***************************************************************** 10/10/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.240 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 [NYTr] Iran Defends Peaceful Nuclear Program 2 [NYTr] Iran: Atomic Program Will Continue 3 Guardian Unlimited: 6-Nation Meeting Set on Iran Sanctions 4 AFP: Khamenei vows Iran will press on with nuclear drive 5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: EU, Iran's MPs meet in Brussels 6 [NYTr] World Leaders Condemn Korean Nuke Test 7 [NYTr] Bush's Blunder in North Korea 8 [infowarsnews] North Korea Nuke Test Derails Iran Invasion? 9 [southnews] Quake raises fears of 2nd N. Korea test 10 [toeslist] Tehran or Pyongyang? 11 Security UN Expert-level Meeting Continues On Reported Nuclear Test 12 [NYTr] US Push for Immediate, Unilteral Airstrikes on Korea 13 [NYTr] Overstretched US Has Few Options over N.Korean Test 14 Guardian Unlimited: White House Rejects North Korea Talks 15 Guardian Unlimited: The moment North Korea became a nuclear player 16 Guardian: US not to blame for North Korea nuclear test, says Bolton 17 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., N. Korea Barreling Toward Showdown 18 Guardian Unlimited: China May Be Losing Patience With NKorea 19 Guardian Unlimited: N.Korea Faces Another Round of Sanctions 20 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea's nuclear policy is not irrational a 21 Guardian Unlimited: Accept North Korea into the nuclear club or bomb 22 New York Times: For U.S., a Strategic Jolt After North Koreas Test 23 BBC: China urges UN action on N Korea 24 BBC: UN ponders North Korea sanctions 25 AFP: China to send envoy to NKorea over nuclear tensions - SKorean o 26 AFP: SKorea opposes any UN military measures against North 27 AFP: Japanese planes to monitor for radioactive particles from NKore 28 St. Petersburg Times: Crisis Over N.Korea Nuclear Test 29 AFP: China ready to slap sanctions on N. Korea over nuclear test - 30 AFP: Nations grasp for response to NKorea nuclear crisis 31 AFP: World should be 'very worried' about NKorea nuclear test - Blai 32 AFP: White House rejects criticism over North Korean test - 33 AFP: Presidential hopeful McCain blames NKorea problems on Clinton - 34 AFP: China keeps door open on NKorea sanctions 35 AFP: SKorea sees chance of more nuke tests in the North 36 AFP: White House seems to downplay North Korea nuclear test 37 Guardian Unlimited: China: N.Korea Must Be Punished for Test 38 Guardian Unlimited: Was North Korea's Nuclear Device a Dud? 39 US: washingtonpost.com: Bush's 'Axis of Evil' Comes Back to Haunt Un 40 [NYTr] All 9 Nuclear Powers are Violating NPT 41 [NYTr] Nuclear weapons: who has what 42 Guardian Unlimited: Provocation and proliferation 43 Guardian Unlimited: FAQ: Nuclear tests 44 Irna: Pakistan ready to sign NPT if accepted as nuclear power - 45 ITAR-TASS: Nuclear arms are tool of political deterrence – Ivanov 46 UPI: Analysis: Mideast crisis worsens with time NUCLEAR REACTORS 47 US: NRC: Revised: Time and Location Change NRC to Hold Public Meetin 48 US: NRC: NRC Announces Availability of License Renewal Application f 49 Guardian Unlimited: No subsidies for nuclear, says energy minister 50 US: amarillo.com: Exelon studies Texas sites for nuclear reactor 51 US: NRC: Solicitation of Public Comments on the Implementation of th 52 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 53 NewsRoom Finland: Finnish watchdog wants Fortum to stay clear of six NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 54 [NYTr] Experts Warn of an Accidental Nuclear War 55 [du-list] Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions used in Lebanon? 56 US: Deseret News: Nuclear predicament — Tremors: Utahns, others voic 57 Bush Radio: 5000 ex-nuclear factory workers may have disease NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 58 US: KCPW: Radioactive Waste Could Stack Up in Utah 59 US: Morning Sentinel: Nuclear waste: Uncle Sam's unmet obligations 60 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Dump wants to pile it on 61 Nevada: NO CONFIDENCE IN YUCCA MOUNTAIN 62 US: Telluride Watch: Nuclear Company Plans to Build Uranium Mill PEACE 63 Guardian Unlimited: Abe vows Japan will not go nuclear US DEPT. OF ENERGY 64 SF Chronicle: Group files longshot bid... wants Livermore to 65 Knox News: `Cold source' testing at ORNL successful 66 Knox News: Y-12 confirms fire in uranium warehouse 67 DOE: Secretary of Energy and Rep. Chabot Highlight Clean Coal and 68 SF New Mexican: Full-time LANL workers fear losing jobs 69 Hanford News: Energy Department drops appeal of fine for Hanford was 70 Business Review (Albany): Bechtel to close most of Schenectady opera 71 lamonitor.com: Cleanup resumes at airport 72 Oak Ridger: DOE wants to try unprecedented pond cleanup at K-25 plan 73 KNDO/KNDU: Senate Race Heats Up Over Hanford ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] Iran Defends Peaceful Nuclear Program Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 01:26:40 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com Iran Defends Peaceful Nuclear Program Teheran, Oct 9 (Prensa Latina) Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadineyad said on Monday that Teheran's nuclear activities meet the international regulations and commitments, and the Iranian people will continue their nuclear program, in spite of western pressures. In a meeting with his ministers, Ahmadineyad ratified that the Islamic Republic is in favour of peace talks, and the fulfilment of the international laws and regulations. The Persian country also said that the West is opposed to atomic development in his country due to political reasons, and despite their pressures they have reached nothing, reported IRNA news agency. "They are now trying to reach their goals through intimidation and threats, and Iranians will keep our position because we have the right to develop nuclear energy", added Ahmadineyad. The US and western powers have been carrying out a campaign against the Iranian nuclear program for more than a year, with the argument that the Persian country is aiming to build weapons of mass destruction. sus ajs jcd mf PL-31 * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] Iran: Atomic Program Will Continue Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:42:14 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com Iran: Atomic Program Will Continue Tehran, Oct 10 (Prensa Latina) Iran will continue efforts to master an atomic program despite UN sanctions, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad declared Tuesday. The statements relate to the five permanent members4 decision to remit the Iranian refusal to stop uranium enrichment to the Security Council. Germany proposed halting the atomic program in exchange for economic and commercial facilities, but Iran considers the offer ambiguous and insufficient. Ahmadinejad told Irna News Agency that his government relies on the formula: resistance equals victory, and noted the western powers have long done everything they could against us. The president was alluding to the freezing of Iranian assets in US banks, listing the country as part of the "evil axis", making unproven charges of terrorism, in addition to an economic and scientific embargo. Iran calls its atomic program key for its development plans and denies attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction, as the US and UK sustain. Russia and China oppose sanctions against Iran, and France remains cautious. This crisis grew worse last week with the failed negotiations between European Union Commissioner Javier Solana and Ali Larijani, Iran's top negotiator. sus ccs emw msl PL-11 * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: 6-Nation Meeting Set on Iran Sanctions From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday October 11, 2006 1:01 AM AP Photo LES106 By BARRY SCHWEID AP Diplomatic Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Senior officials of the United States and five other nations plan to confer Wednesday on possible U.N. sanctions against Iran for processing uranium as part of its disputed nuclear program. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and his counterparts in Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China will confer by video about what should be on a U.N. sanctions list, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Tuesday. The U.N. Security Council is giving precedence to considering sanctions against North Korea, which announced Monday that it had detonated a nuclear device. That resolution ``would almost certainly move at a quicker pace than the Iran resolution,'' McCormack said. Russia has suggested the best approach to the standoff with Iran is more diplomacy. The United States is leading the move for sanctions, arguing that they are part of diplomacy and the council had already warned Iran of the consequences when it did not observe an Aug. 31 edict to stop enriching uranium. Adoption of U.N. Security Council sanctions can be blocked by a veto cast by any of the five permanent council members, the United States, Russia, China, Britain or France. To get unanimity, the first round of sanctions is likely to be mild, such as imposing restrictions on trade in technology that could be used in an Iranian weapons program. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 4 AFP: Khamenei vows Iran will press on with nuclear drive October 11, 05:36 AM TEHRAN (AFP) - Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed that Iran would press ahead with its nuclear program and not back down in the face of international pressure to suspend uranium enrichment. Khamenie's comments were his first public intervention on the nuclear issue since world powers decided last week to discuss imposing sanctions against Tehran and since North Korea claimed its first nuclear test on Monday. "Our policy is clear progress proposing transparent logic and insisting on the nation's rights without backing down," a news anchor on state television quoted Khamenei as telling a meeting with top officials. He said Iran had been right to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment as part of a previous agreement with European countries even though it has now resumed the sensitive nuclear work. In November 2004 Iran agreed to suspend enrichment during talks with Britain, France and Germany but resumed it shortly after the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president in June 2005. "If we had not experienced that (a suspension) we might have blamed ourselves and said 'why did we not try that'?" Khamenei went on. "But now with steady heart and full confidence we press ahead and nobody can give a good reason that the nuclear path is wrong for the country." His comments indicate Iran has little intention of giving in to Western demands for a new suspension of enrichment, a key condition for full negotiations on its nuclear program and staving off sanctions. Khamenei also defended the government's record after just over one year in power following criticism of its handling of inflation, which has seen meat and chicken prices soar over the past weeks. "Everybody should respect the president and if anybody has something to say about the government they should let them know but not make propaganda that the government is incompetent. "The amount of work the government has done is admirable and they are doing a good job," he added. The Islamic republic has repeatedly insisted its own nuclear program is solely for peaceful energy needs, vehemently rejecting Western allegations that it is seeking atomic weapons. The nuclear standoff has come to a head in recent weeks, with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany preparing to discuss sanctions on Iran over its failure to suspend enrichment. The West fears uranium enrichment, which is used to make nuclear fuel for power stations, could be diverted towards making nuclear weapons. But it is still too early to predict the consequences of the impact of the North Korean nuclear test on the Iranian nuclear program and the moves towards sanctions. Some analysts have said the test will stiffen Tehran's resolve to press ahead with its nuclear program and in particular its desire to master uranium enrichment, which the West fears could be diverted to make a nuclear weapon. It also remains to be seen whether the momentum to discuss sanctions against Iran created after a meeting of world powers in London last week can be maintained as valuable UN Security Council time is taken up by the issue of North Korea. Meanwhile, Iran's government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham pinned the blame for the North Korean nuclear test on world powers' maintaining arsenals of nuclear weapons. "The major powers feel that they are entitled to use and produce nuclear weapons," told reporters. "This injustice, inequality and discrimination in international law has resulted in such threats to world peace" as the North Korean test, he added. Western officials had expressed hope before the North Korean test that a draft UN sanctions resolution could be put forward to the council this week, although the stance of China and Russia remains uncertain. ***************************************************************** 5 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: EU, Iran's MPs meet in Brussels 2006/10/10 A group of European and Iranian deputies held a lively and intensive three-and-half hour debate in Brussels Monday evening on a wide range of issues aimed at promoting EU-Iran parliamentary cooperation and removing misunderstandings. "We strongly believe that directly elected parliamentarians have a special role to play to enhance relations between our countries and peoples and we will do our outmost to this effect," said Angelika Beer, MEP and chair of the Delegation for Relations with Iran in the European Parliament in opening remarks. She noted that for the first time since it was set up in 