Wade Boese pointed out “this _NYT_ story”:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/washington/08nuke.html?_r=1&oref=slogin from last year to me. It has some details which appear relevant to “this post”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/1633/expanded-nuclear-target-set I wrote the other day.

I was going on about this statement from Hadley:

bq. the United States will hold any state, terrorist group, or other non-state actor *fully accountable* for supporting or enabling terrorist efforts to obtain or use weapons of mass destruction, whether by facilitating, financing, or providing expertise or safe haven for such efforts.

I also noted that

bq. there may be some question as to whether holding an entity “fully accountable” is distinct from responding with “overwhelming force.”

Well, the _NYT_ pointed out an interesting tidbit that appears to bolster my suspicions regarding the meaning of “fully accountable:”

A previously undisclosed meeting last year of President Bush’s most senior national security advisers was the highest level discussion about how to rewrite the cold war rules.

[snip]

Among the subjects of the meeting last year was whether to issue a warning to all countries around the world that if a nuclear weapon was detonated on American soil and was traced back to any nation’s stockpiles, through nuclear forensics, *the United States would hold that country “fully responsible” for the consequences of the explosion. The term “fully responsible” was left deliberately vague so that it would be unclear whether the United States would respond with a retaliatory nuclear attack, or, far more likely, a nonnuclear retaliation, whether military or diplomatic.*

There it is.

So says “Hans K:”:http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/06/us-nuclear-weapons-withdrawn-from-the-united-kingdom.php

The United States has withdrawn nuclear weapons from the RAF Lakenheath air base 70 miles northeast of London, marking the end to more than 50 years of U.S. nuclear weapons deployment to the United Kingdom since the first nuclear bombs first arrived in September 1954.

The withdrawal, which has not been officially announced but confirmed by several sources, follows the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Ramstein Air Base in Germany in 2005 and Greece in 2001. The removal of nuclear weapons from three bases in two NATO countries in less than a decade undercuts the argument for continuing deployment in other European countries.

There’s a handy chart “here.”:http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/_images/EuroNukes.pdf And _ACW_ has “more. “:http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1929/no-nukes-at-lakenheath

Sergey Ivanov “announced today”:http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080625/112037506.html that now anyone can (and everyone should) invest in Russian nuclear energy. He broke the news at the first ever Atomcon, which is taking place in Moscow. What’s Atomcon? No one I’ve asked seems to know but, apparently, as “this release notes:”:http://www.rosatom.com/en/press-releases/10606_23.06.2008

bq. Atomcon 2008 is being conducted under the aegis of Rosatom State Nuclear Energy Corporation in the framework of Planet Dreaming project. *The forum is aimed at changing the negative public attitude to nuclear power plants and at enhancing public awareness of the prospects of nuclear power engineering for market players and ordinary people.*

The “Russian version of the Atomcon site”:http://www.atomcon.ru/ is really snazzy (see “whale”:http://www.atomcon.ru/about/, “giraffe”:http://www.atomcon.ru/news/, “panther”:http://www.atomcon.ru/events/ and “mountain goat”:http://www.atomcon.ru/sbcd-expo/ … you get the idea) The “English version of the website”:http://www.atomcon.ru/en/preliminary-words/ (not as nice) features these words of welcome from Sergey Kiriyenko:

_Dear colleagues!_

_The world has entered an epoch of nuclear Renaissance. These are not mere words, but a new reality._

[snip]

_For this reason we have decided to organize ATOMCON – 2008, an exhibition and convention that will provide nuclear industry professionals with an opportunity to demonstrate their innovation and technologies, as well as get acquainted wit the Russian initiatives in the peaceful use of nuclear energy._

[snip]

_Finally, *I extend to you my wishes for good fortune in your personal life and for success in the field of nuclear power and technologies.*_

_S. Kirienko_

And since we are on “personal life”… Miss Atom 2008 “Yulia Nagaeva”:http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1821/its-that-time-of-the-year-again will also be attending Atomcon to “finally receive”:http://www.atomcon.ru/news/2008/06/20/pobeditelnitsy-konkursa-miss-atom-na-mezhdunarodnom-forume-atomcon-2008 her hard-won trip to Italy (for 2 people). Don’t miss the action, which will be taking place until June 27th.

