007
Pentagon: new warheads seen as provocative, destabilising

summary:

US plans to develop new nuclear weapons are seen as provocative and destabilising by much of the world, a Pentagon study has found. The Blair government also wants to copy the new US warheads, which are seen as moving away from a ‘deterrent’ nuclear posture to one of pre-emptive first strike. Russian and Chinese focus groups in particular feared a new arms race emerging, while the move away from ‘deterrence’ policies has led Japan and Turkey to question the credibility of a US nuclear guarantee, says the report.
see Interpress news story

March 23, 2007
US Nukes Plan Viewed as Provocative
by Eli Clifton

The announcement earlier this month that the United States will pursue the design and construction of new nuclear weapons has not been warmly embraced by the rest of the world.

In fact, most people outside the country view the move as more evidence of a policy favoring unilateralism and the pursuit of absolute military superiority, according to a report written last December but just released Wednesday on global perceptions of U.S. nuclear policy.

The report, commissioned by the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), used focus groups and written and oral interviews with participants in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America to assess international feelings toward the plan for a new generation of nuclear warheads.

It found that China and Russia, in particular, are watching the scope of U.S. missile deployments with concern that Washington might be attempting to move away from a deterrence posture through more effective defenses.

Under the new Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, older nuclear warheads currently maintained under the Stockpile Stewardship Program will be replaced by simpler weapons meant to be more reliable, easier to manufacture and more robust than current models. They would reportedly be ready for production by 2012.

The decision to upgrade the U.S. nuclear arsenal is being opposed by some members of the U.S. Congress, who believe it sends a message that Washington is pursuing first strike capabilities instead of a policy of détente and arms reduction, as was the case during the Cold War.

“The whole name of the reliable replacement warhead is insidious since it suggests the current weapons are not reliable,” Stephen Schwartz, editor of the Nonproliferation Review at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, told IPS.

The Union of Concerned Scientists says that the plan to update the U.S. nuclear arsenal is unnecessary because the current arsenal’s reliability is not degrading. Changing the design of nuclear warheads is expensive and dangerous, the group argues, and political pressure within the United States could lead to the testing of new nuclear weapons before they replace existing weapons.

The new warheads are based on a design that was detonated in underground tests during the 1980s.

Although part of the George W. Bush administration’s rationale for the RRW is a need to have a more flexible arsenal to engage and deter so-called “rogue states”, such as North Korea and Iran, the DTRA report concludes that Russia and China’s future decisions about their nuclear arsenals will be dependent on “their perceptions of U.S. strategic intent, plans, and commitments.”

The departure from a policy of nuclear deterrence has also caused concern in Japan and Turkey, where U.S. commitments of extended deterrence are seen as essential security guarantees. The new policies have led both countries to question the credibility of a U.S. nuclear guarantee, says the report.

Focus groups and written responses from U.S. allies and friends “oppose U.S. development of new, tailored, low-yield nuclear weapons as unnecessary, potentially dangerous, politically divisive, and adversely impacting nonproliferation,” says the report.

While the DTRA’s report is one of the first to address the geo-strategic effect the new weapons will have on nonproliferation and global stability, there are also concerns here that the new weapons will eventually require potentially dangerous testing.

The U.S. Senate has not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which bars nuclear weapons tests, and some fear that the Bush administration’s plan to develop new nuclear weapons could seriously undermine the possibility of a Senate ratification of the treaty.

“A number of people have raised the point that even if the scientists are confident the weapon will work, many military leaders will be a bit skeptical and demand actual proof,” warned Schwartz.

There are no current plans to test the new weapons, but the development of new warheads does make some countries doubt the United States and other nuclear weapons powers’ commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which includes disarmament obligations such as ratification of the CTBT.

The U.S. government, in the past, has implied that the development of more reliable nuclear warheads will allow it to reduce its total number of nuclear warheads and comply with reductions required in the NPT.

“[But] if you’re looking at this from the outside (of the U.S.) you’ll see the U.S. has 10,000 nuclear weapons and is going to build more,” said Schwartz.

The DTRA study concludes that the message from U.S. allies to Washington is “that a greater U.S. readiness to engage on nuclear disarmament issues would pay off in increased support from other third parties in pursuing U.S. Nonproliferation objectives.”