2004, the delegation for relations with Iran was holding an inter-parliamentary meeting with its Iranian counterparts . Four Iranian deputies debated, discussed and exchanged views with members of the European Parliament on Iranian nuclear program, cooperation in international energy security, membership in WTO, human rights issues, the situation in the Middle East and the fight against terrorism and drug trafficking. "This is a first step in deepening of the dialogue and we will try and advance some of the key issues," remarked the vice-President of the Delegation , Ms Christa Prets, an MEP from Austria. Mahmoud Mohammadi, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Iranian Majlis (Parliament) said Iran is interested in promoting trade , energy, political and security relations with Europe. "Iran is interested in having an active cooperation with Europe," he stressed. "The two sides agreed on some issues and disagreed on others, but the consensus that emerged from the debate was expressed by British MEP Baroness Nicholson who said that "continuation of dialogue is utterly essential for mutual understanding and respect," Mohammadi said. MP Ali Ahmadi strongly defended Iran's right to nuclear technology for peaceful use and hoped that the dialogue between EU and the Islamic Republic of Iran would reach to a durable agreement. Beer said the EP believes that negotiations are the only possible way to resolve the nuclear issue. Woman MP, Ms Elham Aminzadeh said dialogue is very imperative and Iran shall not halt it. Referring to human rights issues, she called on Europeans not to be selective but to support real human rights issues like the rights of Palestinians. She noted that Iran has been a victim of chemical warfare by the Saddam regime and terrorism and stressed that Islam is totally against WMDs. MP Moris Motamed, who represents the Jewish community in Iran, said religious minorities in the Islamic Republic have complete freedom in practicing their faith and in education. Motamed pointed out that in Europe, religious minorities are being attacked and are under great pressure. He noted that those Jews who left Iran can easily return if they want even from 'Israel'. "Hundreds of Jews have returned from 'Israel' to live in Iran," he said. Commenting on the outcome of the meeting, Gahler told IRNA that he saw a "preparedness to argue and to react to arguments of the other side." "I hope the dialogue continues," added the German MEP. Aminzadeh told IRNA that "the exchange of views was great." "The cooperation of the panel was very good and the framework of the discussion very useful. We will continue to talk," she added. The four-member delegation from the Islamic Republic's Majlis (parliament) arrived in Brussels Sunday night for 2-days of discussions and meetings with their counterparts in the European Parliament as well as with officials in the European Union, Belgium and Luxembourg. The Iranian deputies are to meet Tuesday leaders of several political groups in the EP as well as EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana and Belgian MPs and then travel to Luxembourg for meetings with MPs there. SM Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 6 [NYTr] World Leaders Condemn Korean Nuke Test Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:26:16 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit excerpted from VIO Venezuela News Roundup - October 10, 2006 [The Associated Press reported yesterday that "China, Russia, South Korea and Japan quickly joined the United States on Monday" to condemn North Korea for its nuclear weapons test. Venezuela's outrage however, was barely reported on in the mainstream press despite its public condemnation upon hearing of the incident. "As a matter of principle, Venezuela is against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and condemns these kinds of tests... We are against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and we are doing a great effort in all international scenarios so that countries that have nuclear weapons start eliminating them progressively, so that we can move towards a world without nuclear weapons," said Venezuela's foreign minister Nicolas Maduro.-VIO] AP via The New York Times - Oct 9, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Koreas-Nuclear-World-View.html World Leaders Condemn N. Korea Nuke Test LONDON (AP) -- China, Russia, South Korea and Japan quickly joined the United States on Monday in condemning their reclusive communist neighbor for its reported test of a nuclear weapon. But the country that experts say most actively is seeking the next membership in the nuclear club -- Iran -- said blame should fall on the United States, for threatening and humiliating North Korea. North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency reported Monday that Pyongyang detonated a nuclear device underground. Russia said the blast was definitely a nuclear explosion, and others including the United States said they detected seismic tremors consistent with such an explosion. Even China -- a key North Korean ally -- openly criticized Pyongyang and demanded that it return to disarmament talks. World powers joined the U.S. in calling for U.N. Security Council action, including Britain, Germany, France and Australia. Iran, whose nuclear program also has become a focus of international criticism, took a different stance. Iranian state radio blamed North Korea's reported nuclear test on U.S. pressure, saying the test "was a reaction to America's threats and humiliation." Iran has said it will not abandon uranium enrichment, despite the threat of international sanctions over its disputed nuclear program, which Tehran insists is purely for peaceful purposes to be used for nuclear energy. Cuba's communist government did not comment on North Korea's reported test. In Havana, state media only carried a news dispatch from Pyongyang, without offering a point of view. Venezuela's foreign minister condemned North Korea's announcement, saying the South American nation is opposed to all nuclear arms testing. "We condemn all nuclear tests because of the immense damage it does to the environment, to life," Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro told state television. Earlier this year, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez opposed international criticism of missile tests by the North. Chavez also has argued that all countries -- including Iran -- have a right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. But he has consistently called for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. In Washington, President Bush called North Korea's reported nuclear test "a threat to international peace and security." He said he discussed North Korea's claim with the leaders of China, South Korea, Russia and Japan, and they all "agreed that the proclaimed actions taken by North Korea are unacceptable and deserve an immediate response by the United Nations Security Council." Bush did not specifically call for new sanctions against North Korea and said Washington remains committed to diplomacy. But the ambassadors of Britain and France said the Security Council should pass a resolution on North Korea under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which includes the threat of sanctions. Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Tuesday his country will go ahead with its own sanctions, but stopped short of severing his country's limited diplomatic relations with North Korea, which are viewed as an important conduit to the outside world. Australia and North Korea resumed diplomatic relations in 2000 after Pyongyang agreed to international negotiations over its nuclear ambitions. South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun said the reported test would make it difficult for Seoul to maintain its engagement policy with its communist neighbor. The Security Council on Monday officially nominated South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon to be the next U.N. secretary general. Ban, who has worked on the North Korea issue for most of his career, will try now in his new role at the world body. South Korea, which does not have nuclear weapons, has shared the world's most heavily armed border with North Korea since the 1950-1953 Korean War ended in a truce, without a peace treaty. Beijing is a longtime supporter of North Korea but also the host of international talks aimed at persuading the fellow communist country to give up its nuclear ambitions. Its strongly worded reaction to Pyongyang's nuclear test opens up the possibility of punitive measures against Pyongyang, which relies on Beijing for all of the oil it consumes. China's Foreign Ministry said the North had "defied the universal opposition of international society and flagrantly conducted the nuclear test." Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, in Seoul for a summit with Roh, called for "harsh measures" against Pyongyang and warned of the dawn of a "dangerous nuclear age." Late Monday, Tokyo dispatched three T-4 supersonic aircraft to waters between Japan and the Korean peninsula to monitor radiation levels. The aircraft will collect air samples to be analyzed for radioactivity, according to the Defense Agency. "Russia certainly condemns the test conducted by North Korea," Russian President Vladimir Putin told top Cabinet officials. "It doesn't just concern North Korea; enormous damage has been done to the process of nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the world." China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States have held intermittent talks with North Korea since 2003 in hopes of getting Pyongyang to abandon nuclear weapons in exchange for aid and security guarantees. A Security Council resolution adopted in July after a series of North Korean missile launches imposed limited sanctions on North Korea and demanded that the country rejoin international nuclear talks. Pyongyang rejected the plea. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, reiterated the urgent need for a negotiated solution and the resumption of dialogue. "The breaking of a de-facto global moratorium on nuclear explosive testing that has been in place for nearly a decade and the addition of a new state with nuclear weapon capacity is a clear setback to international commitments to move toward nuclear disarmament," he said in a statement issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The European Union and NATO also condemned the reported test. "It is a threat to world peace and security and will demand the strongest possible reaction from the international community," NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said in Brussels. British Prime Minister Tony Blair criticized the North for defying the international community. "The international community has repeatedly urged them to refrain from both missile testing and nuclear testing," he said. "This further act of defiance shows North Korea's disregard for the concerns of its neighbors and the wider international community." * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 7 [NYTr] Bush's Blunder in North Korea Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:37:52 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit The Washington Post - Oct 9, 2006 http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101006L.shtml Bush's Blunder In North Korea By Donald Gregg The Washington Post Former U.S. National Security Advisor Donald Gregg - First: Don't panic. Kim Jong Il's objective is survival and eventual change in North Korea, not suicide. The diplomatic situation in Northeast Asia will be immensely complicated by the North Korea test, which I think was a huge mistake on their part, but missiles are not about to start flying. The test may indicate the rise in influence of a hard-line faction in the KPA, which is holding sway, at least for now, over others more interested in transformational change in NK. The initiation of a strong bilateral dialogue between NK and the US would strengthen the moderates, and ease the situation in general, but that is not at all likely to happen. Second: Why won't the Bush administration talk bilaterally and substantively with NK, as the Brits (and eventually the US) did with Libya? Because the Bush administration sees diplomacy as something to be engaged in with another country as a reward for that country's good behavior. They seem not to see diplomacy as a tool to be used with antagonistic countries or parties, that might bring about an improvement in the behaviour of such entities, and a resolution to the issues that trouble us. Thus we do not talk to Iran, Syria, Hizballah or North Korea. We only talk to our friends - a huge mistake. [Donald Gregg was a CIA official since 1951 and a liaison to President Carter's National Security Council and, National Security Advisor to Vice President George H.W. Bush and US ambassador to South Korea from 1989 to 1993. He's now chairman of the board of the Korea Society.] * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 8 [infowarsnews] North Korea Nuke Test Derails Iran Invasion? Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:33:27 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM North Korea Nuke Test Derails Iran Invasion? Has Rummy's madcap dictator arming resulted in a blowback that undermines the Neo-Con war machine? Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | October 9 2006 North Korea's underground atomic weapon test is a wild card that could potentially derail the Neo-Con battle plan to carry out air strikes on Iran. Will the myopic hubris of the Bushists make them blind to the incompatability of selling a war on a nation years away from nukes while another openly proliferates, or could it just make the likelihood of a false flag terror attack more likely? Russia is now saying that the test was far greater than first reported, in the region of 5,000 tons to 15,000 tons of TNT, an upper limit which would put it on a par with the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Reports concerning developments in North Korea's nuclear program are routinely absent the "memory-holed" fact that it was Donald Rumsfeld, former non-executive director of ABB, that signed off on a $200 million dollar contract to sell nuclear reactors to the Stalinist state in November 2000. Has Rumsfeld's wanton act of chaos-mongering resulted in a form of blowback that could eviserate the entire roadmap of his administration? How does the test affect the global and domestic propaganda campaign to justify air strikes on Iran? Mike Rivero over at What Really Happened reckons North Korea has "put the screws," to any US-led invasion. "It will be hard for Bush to sell an invasion of Iran because it might someday make nuclear weapons when North Korea definitely has them now. Bush has to attack North Korea before Iran, and who will support an attack on a nation that actually HAS nuclear weapons of mass destruction." This makes a lone Israeli attack the more likely scenario, but there is no doubt it will be backed by covert US support and a huge domestic distraction. Fox News seemingly welcomed the nuke test as beneficial for the Bush administration in that it was the only story capable of knocking Foleygate off the air. "Never mind the tremendous implications of this -- it's all about GOP politics, all the time, on Fox "News," write News Hounds. The world has been made infinitely more dangerous, due not to the significantly increased danger posed by Kim Jong-il, but because the Bush regime has to go to even greater lengths to sell an attack on a nation ten to fifteen years away from producing the bomb. The Neo-Fascists are more desperate than ever to manufacture a false flag event that can propel Iran back above North Korea in the fear stakes. Watch for the Rovian rhetoric to be shifted from Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology to their alleged support of terrorists in Lebanon and Iraq. Kim-Jong-il may be a mentally unstable lunatic but he's not short of geopolitical nous. He knows that the Bush war machine only targets defenseless tinpot dictators and leaves real members of the nuclear club alone. But his actions have greased the skids for a desperate lunge on the part of the Straussians - the most likely outcome being a huge attack on Jerusalem or Tel Aviv blamed on Iranian backed Hezbollah, providing the Israelis with a UN mandate to retaliate that would stifle the voices of enough critics to ractchet up the armageddon meter one more notch. ***************************************************************** 9 [southnews] Quake raises fears of 2nd N. Korea test Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:16:05 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM A strong earthquake in northern Japan on Wednesday may have led the Tokyo government to suspect that North Korea had conducted a second nuclear test. Quake raises fears of 2nd N. Korea test By CARL FREIRE Associated Press Writer Associated Press Oct. 10, 2006, 11:51PM TOKYO A strong earthquake in northern Japan on Wednesday may have led the Tokyo government to suspect that North Korea had conducted a second nuclear test. In Washington, White House spokesman Blair Jones said U.S. officials had not detected any evidence of additional North Korea testing. "Japanese officials are now saying that this occurrence may be related to an earthquake in northern Japan," Jones said. The reaction to the earthquake underscored the jitters in Asia over reports that North Korea planned a second test after it announced Monday it had conducted its first nuclear test. Some analysts expect the regime to conduct more tests amid suspicion the first, relatively small explosion might have partially failed. "We have very real concerns that they may conduct another nuclear test and that they may do so very soon," Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer told reporters on Wednesday, a day after he met with North Korean Ambassador Chon Jae-hong to condemn the atomic program. A senior State Department official said the U.S. would not be surprised if there were multiple tests, but so far there is no sign of one. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation. Alarm was triggered when Japanese media reported early Wednesday that the government had detected tremors in North Korea, leading it to suspect Pyongyang had conducted a second nuclear test. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's spokesman confirmed the government was checking whether the North had tested another nuclear device. Shortly after that, the Japanese meteorological agency said a strong earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 6.0 shook northern Japan. The quake, which struck at 8:58 a.m., was centered off the coast of Fukushima, 149 miles northeast of Tokyo at a depth of about 19 miles. The agency said that the tremor was a genuine quake and had nothing to do North Korean nuclear testing. The U.S. Geological Survey in Golden, Colo., said Japanese broadcaster NHK called the USGS to check on seismic activity in the region at about 7:40 a.m. local time, more than an hour before the earthquake. Later Wednesday morning, Abe said he had no information to confirm North Korea had conducted a second nuclear test. "I have had not received information about any indications ... that a test has taken place," the prime minister said at a parliamentary budget meeting. U.S. and South Korean monitors said they had not detected any new seismic activity Wednesday in North Korea. The U.S. Geological Survey said it had detected an earthquake in Japan but not in North Korea. "Either it was very small, or it didn't happen at all," USGS official Bruce Presgrave said of the reports on North Korea. "If the event would have been 2.5 or bigger, we would have seen something." The North Korean nuclear test on Monday registered the same force as a magnitude-4.2 earthquake. The head of South Korean seismic monitoring station said no activity has been detected in North Korea that could indicate a possible second North Korea nuclear test. "There's no signal from North Korea, even no small event," Chi Heon-cheol, director of the South's Korea Earthquake Research Center, told AP. The earthquake off Japan's coast was centered approximately 780 miles from the site where North Korea conducted its nuclear test. It occurred about 740 miles from the closest point on the North Korean coast. There were no reports of damage or injuries. The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ ***************************************************************** 10 [toeslist] Tehran or Pyongyang? Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:40:42 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Tehran or Pyongyang? North Korea claims to have tested a nuclear weapon. Iran refuses to halt its uranium enrichment program. The non-proliferation regime teeters on the brink. Washington's uncompromising tactics with both Tehran and Pyongyang have failed to achieve anything but the most radioactive results. When President Bush introduced the axis of evil of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea in his 2002 State of the Union address, he seemed to be establishing a hit list for U.S. military interventions. Four years later, the targeted countries instead represent the three most prominent foreign policy failures of the administration. Iraq is a mess, North Korea has battered down the door of the nuclear club, and Iran has moved in a more hardline direction under its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If Washington were sensible, it would cut its losses: negotiate a withdrawal from Iraq and sit down with both Iran and North Korea to negotiate face-saving agreements. Instead, American policy analysts and American citizens are fearful of the next war. Will it be a military strike against Tehran or Pyongyang? Squeezing Tehran Publicly, the United States has focused on using sanctions to deter Iran and North Korea from pursuing their nuclear aims. With Iran, the Bush administration has tightened the financial noose on Iran, banning interaction with one of Iran's leading government-owned bank, Bank Saderat, writes Farideh Farhi in an FPIF policy report. Congress passed the Iran Freedom Support Act, extending sanctions against investments in the country's oil industry for another five years. But sanctions may only be the visible tip of the iceberg. As FPIF columnist Frida Berrigan argues in War or Rumors of War, the Bush administration has kept the military option on the table and not simply on a rhetorical level. Given the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the sheer cost of existing military commitments, it would seem that the last thing the United States can afford right now is another war, she writes. But the Bush administration hasn't used much reality-based reasoning in its Iraq policy. She concludes that the administration is therefore unlikely to use common sense in evaluating whether to attack Iran. FPIF contributor Phyllis Bennis believes that, leading up to the November mid-term U.S. elections, another factor might be decisive. Growing opposition to the prospect of an Iran War, she writes in an op-ed, might lead some members of the Bush administration to decide the political cost of such a reckless adventure is too high. Surrounding Pyongyang The Bush administration has been approaching the situation in North Korea with almost identical hardheadedness. Instead of negotiating with Pyongyang, it has insisted on a multilateral formatthe Six Party Talksthat has gone nowhere. It has applied a series of sanctions, including limits on financial transactions that fail to discriminate between North Korea's illicit operations and its legitimate economic activities. As with Iran, the Bush administration has insisted on keeping all options on the table, even though the Pentagon has made it clear that a military strike against North Korea would lead to retaliatory strikes that would kill tens of thousands of U.S. and South Korean soldiers and civilians. As with Iran, the Pentagon has confessed that it would have great difficulty eliminating the dispersed nuclear facilities in North Korea. North Korea has not made matters easier. It went ahead with missile launches in July and now a test in early October, even though both actions have further alienated its already ambivalent ally China. Even after its most recent provocation, however, Pyongyang has declared its continued willingness to negotiate. It doesn't have much choice. A nuclear weapon can't feed its people or rebuild its factories. Will an attack on Iran or North Korea be the administration's October surprise? The rally-around-the-flag effect of bombing either North Korea or Iran would be overwhelmed by the sheer scope of the immediate consequences, not to mention the longer term blowback. For military, economic, and electoral reasons, it doesn't make sense for the Bush administration to launch an attack against any country at this moment. Alas, the administration seems to be singing only one tune these days, that old Talking Heads favorite: Stop Making Sense. October 9, 2006 Vol. 1, No. 9 John Feffer, IRC (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org) ***************************************************************** 11 Security UN Expert-level Meeting Continues On Reported Nuclear Test By Dpr Korea Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:00:49 -0400 SECURITY COUNCIL EXPERT-LEVEL MEETING CONTINUES ON REPORTED NUCLEAR TEST BY DPR KOREA New York, Oct 10 2006 12:00PM The United Nations <"http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/index.html">Security Council continued with an expert-level meeting today to discuss a draft resolution over the reported nuclear test by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), which members have already strongly condemned. Following consultations on the issue yesterday, the President of the 15-member body for October, Japanese Ambassador Kenzo Oshima, told reporters that members urged the DPRK to refrain from further testing and return to the so-called Six-Party Talks that have been seeking to resolve the issue of its nuclear programme. The Talks between China, DPRK, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russia and the United States have been going on sporadically in Beijing for several years. A first expert-level meeting was held later in the day to discuss a draft. On Friday the Council warned the DPRK of unspecified action if it went ahead with the test, which it said would represent a clear threat to international peace and security. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei yesterday also called for urgent resumption of the Six-Party Talks. Mr. Annan <"http://www/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=2241">said the reported test “violates international norms of disarmament and non-proliferation, as well as the current international moratorium on nuclear testing… it aggravates regional tensions in and around the Korean Peninsula, and jeopardizes security both in the region and beyond.” Mr. ElBaradei <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2006/prn200617.html">said it “threatens the nuclear non-proliferation regime and creates serious security challenges not only for the East Asian region but also for the international community.”Addressing the General Assembly’s <"http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2006/gadis3323.doc.htm">First Committee on Disarmament and International Security yesterday, DPRK representative Pak Gil Yon said that while his country’s ultimate goal was the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, it had been compelled to possess a nuclear deterrent for self-defence after the United States had threatened his country with nuclear weapons and designated it as a target for pre-emptive attack. It was gangster-like logic that only big countries could possess nuclear weapons and attack and threaten small countries with them, he added. Such a double-standard reduced the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and other disarmament conventions to dead documents without any binding force. It was also the reality today that, whether missile launch or nuclear test, if the US approved, it was tolerated and would not be brought to the UN. 2006-10-10 00:00:00.000 ___________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To listen to news and in-depth programmes from UN Radio go to: http://radio.un.org/ _______________________________ To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/ ***************************************************************** 12 [NYTr] US Push for Immediate, Unilteral Airstrikes on Korea Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:40:50 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by mart - Oct 10, 2006 US push for immediate, uniliateral, unsanctioned air strikes on Korea. ["PENTAGON hawks will try to persuade US President George W. Bush he should order immediate military air strikes to obliterate North Korean nuclear sites. Australian National University defence expert Ron Huisken said Mr Bush's chief advisers would be gunning for action without waiting for a lead from the United Nations. 'The President will receive some advice to the effect that it is better not to wait, that there will not be a clearer trigger point than what we have now,' said Dr Huisken, senior fellow at the ANU's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre." ] The Herald-Sun (Australia) via News.Com.Au - October 10, 2006 12:00am http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21811,20553645-663,00.html US push for air strikes By Mark Dunn PENTAGON hawks will try to persuade US President George W. Bush he should order immediate military air strikes to obliterate North Korean nuclear sites. Australian National University defence expert Ron Huisken said Mr Bush's chief advisers would be gunning for action without waiting for a lead from the United Nations. "The President will receive some advice to the effect that it is better not to wait, that there will not be a clearer trigger point than what we have now," said Dr Huisken, senior fellow at the ANU's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. "I suspect (Vice-President Dick) Cheney and (Defence Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld might argue we now know (they've got the bomb) and we've got to do this some time. "I think they have an eye also on Iran. You certainly can't rule (an attack) out." The ANU centre's director, Robert Ayson, said the stakes were high. He said the problem the US faced in attacking would be North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's promise to turn South Korean capital Seoul into "a sea of fire" and the potential for it to launch missiles on Japan. Dr Ayson said the US had 37,000 troops in South Korea and casualties would be high. Pyongyang had an estimated 80,000 artillery pieces concentrated on the area and may use non-conventional chemical weapons. Despite the risks, Dr Ayson, a specialist in North Asian strategy, said the US military option was a real possibility, given Mr Bush has said he could not tolerate a nuclear North Korea. "Military action is now more likely after the test, but is probably less than 50 per cent (likely)," Dr Ayson said. US intelligence sources said the Bush Administration was considering naval action around North Korea, stopping short of a blockade but intercepting and inspecting all ships off the peninsula. Analysts estimate North Korea may have enough nuclear material for a dozen weapons and has built two or three, but is yet to miniaturise them enough for long-range missiles. The major threat its nuclear capacity posed was the potential for it to sell a bomb to a terrorist group that would sail it to a US port, or the possibility for it to drop a device from an aircraft over a major city. The regime has claimed to have had nuclear arms since 1995; they are mainly plutonium-based but North Korea is also known to be developing uranium-based material. Dr Huisken said China would be angered by North Korea ignoring its demands in recent weeks not to conduct the test -- a factor that should lead to quick agreement by the UN Security Council for economic and diplomatic sanctions against the regime. "For the first time in four years Seoul, Beijing, Tokyo and Washington would be prepared to agree that this is an intolerable development," Dr Huisken said. "I think the hardest part will be to agree on how far to go." But US military strikes could eventuate if the UN process gets bogged down, military analyst Derek Woolner said. "Military action is possible but it is more important to get a strong international diplomatic response," he said. China, North Korea's main ally and benefactor, would now increase its pressure on Pyongyang, including the possibility of withdrawing financial and food support, which could leave millions more North Koreans at risk of starvation. Mr Woolner said the nuclear crisis might also drive the US and China closer together. Iran, which continues to ignore international pleas to abandon its nuclear program, is also likely to be encouraged if North Korea is not dealt with harshly. Mr Woolner said the US and Australia had been concerned for some time about North Korea's desire to spread missile technology and the potential for it to share its nuclear developments with Iran and others. Mr Woolner said the US would redouble its efforts to destabilise Kim Jong-il from within North Korea, but its isolation made that prospect difficult and he faced no established opposition. "There are continuing whispers about just how strong his grasp on power is," Mr Woolner said. But others, including Dr Ayson, believe the military leadership in Pyongyang fully supports North Korea's entry into the nuclear arms club. * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 13 [NYTr] Overstretched US Has Few Options over N.Korean Test Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:42:42 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Simon McGuinness The Independent - 10 October 2006 http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article1826289.ece America is stretched in the war on terror, and its options over Pyongyang are limited The move had been anticipated - a well-nigh inevitable climax to years of failed diplomacy by Rupert Cornwell It is unrecorded whether the famously early-to-bed US President had to be woken from his sleep when his national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, brought the news at 10pm on Sunday. But the announcement by North Korea that it had just carried out its first nuclear test can surely have come as no surprise for George Bush. Ever since last Tuesday, when Pyongyang said it planned a test and US satellites detected unusual activity at the suspected site in the north-east of the country, diplomatic speculation had been intense that a test was imminent. But in the longer term too, the move had been anticipated - a well-nigh inevitable climax to years of failed diplomacy between the world's lone superpower and the paranoid, obsessively secretive Communist regime that governs the northern half of the Korean peninsula. In the end, one senior US diplomat said yesterday: "There was just no stopping them." Ever since Pyongyang in 1993 declared it would leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the White House has wrestled how to deal with the challenge posed by North Korea, as a nuclear armed state that would threaten not only America's close ally South Korea, where up to 37,000 US troops are based, and whose new weapons would raise the spectre of a wider nuclear arms race in east Asia. Bill Clinton offered a deal, of two peaceful nuclear power stations and other aid to North Korea in exchange for a freeze, and subsequent abandonment, of Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programme. In 1999 the US went so far as to relax sanctions, and in 2000 Madeleine Albright became the first secretary of state to visit the North. But the agreement fell apart amid mutual accusations of backsliding, and when Mr Bush became President the following year, hard-liners in the new Republican administration resolved on a much tougher line, rejecting all contact with the Communist regime in Pyongyang until it demonstrably scrapped its weapons programme. Then came 9/11 and Mr Bush's naming of North Korea in his 2002 State of the Union address as a member alongside Iraq and Iran of the "axis of evil". But in late 2002, with the world's attention fixed on the impending US invasion of Iraq, North Korea staged its own pre-emptive strike, expelling the remaining United Nations inspectors and departing from the NPT, this time for good. The past three years have seen a variety of initiatives, most notably a framework of six-nation talks that in late 2005 fleetingly seemed to have extracted a promise by the North to give up its quest for nuclear weapons. However, those hopes faded after barely 24 hours. The six-nation process came to a standstill. A North Korean nuclear test, demonstrating Pyongyang's refusal to capitulate to what it saw as a US-orchestrated campaign to destroy its regime, was the logical outcome. The basic point of disagreement was ostensibly merely one of timing. The North insisted that the US must sign a non-aggression pact and a comprehensive aid package before it ended its nuclear programme. For Washington, it was exactly the other way around; first the North had to scrap its quest for weapons, and only then would it hold bilateral talks about an economic and security package. But that stern line masks uncomfortable truths, which Mr Bush tacitly acknowledged in his statement. The President's language was outwardly uncompromising: the North's behaviour had been "provocative" and "unacceptable". Most important, he declared that Washington was still committed to diplomacy. As he had to, because even the mightiest nation on earth, has no good military options. Like his predecessor Mr Clinton (who came close to ordering strikes on the North's nuclear sites), Mr Bush has concluded, however reluctantly, that there is no good military option - short of an inconceivable nuclear strike to obliterate not just the nuclear programme but North Korea's huge conventional forces as well. Anything less would trigger war on the Korean peninsula, the most heavily armed region on the planet where 1.2 million North Korean troops deployed against a 650,000-strong force from the South. Despite the 1953 armistice that ended the 1950-1953 Korean War, no peace treaty has been signed. Seoul, the South Korean capital, is within artillery range of the border, and would be effectively impossible to defend in the event of an attack by the North. The US, desperately stretched by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but which still has 30,000 troops in the South, would be dragged into a major ground war. But if a military solution is not feasible, the diplomatic route will scarcely be simpler. Washington is demanding immediate action by the UN. Whether China and Russia, both veto-wielding powers in the Security Council, will agree to meaningful sanctions is doubtful. China, supplier of energy and food to the North, has more leverage than anyone. But if there is one thing Beijing fears more than a nuclear North Korea, it is a failed North Korea. Somehow Washington must square this circle and dissuade Japan, South Korea and Taiwan from seeking their own nuclear weapons. In the end there may be no alternative to what the Bush administration has said it will never do - negotiate. "It is not appeasement to talk to your enemies," James Baker, secretary of state under the first President Bush, said at the weekend. Mr Baker was referring to Iran and Syria. But his words could apply equally to North Korea. * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 14 Guardian Unlimited: White House Rejects North Korea Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday October 11, 2006 12:46 AM AP Photo WHCD116 By DEB RIECHMANN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration rejected anew Tuesday direct talks with North Korea and said it would not be intimidated by a reported threat from Pyongyang that it could fire a nuclear-tipped missile unless the U.S. acts to resolve the standoff. ``This is the way North Korea typically negotiates by threat and intimidation,'' said U.S. Ambassador John Bolton. ``It's worked for them before. It won't work for them now.'' The White House said, meanwhile, there is a ``remote possibility'' that the world never will be able to fully determine whether North Korea succeeded in conducting a nuclear test Monday. While acknowledging that the action was provocative, White House press secretary Tony Snow suggested that it's possible that the test was something less than it appeared. ``You could have something that is very old and off-the-shelf here, as well, in which case they've dusted off something that is old and dormant,'' he said. The comment appeared to indicate that the White House was attempting to downplay the significance of the test, but Snow said later that he was merely posing a hypothetical question. While Democrats claimed the test was evidence of a failed U.S. policy, Snow argued that the test has left the nations involved in the six-party negotiations with the communist regime more unified and determined to convince Pyongyang incentives to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions. He also denied that the demands of the war in Iraq hampered the Bush administration's ability to dissuade North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. ``The Chinese, the South Koreans, the Japanese - they all have more direct leverage over the North Koreans than we do,'' Snow said. ``The people who have the greatest ability to influence behavior