Thanks to Anya for making sure this place didn’t go to shit while I was non-blogging.

And I should thank _SPK_ for “the link.”:http://agonist.org/sean_paul_kelley/20080624/wonkerr_writes Have fun in Singapore.

According to “_Computing_,”:http://www.computing.co.uk/computing-business/analysis/2219327/barrel-4025844 DTRA has been keeping tabs on the “Bruichladdich distillery:”:http://www.bruichladdich.com/

To bolster its standing among the whisky geek community, where no detail is too mundane, Bruichladdich installed webcams around the distillery so that fans could log on to the site and watch the whole process from barley to bottle.

It turned out that it was not just the whisky aficionados watching; so too was the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), a US government agency based in Belvoir, Virginia. It is charged with protecting the US and its allies from the threat of chemical and biological weapons.

*snip*

When Bruichladdich asked why the agency was interested in a distillery in a remote Scottish location, *the agency said that the process of manufacturing chemical weapons and distilling whisky were very similar so it was using the Bruichladdich web site to train its operatives.*

I especially like the fact that the distillery learned of DTRA’s monitoring after the agency “emailed to complain that the distillery’s webcam was out of action.”

Also of note: Bruichladdich took the occasion to launch a “WMD: a whisky of mass distinction.” In fact, they have
“WMD 1 – The Weapons Inspectors”:http://www.laddieshop.com/acatalog/Collectors_Archive_Releases.html and “WMD-II: The Yellow Submarine”:http://www.bruichladdich.com/wwwproduct/pdfsheets/wmd2/wmd2taste.pdf

[Via “Danger Room”:http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/pentagon-agency.html ]

Frankly, I had no idea that the three could ever be rolled into one story until I saw “this press release”:http://www.rosatom.com/en/press-releases/10594_19.06.2008 from Rosatom…

_19.06.2008 // Public Information Center of Volgodonsk NPP/Press Service of Rosenergoatom Concern_

_Volgodonsk NPP-Zaporizhia NPP bike race is setting off on June 24_

*The organizer of the race is Volgodonsk Nuclear Power Plant. The objective of this event is to cultivate healthy lifestyle and to develop friendly relations among the satellite cities of nuclear power plants.* The first such race was conducted in 2004: from Volgodonsk NPP to Novovoronezh NPP, the second in 2007: from Volgodonsk NPP to Balakovo NPP.

*The Volgodonsk bike racers are not afraid of heat and rain. They overcome any obstacles with ease.* The captain of the team is the deputy director for personnel of Volgodonsk NPP Gennady Fomenko.

The managers of the plant and the families will come to big farewell to the racers. *The primate of Volgodonsk perish Father Sergiy will bless them.*

OK, maybe the translator shouldn’t have missed the typos or used the word “primate.” In any case, I hope you already know that priests and NPPs are tight. See the Rosatom photo below for proof.

p. !/images/49.jpg!

Figuring out how the world has changed post-PSI has “always been”:http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_09/interdiction.asp a bit of a challenge. J Rood and S Hadley took a stab at defining some metrics for success late last month as the Bush administration took the 5th anniversary of the initiative to talk about how awesome it is.

Not sure it worked out, though. Here’s what Rood said to some reporters, “according to _AFP_:”:http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRKd1kgGLUVPl-_nPi81GPo9R-Vg

bq. “Metric (of success) number one: we have 90 countries participating in just five years,”

Rood also urged “reporters not to ‘measure PSI’s success from the number of scalps.’ ”

Hadley, though, “said something different”:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080528-3.html the next day:

bq. Today, more than 90 nations have endorsed its principles. Yet *the success of PSI can’t be measured by the number of nations it embraces, but by the effect they have on the ground.*

Gotta workshop the talking points some more, I guess.