“Building these new warheads will restart the Cold War cycle of designing and producing new nuclear weapons. Instead, the United States needs a thorough review of its outdated nuclear weapons policy, under which it keeps thousands of warheads on high-alert status. Rather than building new nuclear weapons, the United States should be looking for ways to reduce its reliance on them,” said Dr. Robert Nelson, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement.

On Mar. 18, a panel composed of retired nuclear weapons laboratory directors and former defense and energy department officials also weighed in on the debate, recommending that “any decision to proceed with RRW must be coupled with a transparent administration policy on nuclear weapons, including comments concerning stockpile size, nuclear testing and nonproliferation.” The panel’s full report is expected next month.

(Inter Press Service)

March 23, 2007
Trident warhead upgraded to destroy missile silos

Britain’s existing Trident nuclear weapons are being upgraded, apparently giving them the ability to destroy hardened missile for the first time. This would be a major increase in capability from second-strike citybusters to first-strike silobusters and comes because the US has upgraded the fuses to burst on the ground, not high in the sky. The Mark 4A Arming, Fusing and Firing system on the reentry vehicle thus is a major increase in capability, something the UK government denies, and something that may be contrary to its treaty obligations. As the US navy missile chief said, “the Mk4, with a modified fuze and Trident II accuracy, can meet the original D5 hard target requirement.”

Mk4 Trident warhead cover
The US Navy is saying – and the British government is denying – that a new fuze for the Mk4 reentry vehicle will increase the capability against hard targets which Trident did not have before. See Hans Kristensen’s article which quotes the head of the US Navy’s Strategic Systems Command, Rear Adrmiral George P Nanos: “just by changing the fuse in the Mk4 re-entry body, you get a significant improvement”. In fact, “the Mk4, with a modified fuze and Trident II accuracy, can meet the original D5 hard target requirement.”
Trident upgrade under way, MoD admits

Richard Norton-Taylor
Guardian Wednesday March 14, 2007

Britain’s Trident nuclear weapons are being secretly upgraded to increase their accuracy and ability to attack a wider range of targets, the Guardian has learned.

Ministers have repeatedly denied there are plans to refurbish Britain’s nuclear warheads, arguing that it will be up to the next parliament to decide whether to do so. However, the MoD has now admitted that a new firing device developed by the US is to be installed in Britain’s nuclear weapons system by scientists at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire.

Analysts said the device – called the Arming, Fusing and Firing (AF&F) system – would make the Trident system more effective because the weapons’ power, impact and radioactive fallout could be changed depending on the target.

The Mark 4A system is a new version of the older design currently fitted in the Trident missiles.

The disclosure angered anti-nuclear campaigners on the eve of a Commons vote today on the government’s plans to renew Trident.

Labour is likely to suffer a damaging rebellion with backbench MPs questioning the need to renew a £20bn submarine fleet. Two members of the government have already resigned this week to vote against the motion.

Joan Ruddock, a Labour MP and longtime opponent of nuclear weapons, said the discreet upgrading of the weapons system belied government claims.

“This is further evidence of enhancing the warfighting capability of Trident and gives the lie to the claim in the white paper that it is a matter of simple deterrence.”

She added that the government had been very coy about whether the Trident weapons system was being designed to carry different yields.

“Ministers want to maintain the myth that it is a matter of deterrence and they have no scenario to carry out warfighting,” she said.

Hans Kristensen, the director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project, said yesterday: “The bottom line is that the new [device], which we now know is being added to the British system, is part of an effort to increase the warfighting effectiveness [of the Trident D5 missiles].”

He added: “It will broaden the range of targets that can be held at risk with the weapon.” The new firing mechanism would make the weapon more accurate and nuclear bombs could be exploded with relatively little radioactive fallout, Mr Kristensen said.

John Ainslie, coordinator of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said it was “astonishing” that the MoD was secretly upgrading the existing Trident warhead without telling parliament.

Paul Ingram, senior analyst at the British American Security Information Council, said: “The level and type of investment at Aldermaston of which this is a part indicates that Britain is looking to further upgrade its warheads for a variety of uses beyond simple deterrence.”

In a statement to the Guardian, an MoD spokesman said: “The Mk 4A Arming, Fusing and Firing system is a non-nuclear component used in the Trident warhead.” He added: “This has nothing to do with any potential successor to Trident on which decisions have still to be taken.”