are now fully invested in equal partners in a process to deal with the government of North Korea.'' North Korea stepped up its threats, saying it could fire a nuclear nuclear-tipped missile unless the U.S. acts, the Yonhap news agency reported Tuesday from Beijing. But even if Pyongyang is confirmed to have nuclear weapons, experts say it's unlikely the North has a bomb design small and light enough to be mounted atop a missile. Asked about the Yonhap report, Bolton said, ``Well, I think it's been perfectly obvious for quite some time that North Korea has been seeking a delivery capability for its nuclear weapons. It's one reason why as far back as 2001, President Bush led the effort to get the United States out from under the restrictions of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, so we could build missile defense against precisely this kind of threat.'' In response to North Korea's purported nuclear test, the United States is pressing at the United Nations for stringent sanctions on Pyongyang, including a trade ban on military and luxury items, the power to inspect all cargo entering or leaving the country, and freezing assets connected with its weapons programs. Meanwhile, Democratic New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former U.S. ambassador who has visited North Korea, said the Bush administration should abandon its long-standing refusal to engage in direct talks with North Korea. He said President Bush was right to seek sanctions against North Korea in the U.N., but should next move to direct talks with the reclusive nation. In taking that stance, Richardson echoed the message that former Secretary of State James A. Baker III said Sunday, as Baker urged the administration to talk directly to adversaries around the world. The administration has been attempting for years to get more countries to join its anti-proliferation initiative, aimed at stopping countries like North Korea from selling nuclear weaponry and missiles. But it has refused one of North Korea's key demands: that the United States engage in direct one-on-one talks. Instead the administration insists on sticking to the so-called six-party format, where Russia, China, South Korea and Japan have joined the United States in talking to North Korea. Bolton, interviewed on CNN and on CBS' ``The Early Show,'' said that if North Korea wanted to talk with the U.S., it needed to rejoin the six-party talks. ``If they want to talk to us, all they have to do is buy a plane ticket to Beijing,'' where the talks have been stalled for months, Bolton said. ``The North Koreans can talk to us anytime they want on a bilateral basis if they come back to the six-party talks, which they have been boycotting.'' Bolton cast the standoff with Pyongyang as one ``between North Korea and the rest of the world'' that will result in sanctions or more if the rogue nation does not restart talks with the international community. Asked about the possibility of U.S. military action against North Korea, including a possible naval blockade, Bolton said, ``Well, we're not at that point yet.'' ``We keep the military option on the table because North Korea needs to know that, but President Bush has been very clear he wants this resolved peacefully and diplomatically,'' Bolton said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 15 Guardian Unlimited: The moment North Korea became a nuclear player Jonathan Watts in Beijing and Ewen MacAskill Tuesday October 10, 2006 The Guardian [A member of staff at Japan's meteorological agency shows the point on a seismograph where North Korea’s nuclear test was registered] A member of staff at Japan's meteorological agency shows the point on a seismograph where North Korea’s nuclear test was registered. Photograph: Katsumi Kasahara/AP International efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons suffered a severe setback yesterday when North Korea claimed it had successfully conducted its first nuclear weapons explosion. After meeting in emergency session, the UN security council unanimously condemned the test and began negotiations on imposing tougher sanctions against Kim Jong-il's reclusive state. Measures under discussion range from an arms ban to a naval blockade. The US last night proposed sanctions that included a trade ban on military and luxury items, the power to inspect all cargo entering or leaving the country, and freezing assets connected with its weapons programmes. Japan proposed that North Korean ships and planes should be banned from foreign ports and airports. The country's prime minister, Shinzo Abe, warned that North Korea had ushered in "a dangerous nuclear age" in the region. George Bush, who four years ago labelled the regime part of the "axis of evil", described the explosion as "unacceptable". The president, who telephoned Pyongyang's neighbours, South Korea, China, Russia and Japan, added: "Once again, North Korea has defied the will of the international community. The international community will respond." He put North Korea on notice that any transfer of nuclear weapons or material to another state or group would be considered "a grave threat to the US". The test, which wrecks 12 years of diplomatic negotiation, will upset the balance of power in eastern Asia and will almost certainly instigate a prolonged period of instability in the region. North Korea has said repeatedly that it would regard sanctions as an act of war. Its Central News Agency declared as a triumph the half-a-kilotonne explosion, thought have taken place two kilometres down in an abandoned mine in the north-east of the country. "The nuclear test is a historic event that brought happiness to our military and people," the agency said. "It will contribute to maintaining peace and stability in the Korean peninsula and surrounding region." It said there had been no radioactive leakage from the site. Pyongyang, which had threatened the weapons test since last week, went ahead in defiance of calls worldwide. There is no independent verification of the nuclear explosion but the US Geological Survey said a magnitude 4.2 seismic event was registered on the peninsula at 10.37. If the test was successful, North Korea will have become the ninth member of the nuclear weapons club, destroying years of negotiation aimed at trying to persuade it to abandon its atomic programme. Early indications were that the blast was less than half as powerful as the bombs dropped by America on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of the second world war. The French government, noting the relative smallness of the blast, questioned whether the test had been as successful as Pyongyang had hoped. But Sergei Ivanov, the Russian defence minister, said: "We have no doubt that it was a nuclear explosion." The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, added: "It doesn't just concern North Korea. Enormous damage has been done to the process of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." Using reprocessed fuel from the Yongbyon nuclear reactor, North Korea is thought to have produced enough plutonium for at least six bombs. In July, Pyongyang test-fired a missile that would have brought Alaska and Hawaii in range, but defence analysts believe it exploded shortly after being fired. The analysts also doubt whether North Korea possesses the miniaturising technology to mount and deliver a warhead on a rocket. The timing of the test may have been for internal domestic reasons, but it could also have been aimed at spoiling South Korea's quiet celebration yesterday after the UN security council nominated its foreign minister, Ban Ki-moon, as the new UN secretary general. North Korea's leadership would have been unhappy at the choice of its southern neighbour for such a high-profile international post. Mr Ban, due to take over on January 1, will have to police sanctions on North Korea and try to restart negotiations, a task made much more difficult by his nationality. In Tokyo, Mr Abe called for "harsh measures" against Pyongyang. "The development and possession of nuclear weapons by North Korea will in a major way transform the security environment in north Asia and we will be entering a new, dangerous nuclear age," he said. China - a traditional ally of Pyongyang and the main source of energy and food to its already impoverished population of 22 million - called the test a "flagrant and brazen" violation of international opinion. South Korea, which has pursued a softly-softly policy with its bellicose neighbour, threatened to "respond sternly" to the provocation. A foreign ministry spokesman warned the North that its troops had been put on alert. Analysts said the South Korean president, Roh Moo-hyun, would come under pressure to drop the so-called "sunshine policy" of engagement with the North. The Associated Press agency reported that in Pyongyang people went about their lives as usual yesterday. The country's state television read the report about the test during its regular newscasts, but it was not the top news item. Useful links Korea Herald (South) North Korean Central News Agency World Food Programme History of the Korean war - tcsaz.com CIA factbook: North Korea CIA factbook: South Korea [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 16 Guardian: US not to blame for North Korea nuclear test, says Bolton China angry but reluctant to impose sanctions Staff and agencies Tuesday October 10, 2006 The international response to North Korea's nuclear test was in the balance today after China appeared to hint that it opposes immediate sanctions against the reclusive Stalinist state. China's foreign ministry reiterated its great annoyance at Pyongyang's announcement yesterday that it had tested a nuclear device underground, labelling this "flagrantly" in disregard of international opposition. But the foreign ministry spokesman, Liu Jianchao said it was not the right time to discuss "the negative issue of punishment". "Instead, the international community and the United Nations should take positive and appropriate measures that will help the process of de-nuclearisation on the Korean peninsula," Liu told reporters. He refused to answer specific questions about whether China would support or oppose sanctions. The UN security council is considering a draft resolution imposing tough trade and financial sanctions against North Korea, an option strongly backed by the United States. China's backing is crucial. As well as holding a veto in the security council, Beijing has long been Pyongyang's closest ally as well as its primary source of fuel and food. Beijing's attitude remains uncertain. A South Korean envoy, who returned from talks in the Chinese capital today, said he thought attitudes had hardened and the country may now consider sanctions. "I think (China) will employ all available means to prevent North Korea from further aggravating the situation and to bring them back into diplomatic efforts," Chun Young-woo said. The US is pressing for tough action, with its ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, labelling Kim Jong-Il's impoverished regime "a very serious threat to international peace and security". "North Korea has supplied weapons to states in the Middle East that are supporters of terrorism. Our fear is North Korea itself could supply a nuclear device to a terrorist group," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Mr Bolton dismissed the notion that Pyongyang was driven to carry out a nuclear test by being labelled as part of the "axis of evil", saying those who believed this should "get a life". "The North Koreans have been pursuing nuclear weapons for at least 10 to 12 years," he said. "They signed the agreed framework in 1994, promising to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and then began violating the agreement almost before the ink was dry. This has nothing whatever to do with the 'axis of evil' statement." Yesterday, Mr Bolton asked the UN security council to adopt new sanctions against Pyongyang, including the prohibition of all trade in military and luxury goods and a crackdown on illegal financial dealings. Despite near-unanimous condemnation of North Korea's test - Iran took a different view, blaming Washington for the crisis - there appears to be little appetite for military threats against a country which possesses a million-strong military as well as a nuclear capability. South Korea's prime minister, Han Myung-sook, said today that Seoul would not support a UN resolution including a threat of military force against North Korea, telling parliament: "There should never be war on the Korean Peninsula." The British prime minister, Tony Blair, described the test as a "very, very serious situation". He urged North Korea to focus instead on tackling poverty. "The people live in virtual starvation, almost a form of political oppression akin to slavery, and meanwhile they spend billions of dollars on a nuclear weapons programme," Mr Blair told BBC Breakfast today. A defiant North Korea meanwhile, stoked tensions by threatening a further test - this time using a nuclear-armed missile -- if the US did not engage in direct talks. "We hope the situation will be resolved before an unfortunate incident of us firing a nuclear missile comes," an unnamed North Korean was quoted as saying by South Korea's Yonhap news agency. Most experts believe that, even if Pyongyang has useable nuclear warheads, they are not small and light enough to fit on a missile. The country's long-range missile capability also remains in question after a test rocket appeared to malfunction shortly following take-off in July. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 17 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., N. Korea Barreling Toward Showdown From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday October 10, 2006 9:16 AM AP Photo NY107 By GEORGE GEDDA Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - In October of 2000, all seemed possible in U.S. relations with North Korea. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made a groundbreaking visit to the North Korean capital to explore a missile deal with Chairman Kim Jong Il. There was even talk of a visit by President Clinton. Six years later, the memory of Albright and Kim raising glasses to one another seems almost surreal as the two countries barrel toward what may be a serious showdown. President Bush has labeled as ``unacceptable'' North Korea's claim that it conducted an underground nuclear weapons test over the weekend. He said the test ``constitutes a threat to international peace and security'' - the type of diplomatic wording that often foreshadows decisive action. In the long and usually frosty history of U.S.-North Korean relations, the current tensions may not be comparable to any period since the 1950-53 Korean War, which ended with an armistice. Efforts by North and South Koreans to formally end that conflict with a peace agreement have failed. The Albright visit clearly was a high point, but nothing came of the possible missile deal and Clinton never did make his proposed end-of-term visit to Pyongyang. Any hopes for reconciliation with Kim Jong Il's regime under Bush dissipated quickly, highlighted by his inclusion of North Korea in early 2002 in an international ``axis of evil,'' along with Iran and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The sense of unease over the North Korean atomic test, apparently in the northeastern part of the country, evoked memories of the spring of 1994, when Pyongyang systematically curbed U.N. monitoring activities at its main nuclear site. ``We all thought we were going to war,'' said Lt. Gen. Howell Estes, the senior U.S. Air Force officer in South Korea at the time. He was quoted by Don Oberdorfer, a veteran Korea watcher in his book, ``The Two Koreas.'' A hastily-arranged, calm-the-waters visit to Pyongyang by former President Carter in June 1994 helped ease tensions. A breakthrough occurred in October 1994 when U.S. negotiators persuaded North Korea to freeze its nuclear program, with onsite monitoring by U.N. inspectors. In exchange, the United States, with input from South Korea and Japan, promised major steps to ease North Korea's acute energy shortage. These commitments were inherited by the Bush administration, which made clear almost from the outset the threat posed by the hundreds of thousands of troops on permanent duty along the Demilitarized Zone with South Korea. Trust between the two countries, never high to begin with, hit a low point in October 2002 when the State Department charged that North Korea had violated the 1994 agreement by secretly pursuing nuclear weapons through a uranium enrichment program. In the ensuing months, North Korea defiantly ejected U.N. nuclear monitors, withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and restarted a nuclear reactor that U.S. officials said was designed to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. In the U.S., there was an undercurrent of partisanship over the issue. Democrats blamed administration policies for the increasing tensions in Asia and insisted on direct U.S.-North Korean talks. The administration countered that direct U.S.-North Korean discussions in 1994 under Clinton ended with an agreement that was brazenly flouted by Pyongyang not long after it was signed. In 2003, the administration began seeking North Korean nuclear disarmament through a six-nation negotiation. In September 2005, the six countries seemed to make substantial progress on a deal for the verifiable dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear program in exchange for steps to ease the country's economic isolation. But Pyongyang has been boycotting the talks since last November, blaming financial sanctions imposed by Washington. James Lilley, a Reagan era ambassador to China and South Korea, says Bush won't respond to the current crisis the way Clinton did to the one in 1994. The difference, he said, is that people now aren't thinking of ``buying them off, so much as thinking of making them pay a price.'' Daniel Poneman, a senior National Security Council official under Clinton, says direct talks without conditions are in order. ``I believe that it's very much in our interest to express our views directly, especially to a regime as isolated as this one,'' he says. --- On the Net: CIA World Factbook on North Korea: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 18 Guardian Unlimited: China May Be Losing Patience With NKorea From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday October 10, 2006 12:01 PM AP Photo XGB121 By WILLIAM FOREMAN Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - China's patience with its longtime ally North Korea appeared to be wearing thin on Tuesday as Beijing warned Pyongyang that its staging of a nuclear test would harm the two countries' relations. Fears of a new regional nuclear arms race eased when Japan's leader said his nation still had no intention of seeking atomic weapons. China's Foreign Ministry said North Korea's nuclear test would damage ties between the allies who sided against American-led U.N. forces in the Korean War. ``The nuclear test will undoubtedly exert a negative impact on our relations,'' Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told reporters. But Liu added that China is ``firmly against'' a military strike against the North. ``Taking military action against North Korea would be unimaginable,'' he said. China also has long opposed sanctions sought by countries such as the United States, which is pressing for potentially crippling new measures against Pyongyang. A permanent U.N. Security Council member, China has a decisive say over how stern a punishment the international community can mete out to North Korea. A South Korean envoy, returning to Seoul from Beijing, said Tuesday that China appeared to be leaning toward backing strong U.N. measures. The North stepped up its threats aimed at Washington, saying it could fire a nuclear nuclear-tipped missile unless the United States acts to resolve its standoff with Pyongyang, the Yonhap news agency reported Tuesday from Beijing. Even if Pyongyang is confirmed to have nuclear weapons, experts say it's unlikely the North has a bomb design small and light enough to be mounted atop a missile. Their long-range missile capability also remains in question, after a test rocket in July apparently fizzled out shortly after takeoff. ``We hope the situation will be resolved before an unfortunate incident of us firing a nuclear missile comes,'' Yonhap quoted an unidentified North Korean official as saying. ``That depends on how the U.S. will act.'' The official said the nuclear test was ``an expression of our intention to face the United States across the negotiating table,'' reported Yonhap, which didn't say how or where it contacted the official, or why no name was given. But Alexander Vershbow, the U.S. ambassador to South Korea, told reporters that the nuclear test would make the possibility of direct talks between Washington and Pyongyang more difficult, Yonhap reported. The U.N. Security Council was weighing a U.S. proposal for potentially crippling sanctions. America has asked the council to adopt a measure that would aim to curb the North's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, prohibit all trade in military and luxury goods, and crack down on illegal financial dealings. There have been worries that the reported nuclear test would prompt Japan to build its own bomb. But Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told lawmakers Japan's anti-nuclear policy would remain unchanged. ``There will be no change in our non-nuclear arms principles,'' Abe said. Japan's pacifist constitution bars the use of force to settle international disputes, and Japan has maintained a policy of not producing, possessing or using nuclear weapons. South Korea said that it believed the North had exploded a nuclear device on Monday, but officials claimed that it might take up to two weeks to confirm whether the test was successful. Although the reported test drew worldwide condemnation and talk of harsh sanctions, the South said it would stick with its efforts to engage the North, though the policy would be reviewed. North Korea celebrated a holiday Tuesday marking the 61st anniversary of the Workers' Party of Korea. There was no traffic across a key bridge on a border river between China and North Korea. China canceled leave for its soldiers along the North Korean border and some units were conducting anti-chemical weapons drills, the pro-Beijing Wen Wei Po reported in Hong Kong. The paper didn't elaborate. There was no sign of heightened security in the Chinese border city of Dandung, and reporters saw two boatloads of North Korean tourists on the river, smiling and waving to people on the Chinese shore. ---- Associated Press Writers Kwang-Tae Kim in Seoul, Kana Inagaki in Tokyo, Alexa Olesen in Beijing, Greg Baker in Dandong, China. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 19 Guardian Unlimited: N.Korea Faces Another Round of Sanctions From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday October 10, 2006 11:16 AM AP Photo XGB115 By HANS GREIMEL Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea faces another round of sanctions for staging a nuclear test, but more punitive measures may not go far against an impoverished regime with little left to lose. The potency of possible new restrictions is a wild card in the efforts of the U.N. Security Council, the United States and its allies to contain North Korea's nuclear ambitions and coax it back to negotiations. International sanctions are ``not effective at all,'' said Paik Hak-soon, a North Korea analyst at the Sejong Institute outside Seoul. ``North Korea has already tested the bomb and has long expected this response.'' The United States, Japan and others have slapped a series of sanctions on Pyongyang over its nuclear program in recent years. And the countries had indicated that similar consequences would be in store over a nuclear test, long before Monday's still unconfirmed detonation. Actions already taken range from blacklisting North Korean banks and restricting port entry of its ships to backing a global ban on trading some military technology with the North. After the crackdown, trade with Japan alone tumbled 85 percent, to a paltry $195 million last year, from 2001. Yet North Korea went ahead and tested anyway. ``The truth is, there is little that Washington or Tokyo can do, politically or financially, that has not already been done,'' Ralph Cossa, president of the Honolulu-based Pacific Forum, wrote in a report on the standoff. North Korea also has scoffed at more sanctions. ``We have lost enough,'' a North Korean official in Beijing was quoted as saying by South Korea's Yonhap news agency. ``Sanctions can never be a solution.'' But increasing sanctions may be all that's left. Military action or a strategic airstrike against North Korea is riskier than ever in the face of atomic retaliation. Tougher measures hinge on whether China and Russia - the North's closest allies - support them. South Korea, which has long pursued a policy of engagement with its neighbor to ease tensions, is also a weak link, cautious not to spoil hard-won goodwill with its former enemy and further upset regional stability. Measures under consideration at the United Nations include international inspection of all cargo to and from North Korea to limit the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and blanket bans on luxury and military goods and any material that could be used in the production of weapons of mass destruction. A U.S. draft resolution contains tough new proposals from Japan to ban all countries from allowing in North Korean ships or aircraft carrying arms, nuclear or ballistic missile-related material or luxury goods. The Japanese proposals also would impose travel restrictions on high-ranking North Korean officials and create a Security Council committee to monitor implementation of sanctions. The U.N. Security Council can authorize a range of measures under Chapter 7, from breaking diplomatic ties and imposing economic and military sanctions to taking military action to restore peace. In 2000, the United States eased a blanket ban on U.S. exports to North Korea dating to 1950 in an effort to improve relations. Reinstating the ban remains an option. Legitimate trade has fueled modest North Korean economic growth in recent years after a dismal 1990s. Trade with China has climbed for five consecutive years, doubling over the period to $1.58 billion, according to the most recent figures from South Korea's Unification Ministry. Commerce with the South more than doubled, to $1.05 billion. So effective sanctions are also risky, posing the danger of triggering a collapse of North Korea's teetering economy. ``If the North is further weakened there is a possibility that the North could destabilize and use the military option as a stopgap measure to maintain control,'' said Michael Williams, head of the trans-Atlantic program at the Royal United Services Institute, a defense think tank. ``In many senses it is preferable to have a strong state in control of nuclear weapons, because at least there is some hierarchy and structure.