Looks that way. The United States has long suggested that it might respond to the use of CBWs with nuclear weapons, though the Bush administration took it a bit further, as Wade Boese “reported”:http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_01-02/wmdstrategy_janfeb03.asp in early 2003:

bq. Like past administrations, the Bush team is ambiguous about whether it would use nuclear weapons to respond to an attack with biological or chemical weapons—though *it has taken the extra step of making that ambiguity official policy.* The strategy reads, “The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force—including through resort to all of our options—to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies.” The administration source said *NSPD 17, the classified version of the strategy, explicitly states that “overwhelming force” potentially includes nuclear weapons.*

But Steve Hadley has made a couple of statements during the past few months which suggest that we have a whole lot more people on the list of potential nuclear targets.

First, Hadley “said in February”:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080211-6.html that we have a new declaratory policy RE: deterring WMD terrorism:

bq. As part of this strategy to combat nuclear terrorism, *the President has approved a new declaratory policy to help deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States, our friends, and allies.*

Although stating that we might use nuclear weapons in response to CBW attacks isn’t new, Hadley stated that we might use nukes against anyone who _helps_ another country obtain or use WMD:

And finally, *deterrence policy targeted at those states, organizations, or individuals who might enable or facilitate terrorists in obtaining or using weapons of mass destruction,* can help prevent the terrorists from ever gaining these weapons in the first place.

As many of you know, the United States has made clear for many years that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, our people, our forces and our friends and allies. Additionally, *the United States will hold any state, terrorist group, or other non-state actor fully accountable for supporting or enabling terrorist efforts to obtain or use weapons of mass destruction, whether by facilitating, financing, or providing expertise or safe haven for such efforts.*

Hadley “told a Washington audience”:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080528-3.html essentially the same thing in May.

I guess there _may_ be some question as to whether holding an entity “fully accountable” is distinct from responding with “overwhelming force,” but the two seem pretty closely related in Hadley’s statement.

Interestingly, Bush “used the phrase”:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061009.html when talking about North Korea’s nuclear test:

bq. The transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States, and we would hold North Korea *fully accountable* of [sic] the consequences of such action.

Start making a list…

In the spirit of “this post”:http://www.totalwonkerr.com/1092/geek-check by Paul from a few years back, just a note that the 2007 version of the “*IAEA/OECD Red Book* is out”:http://www.iaea.or.at/NewsCenter/News/2008/uraniumreport.html. An “OECD/NEA press release”:http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2008/2008-02.html notes that the 2007 Red Book

bq. estimates the identified amount of conventional uranium resources which can be mined for less than USD 130/kg to be about _5.5 million tonnes_, up from the _4.7 million tonnes_ reported in 2005. Undiscovered resources, i.e. uranium deposits that can be expected to be found based on the geological characteristics of already discovered resources, have also risen to _10.5 million tonnes_. This is an increase of _0.5 million tonnes_ compared to the previous edition of the report. The increases are due to both new discoveries and re-evaluations of known resources, encouraged by higher prices.

You can (*and should*) spend the weekend reading the whole thing “*HERE*”:http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/browseit/6608031E.PDF.

As Pavel Podvig “noted”:http://russianforces.org/blog/2008/06/russia_ends_plutonium_producti.shtml, plutonium production at Seversk was halted yesterday. The website of the Siberian Chemical Combine has “some ADE-5 shutdown pictures”:http://www.atomsib.ru/sci/museum/competitions/20080605_0.html that are worth looking at. I like the fact that “most of the individuals pictured”:http://www.atomsib.ru/sci/museum/competitions/20080605_0/20080605003.JPG are smiling, even though the event is somewhat bittersweet. Check out news videos (in Russian) “here”:http://www.atomsib.ru/press_center/1259/ and “here”:http://www.atomsib.ru/press_center/1261/ too.