While there is no risk of the government losing today’s vote, it will have to rely on Tory MPs to get it passed.

Many backbenchers said they expected the revolt to surpass the 69 MPs who voted against the schools bill last year or the 72 who voted against the government on tuition fees in 2004.

A second member of the government resigned yesterday so that he can vote against the motion. Jim Devine quit his post as parliamentary private secretary to health minister Rosie Winterton.

His decision followed the resignation of Nigel Griffiths, deputy leader of the house, on Monday.

March 21, 2007
Iran attacks UK’s Trident nuclear arsenal modernisation plans

Iran’s IAEA ambassador said plans to renew Britain’s nuclear arsenal were a “serious setback” to international disarmament efforts. Blair’s deputy leader in Parliament resigned at the decision, and says he will go to Iran to take his anti-nuclear mission further. The Ambassador said “Britain does not have the right to question others when they’re not complying with their obligations [under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty].”
He added: “It is very unfortunate that the UK, which is always calling for non-proliferation … not only has not given up the weapons but has taken a serious step towards further development of nuclear weapons.”

full Scotsman March 16 2007 article below
Britain’s push to renew Trident comes under attack … from Iran
GERRI PEEV POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (gpeev@scotsman.com)

IRAN has criticised Britain’s decision to renew Trident, saying it could be used by other countries resisting pressure to disarm.

Under fire from Western powers over its own atomic programme, Iran’s envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency said plans to renew Britain’s nuclear arsenal were a “serious setback” to international disarmament efforts.

The remarks from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime have prompted Nigel Griffiths, the Edinburgh South MP who resigned over Trident, to prepare to go to Iran for talks.

Mr Griffiths, who quit as deputy Commons leader to vote with 32 other Scottish Labour MPs against renewal of the nuclear arsenal, said that after hearing Iran’s response, he was determined to take his anti-nuclear mission further.

“I hope to travel to Iran to persuade them that developing nuclear weapons is neither in the interests of their people nor of their perfectly legitimate defence systems,” he said.

In his resignation speech on Wednesday, Mr Griffiths warned of the consequences internationally of renewing Trident: “The world is watching us. Let us be leaders for peace.”

Yesterday, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s envoy to the IAEA, said: “Britain does not have the right to question others when they’re not complying with their obligations [under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty].”

He added: “It is very unfortunate that the UK, which is always calling for non-proliferation … not only has not given up the weapons but has taken a serious step towards further development of nuclear weapons.”

Labour rebel MPs argued that the decision to renew Trident would send the wrong message to states such as Iran and North Korea, which have attracted strong international pressure over their nuclear programmes.

While Tehran insists that its nuclear power is for domestic energy needs, it faces new UN sanctions after refusing to halt work that inspectors believe could be weapons-related.

Tony Blair argued that Britain needed new nuclear weapons because of potential threats from countries such as North Korea and Iran or terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

The Prime Minister – who only won the vote on renewing Trident with the help of Conservative MPs – said if Britain were to give up its nuclear weapons, it would not improve prospects of other countries disarming.

But Mr Soltanieh said Mr Blair was misleading the public by using Iran’s nuclear ambitions to justify the Trident decision.

“UK security is threatened … by interfering in international affairs, occupation and invasion [in the Middle East],” he said.

The criticism will be seized on by anti-nuclear campaigners and rebel MPs, who warned that the Trident decision would give Britain no moral authority to ask other states to disarm.

A spokesman for the Foreign Office said the decision to renew Trident was fully in line with the Non-Proliferation Treaty “which recognises the UK as a nuclear-weapon state”.

“Iran, as a non-nuclear state has signed the NPT and then has breached its own obligations.”

March 19, 2007
Israel’s nuclear missile subs 20% the price of Blair’s Trident proposal

Tony Blair has ignored a much cheaper system in his rush to renew Britain’s Trident nuclear missile submarines. Israel has recently established a fleet of nuclear missile ‘deterrent’ subs, built in Germany for about 350 million pounds each. Like Blair’s proposed Trident replacements – costing over 2750 million each – they can stay underwater for weeks, but use 21st century propulsion technology and do not have nuclear reactors. They can be built in less than 7 years, so a decision would not be needed for a decade, and would provide more work for British workers. Blair’s White Paper does not mention this little known option.