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea's nuclear policy is not irrational at all Comment is free | We are heading towards another pre-emptive war and Japanese nuclear weapons unless pressure for disarmament revives Dan Plesch Tuesday October 10, 2006 North Korea's is only the latest failure of the west's proliferation policy. And it demonstrates the need to return to the proven methods of multilateral disarmament. Far from being crazy, the North Korean policy is quite rational. Faced with a US government that the communist regime should be from the map, the North Koreans ahead with building a . George Bush stopped the oil supplies to North Korea that had been part of a framework to end its nuclear programme previously agreed with Bill Clinton. Bush had threatened - Iraq-style - against a regime he dubbed as belonging to the . The background to North Korea's test is that, since the end of the cold war, the nuclear states have tried to impose a , hanging on to nuclear weapons for themselves and their friends while denying them to others. Like alcoholics condemning teenage drinking, the nuclear powers have made the spread of nuclear weapons the terror of our age, distracting attention from their own behaviour. Western leaders refuse to accept that our own actions encourage others to follow suit. North Korea's action has now increased the number of nuclear weapon states to nine. Since 1998 India, Pakistan and now North Korea have joined America, China, France, Russia, Israel and the UK. The domino effect is all too obvious. Britain wants nuclear weapons so long as the French do. India said it would build one if there were no multilateral disarmament talks. Pakistan followed rapidly. In Iran and the Arab world Israel's bomb had always been an incentive to join in. But for my Iranian friends, waking up to a Pakistani bomb can be compared to living in a non-nuclear Britain and waking up to find Belgium had tested a nuclear weapon. East Asia is unlikely to be different. In 2002 Japan's then chief cabinet secretary, Yasuo , told reporters that "depending on the world situation, circumstances and public opinion could require Japan to possess nuclear weapons". The deputy cabinet secretary at the time, Shinzo - now Japan's prime minister - said afterwards that it would be acceptable for Japan to develop small, strategic nuclear weapons. It was not supposed to be like this. At the end of the cold war, disarmament treaties were being signed, and in 1996 the big powers finally agreed to stop testing nuclear weapons for the first time since 1945. The public, the pressure groups and the media all breathed a great sigh of relief and forgot about the bomb. Everyone thought that with the Soviet Union gone, multilateral disarmament would accelerate. But with public attention elsewhere, the Dr Strangeloves in Washington, Moscow and Paris stopped the disarmament process and invented new ideas requiring new nuclear weapons. A decade ago, Clinton's placed "non-state actors" (ie terrorists) on the list of likely targets for US nuclear weapons. Now all the established nuclear states are building new nuclear weapons. The Bush administration made things worse. First, it rejected the policy of controlling armaments through treaties, which had been followed by previous presidents since 1918. Second, it proposed to use military - even - force in a pre-emptive attack to prevent proliferation. This policy was used as a pretext for attacking Iraq and may now be used on either Iran or North Korea. More pre-emptive war will produce suffering and chaos, while nothing is done about India, Israel and Pakistan. So we are left with a policy of vigilante bravado for which we have sacrificed the methods of weapons control. Fortunately, there is a realistic option. Max , Ronald Reagan's nuclear negotiator, has proposed that Washington's top priority should be the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction on earth, including those possessed by the US. At the ongoing disarmament meetings at the UN, the of nations argue for a phased process to achieve this goal. They can point to the success of the UN inspectors in Iraq as proof that international inspection can work, even in the toughest cases. The Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty that removed the missiles from Greenham is an example of an agreement no one thought possible that worked completely. This, and other legacies from the cold war, can and . A group of Britain's closest allies, including and , are trying to broker a deal on global disarmament. Tragically, Britain won't be helping. Political parties and the media are deaf to these initiatives. The three main parties all follow more or less the US approach. They know that no US government will lease the UK a successor to Trident if London steps out of line on nuclear weapons policy. The media almost never report on UN disarmament debates. Disarmament has become the word that dare not be said in polite society. Do we have to wait for another pre-emptive war or until the Japanese go nuclear before the British political class comes to realise that there can be a soft landing from these nuclear crises? · Dan Plesch, a fellow at the School of Oriental and African Studies and Keele University, is the author of Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR · ***************************************************************** 21 Guardian Unlimited: Accept North Korea into the nuclear club or bomb it now Comment is free | Economic sanctions are a coward's response that would only punish the people while propping up Kim Jong-il's dictatorship Simon Jenkins Wednesday October 11, 2006 The Guardian So what now? North Korea is the fourth, possibly fifth, state to have rejected the 1970 non-proliferation treaty and proceeded towards a nuclear arsenal. The others are India, Pakistan, Israel and perhaps Iran. That makes five states in the old nuclear club (America, Russia, Britain, France and China) and five in the new one. The appropriate relationship, diplomatic, military and moral, between the two clubs is now a consuming world obsession. There is no easy answer. If strategically secure countries such as Britain and France want nuclear missiles as an ultimate line of defence, why not Iran and North Korea? Pakistan is an unstable dictatorship that has sold nuclear technology and harbours terrorists. Yet it is embraced by the west. So is India, which is about to enjoy American nuclear cooperation. Given a nuclear Israel, not just Iran but conceivably Turkey and Egypt are pondering a bomb. Japan may similarly react to the North Korean test. Where is the moral compass to guide us through this? There is none. There is only opportunism. The big five have had nuclear weapons for half a century and refuse to give them up, dishonouring the 1970 treaty's second pillar on disarmament. Of the other nuclear and quasi-nuclear powers, Israel, India and Pakistan are regarded as vaguely reliable, Iran a headache and North Korea a nightmare. The treaty was always hypocritical, policed by those states whose security it confirmed. It has been a vehicle of superpower convenience. A nuclear bomb is a bizarre weapon, so awful as to have been used in only two attacks, in 1945. Since then, its owners have thankfully rendered it irrelevant by disuse, but in doing so have deprived it of deterrent effect. Britain's bomb did not deter Argentina from invading the Falklands, nor was America's massive arsenal a deterrent in Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia or Iraq. Possessing such bombs is largely a matter of status. The operative word is largely. When nuclear missiles were brandished by the Soviet Union, the west lived in an under standable state of terror. That Russia and China have abandoned their goal of communist imperialism is an immense relief. Inducing that abandonment was the objective of the cold war policy of "containment and engagement", and it worked. The thesis of Tony Blair and John Reid that Britain is currently more at risk than since Hitler is ludicrous (and a poor comment on MI6 briefing). For all the science fiction hokum surrounding "suitcase bombs" and "terrorist WMDs", building and delivering a nuclear bomb is a massive industrial and military exercise requiring the concerted energy of a nation-state. So-called dirty bombs, or biological and chemical weapons, should never be put in the same category. They are nothing like as dangerous and have proved ineffective. What is more alarming is that North Korea appears to possess both the wherewithal to build a working bomb and the long-range missiles to deliver it. Kim Jong-il is acquiring effective nuclear capability. At this point the argument moves from capability to intent. The west has not moved against India or Pakistan because it does not see them as threats. Iran's ruling elite is devious but not mad. President Ahmedinejad's cat-and-mouse game with United Nations inspectors is about national pride and self-promotion, not a craving for war. True, his regime has preached the destruction of Israel and has armed insurgents across the Middle East, but nuclear blackmail has no plausible part in this strategy, which is chauvinistic bombast. Iran is a big, pluralist country, a classic case for containment and engagement, not ostracism and war. For it to own a bomb would be deplorable, but no more or less dangerous than Pakistan having one. North Korea is a different matter. It is reasonable to ask why Britain and America went to war against "weapons of mass destruction" in the wrong country - Iraq - in 2003. It is also reasonable to wonder whether the present crisis might have been avoided had George Bush not wrecked President Clinton's mild engagement policy towards North Korea and opted instead for belligerence and rhetoric. But that is history. There is no knowing what Kim might now do. If preventing him from acquiring a bomb was a legitimate goal of UN policy, so must be removing it in advance of deployment under chapter seven of the UN charter. Asking, demanding, bribing and threatening have all failed. The whole UN security council is appalled by Kim's disregard for world opinion. China may increase the diplomatic screw but there is no way of stopping a determined state, even one as destitute as North Korea, from doing what it wants if it can. The stupidest policy would be one of economic sanctions. This never works, impoverishing peoples while rendering their rulers ever more embattled and paranoid. Nothing in history so props up dictatorship as economic siege. Ask Castro, Gadafy, Saddam and the ayatollahs. The North Koreans are poor beyond the power of economic squeeze. The proposal that China devastates the country by cutting its power would merely generate starvation and mass migration. Sanctions are cowards' wars, cruel and counterproductive. In this case they are anyway too late. It is tempting to conclude that the world must just get used to a new generation of nuclear states. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, estimates that some 40 countries are on the brink of being able to make nuclear bombs. As we live with 10, perhaps we must live with 40, struggling to reduce tension, minimise risk and help guard against accidents. A nuclear accident would not be the end of the world, certainly not in the sense that an east-west nuclear exchange would have been during the cold war. We handled that threat. Perhaps learning to live with nuclear power, in all its forms, will be the great challenge of the 21st century. If this relaxed view is not viable in North Korea's case (as opposed to Iran's), there is only one sensible alternative. It is not to drag out a conflict through economic sanctions to eventual war, but to curb North Korea's ambition in the simplest possible way. Sophisticated air power, useless in counter-insurgency, has a role in the "coercive diplomacy" of non-proliferation. Israel used it effectively against Iraq's nuclear plant in 1981 and the US repeated the exercise with Operation Desert Fox in 1998 (though Bush and Blair later refused to believe it had worked). If Kim is the unstable menace he appears, his bomb-making capacity and missile sites should be removed at once with Tomahawk missiles. Fewer people would die that way than with any other pre-emptive response. simon.jenkins@guardian.co.uk Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR ***************************************************************** 22 New York Times: For U.S., a Strategic Jolt After North Koreas Test - By DAVID E. SANGERPublished: October 10, 2006 WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 — North Koreamay be a starving, friendless, authoritarian nation of 23 million people, but its apparently successful explosion of a small nuclear device in the mountains above the town of Kilju on Monday represents a defiant bid for survival and respect. For Washington and its allies, it illuminates a failure of nearly two decades of atomic diplomacy. North Korea is more than just another nation joining the nuclear club. It has never developed a weapons system it did not ultimately sell on the world market, and it has periodically threatened to sell its nuclear technology. So the end of ambiguity about its nuclear capacity foreshadows a very different era, in which the concern may not be where a nation’s warheads are aimed, but in whose hands its weapons and skill end up. As Democratswere quick to note on Monday, four weeks before a critical national election, President Bush and his aides never gave as much priority to countering a new era of proliferation as they did to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Mr. Bush and his aides contend that Iraqwas the more urgent threat, in a volatile neighborhood. But the North’s reported nuclear test now raises the question of whether it is too late for the president to make good on his promise that he would never let the world’s “worst dictators” obtain the world’s most dangerous weapons. “What it tells you is that we started at the wrong end of the ‘axis of evil,’ ” former Senator Sam Nunn, the Georgia Democrat who has spent his post-Congressional career trying to halt a new age of proliferation, said in an interview. “We started with the least dangerous of the countries, Iraq, and we knew it at the time. And now we have to deal with that.” Mr. Bush’s top national security aides declined Monday to be interviewed about whether a different strategy over the past five years might have yielded different results. But Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, has described the administration’s approach to North Korea as the mirror image of its dealings with Iraq. “You’ll