Israeli Dolphin nuke-capable submarine (from www.israeli-weapons.com)
Germany has already built Israel three diesel-electric Dolphin class submarines, but the two ordered in 2006 use cutting edge technology – fuel-cell propulsion – and are being built in Germany for a total of US$1.37 billion, according to a report last year in the Jerusalem Post. The article, which cites Janes defence analysts, says “In the face of Iran’s race to obtain nuclear power, Israel signed a contract with Germany last month to buy two Dolphin-class submarines that will, according to foreign reports, provide superior second-strike nuclear capabilities”. Germany will pay one third of the cost, slightly less than it did with the earlier Dolphins.The UK government says that British foreign policy must rest on the credible threat of wiping one hundred and fifty cities from the face of the earth with nuclear weapons, and to keep protecting Britains ‘vital interests’ until 2050, the UKwill need new subs to put its missiles into by 2025. He claims, contrary to expert opinion, that it will take 17 years to design and build them, so a decision is needed now.
Whatever you think of this position, he has failed to offer the British public a much cheaper way of thus wiping the earth’s face. He will spend over 15 billion on buying Trident’s replacement, and over thirty years the cost will be about 75 billion pounds (1,250 per person). The submarines Israel has recently ordered can be built in about 5 or 6 years – not the 17 years it will take to build Blairs proposed subs, which are essentially 1970’s technology. Blair’s White paper did not even cost such an option for the UK, but misleadingly says it would be more expensive. Israel’s subs cost about 20% of those which Blair wants to build.

Blair seeks parliamentary approval now to build new submarines in seventeen years time; asks approval to build a new generation of warheads in a few years; and says the UK will ‘work with’ the USA to build a new generation of missiles in the 2030s.

The four nuclear-powered submarines will cost over 11-14 billion pounds (2.7 billion each,) says the White Paper; Israel’s two latest ‘air-independent propulsion’ (AEP) fuel-cell-powered submarines don’t need to surface frequently for air as diesel electric boats do, but cost about 350 million pounds each.

The Israeli subs are fitted with special oversize torpedo tubes, and can fire long-range cruise missiles, which defence analysts believe are fitted with nuclear warheads. For more on the Israel’s Dolphin submarines, see Israel’s nuclear weapons submarines: Germany builds two more Dolphins. Some reports indicate that the diesel-electric Dolphins may be retrofitted with fuel cell engines.
At 350m pounds each, the UK could buy four of them for 1.5 billion pounds, not the 11 to 14 billion in Blair’s White Paper – perhaps 10 billion pounds saved. The UK already buys conventional long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles from the USA , which are much cheaper than ballistic missiles; Britain also has its own stealth missile, the Storm Shadow, which France has adapted for maritime use. So getting missiles to put in such a system would not be difficult, and would be readily adaptable as such technology develops (India apparently now has supersonic cruise missiles). As Blair proposes that the UK builds a new generation of warheads in the near future, there would be few extra costs in building them to fit cruise missiles instead of Trident missiles. The Israeli subs are much smaller than Trident’s Vanguard class, and one would have to assume the running costs are much much less, but little is known about that.

If Britain were to decide to build fuel-cell subs, not only would it save huge amounts of money and delay the ‘necessary’ decision for years, it would be good for British jobs – the UK cannot sell nuclear-powered subs to other countries, but it could sell fuel-cell driven ones, and open more defence markets to the country’s shipbuilders. British industry would gain experience in eco-friendly fuel cell technology, and the 10 billion pounds saved could create thousands of jobs in other industries. However, the profits for shipbuilding and missile companies would probably be lower.
Clearly Blair has promised the US to remain in perfect step, as America too builds new warheads (as announced last week), new ballistic missile submarines, and new ballistic missiles. He says these machines are necessary to “defend Britain’s vital interests”, and to give it freedom to operate in foreign policy – it is hard to see how tying onself to US nuclear weapons technology and posture does that. What a price for the UK to pay for Blair’s American obsession: not only will modernising Trident destroy the non-Proliferation treaty, with huge foreign policy costs, it will also cost the UK taxpayer maybe 40 billion pounds more than buying a truly independent, 21st century way of wiping out whole countries.
For more on the Israel’s Dolphin submarines, see

Israel’s nuclear weapons submarines: Germany builds two more Dolphins

aa

March 11, 2007