recall that we were criticized daily for being too unilateral” in dealing with Saddam Hussein, Mr. Hadley said. “So here we are, working with our allies and friends, stressing diplomacy.” But at the same time, he said the administration had made a conscious decision not to draw “red lines” in dealing with Kim Jong-il’s government because “the North Koreans just walk right up to them and then step over them,” just to show they can. Other aides say that, lines or no lines, the North simply decided to race for a bomb — and finally made it. North Korea announced its nuclear breakout in early 2003, kicking out international nuclear inspectors and very publicly beginning its drive to turn its stockpiles of spent nuclear fuel rods into a small arsenal of weapons. Focused then on the coming war with Iraq, Mr. Bush and his administration chose to set no limits. But foreign policy, as Mr. Nunn says, is “all about priorities,” and until Monday the closest Mr. Bush came to drawing a red line for the North was in May 2003, when he declared that the United States and South Korea “will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea.” The Central Intelligence Agency’s estimates in the years since have been that the United States has been tolerating exactly that — a small arsenal of nuclear fuel sufficient to produce six or more weapons. Notably, Mr. Bush did not repeat that threat on Monday morning. Instead, he drew a new red line, one that appeared to tacitly acknowledge the North’s possession of weapons. The United States would regard as a “grave threat,” he said, any transfer by North Korea of nuclear material to other countries or terrorist groups, and would hold Mr. Kim’s government “fully accountable for the consequences of such actions.” To critics of Mr. Bush’s counterproliferation policy, this seemed a recognition that the North had successfully defied American, Chinese and Japanese warnings about building weapons and testing them, and was now simply trying to manage the aftermath. North Korea, it appears, is taking a page from Pakistan’s strategic playbook: it exploded its first nuclear device in 1998, endured three years of sanctions, and now has emerged as a “major non-NATO ally” of the United States. Mr. Bush’s aides say that if Mr. Kim believes he, too, can expect the world to impose a few sanctions and then lose interest in the issue, he is wrong. “He is really going to rue the day he made this decision,” Christopher R. Hill, the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, said of Mr. Kim on Monday. But Mr. Bush’s critics charge that the threat may be empty. As they see it, Mr. Kim watched the Iraq war and drew a simple lesson: that broken countries armed with nuclear weapons do not get invaded, and do not have to worry about regime change. “Think about the consequences of having declared something ‘intolerable’ and, last week, ‘unacceptable,’ and then having North Korea defy the world’s sole superpower and the Chinese and the Japanese,” said Graham Allison, the Harvardprofessor who has studied nuclear showdowns since the Cuban missile crisis. “What does that communicate to Iran, and then the rest of the world? Is it possible to communicate to Kim credibly that if he sells a bomb to Osama bin Laden, that’s it?” Mr. Allison was touching on the central dilemma facing Washington as it tries to extract itself from the morass of Iraq. Whether accurately or not, other countries around the world perceive Washington as tied down, unable or unwilling to challenge them while 140,000 troops are trying to tame a sectarian war. Divining North Korea’s true intentions is always difficult; there is no more closed society on earth. But the broad assumption inside and outside the United States government is that Mr. Kim’s first priority is the survival of his government. And the second is that without a nuclear weapon, he believes his government would have no way of staving off the larger, richer powers around it: China, Japan, South Korea and the United States. All have fought over control of the Korean Peninsula in decades past, and to Mr. Kim’s mind, presumably, the prospect that the North could lash out is the only reason they have stayed at bay. Mr. Kim may have calculated, many experts believe, that at this point there is little more that the Bush administration can do to him. The United States has imposed sanctions on his country since the end of the Korean War. The new crackdown on the banks through which the North conducts many of its illicit activities — counterfeiting, missile sales, trade in small arms — are being choked off, a step the North Korean leaders presumably see as part of a strategy of bringing them down. It may be years, or decades, before historians know whether Iraq played into Mr. Kim’s calculations about when to conduct a nuclear test. But clearly, managing simultaneous crises around the world is straining the system in Washington, and posing the Bush administration with more direct challenges than many believe it can handle at one moment. That returns Mr. Bush to the problem he faced when he came to office, and that his aides have never stopped arguing about: whether the best way to contain North Korea is to further isolate it, or to draw it out of its paranoid shell. The nuclear test may force Washington to pick a strategy. More Articles in ***************************************************************** 23 BBC: China urges UN action on N Korea Last Updated: Tuesday, 10 October 2006 [South Korean protesters burn a defaced North Korean flag] North Korea's claim sparked angry protests in the South China has called for "appropriate" UN action over North Korea's claim to have carried out a nuclear test on Monday. Beijing - traditionally Pyongyang's closest ally - said it had not ruled out UN sanctions but that military action was "unimaginable". The UN Security Council is considering a draft resolution that proposes strict financial and trade sanctions. The US ambassador to the UN said while the US would not rule out using force, it was seeking a diplomatic solution. The South Korean Prime Minister, Han Myung-sook, said Seoul would not support a resolution including a threat of military force. 'Peaceful settlement' Russia, which like China has resisted sanctions in the past, has said it is "ready to take part in joint efforts of the interested parties to arrive at a peaceful, diplomatic settlement of the situation". [graphic of underground nuclear test] The response of China - the country that holds the most influence over the isolated regime - is seen by many analysts to be key in moving the crisis forward. Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said: "This will no doubt have a negative impact on China and North Korea's relations." He said the UN should take "appropriate action" but added that China was still considering the nature of that action. However, when asked what China thought of the possibility of military action, Mr Liu told a news conference: "I think this is an unimaginable way." North Korea's neighbours remain tense in the wake of Monday's announcement. China has reportedly cancelled leave for troops along part of its border with the North, and South Korean forces have been ordered to stay alert. South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun feared the move could "spark a nuclear arms build-up in other countries" but Japan, the only nation to suffer atomic attack, has pledged that it will not develop nuclear weapons in response. 'Further communication' New Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told the Japanese parliament: "Possession of nuclear arms is not an option at all for our country." Meeting in New York, the UN Security Council has strongly condemned North Korea over its claimed test. On Tuesday the Security Council will continue to weigh up options for punitive action, and is considering a 13-point draft resolution proposed by the US, seeking targeted sanctions. The proposals include: + Halting trade in material that could be used to make weapons of mass destruction + Inspections of cargo going in and out of North Korea + The ending of financial transactions used to support nuclear proliferation + A ban on the import of luxury goods US ambassador to the UN John Bolton said that while the US would never rule out the use of force, they were seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis through the UN. "What we're seeking in this resolution in the wake of their nuclear test, is to strengthen... sanctions, make them more comprehensive, make it harder - hopefully impossible - for North Korea to proceed down the road to becoming a nuclear power with delivery capability," he said. "That would involve a range of things, cutting off their access to sensitive technology and materials, going after the financial network that exists to help them fund this sort of activity, and a range of other things as well." The US wants to see the sanctions brought under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, which means they would be mandatory and ultimately enforceable by military means. In his first public statement since the reported test, US President Bush said the North Korean claim "constitutes a threat to international peace and security." Only Iran, which also faces Security Council action over its failure to suspend its uranium enrichment programme - has voiced support for North Korea. The underground test reportedly took place in Gilju in Hamgyong province at 1036 (0136 GMT) on Monday morning. Scientists in South Korea say they believe the North's claim is genuine, but are trying to get further confirmation. The size of the bomb is still uncertain, with estimates varying from 550 tons of destructive power to as much as 15 kilotons. If confirmed, the test will give North Korea a place as a nuclear power alongside the US, Russia, Britain, France, India, Pakistan and China. Israel is also widely believed to have nuclear capabilities. But correspondents say that just because Pyongyang has nuclear capabilities, it does not necessarily have a fully-fledged nuclear bomb, or a warhead that it can deliver to a target. ***************************************************************** 24 BBC: UN ponders North Korea sanctions Last Updated: Wednesday, 11 October 2006 [South Koreans] South Koreans have been avidly following news of their neighbour Diplomats have not yet agreed on the sanctions North Korea should face, two days after the country reportedly carried out a nuclear test. The UN Security Council is considering a US proposal which would impose a range of tough measures on Pyongyang. But China and Russia are arguing against any sanctions that would be backed by military force. Earlier, reports of a second apparent nuclear test were dismissed by senior officials in South Korea and the US. A Japanese TV channel had said Tokyo officials were investigating reports of a further test following earth tremors in the area. But US and South Korean officials said they had detected no seismic activity in that area. The US has proposed a 13-point draft resolution and wants to see the sanctions brought under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, which means they would be mandatory and ultimately enforceable by military means. The American Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has warned North Korea that it faces sanctions unlike any it has experienced before, because it had crossed "an important line" when it claimed it launched a nuclear test. The US has suggested there should be a ban on military trade with North Korea and stringent inspections of cargo going into and out of the country. But the Japanese want a complete ban on planes or ships from North Korea crossing their territory. 'Colossal blow' Japan's ambassador to the UN, Kenzo Oshima, said negotiations on the draft resolution have become quite specific. "Obviously we still have some difference of views and opinion with respect to some specifics that we'd like to see included," he said. BBC correspondent Laura Trevelyan, who is at the UN headquarters in New York, said diplomats hoped to reach agreement by the end of the week. Russia, which like China has resisted sanctions in the past, has said it is "ready to take part in joint efforts of the interested parties to arrive at a peaceful, diplomatic settlement of the situation". The response of China - the country that holds the most influence over the isolated regime - is seen by many analysts to be key in moving the crisis forward. China's UN ambassador, Wang Guangya, has said North Korea must face "some punitive actions" for conducting a nuclear test. Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said: "This will no doubt have a negative impact on China and North Korea's relations." North Korea's neighbours remain tense in the wake of Monday's announcement. Only Iran, which also faces Security Council action over its failure to suspend its uranium enrichment programme - has voiced support for North Korea. The underground test reportedly took place in Gilju in Hamgyong province at 1036 (0136 GMT) on Monday morning. ***************************************************************** 25 AFP: China to send envoy to NKorea over nuclear tensions - SKorean official Tuesday October 10, 10:39 AM SEOUL (XFN-ASIA) - China plans to dispatch a high-powered envoy to North Korea to persuade the country not to raise tensions following its nuclear test, a South Korean official said. 'As far as I know, China has a plan to send a high-level special envoy to North Korea,' South Korea's nuclear envoy Chun Yung-Woo told the Yonhap news agency following a two-day trip to Beijing. North Korea announced its first nuclear test yesterday as Chun held talks in Beijing with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei. North Korea and China are now engaged in high-level talks following the nuclear test,Chun said, adding Beijing has yet to decide whether it will support a UN resolution on tough sanctions against Pyongyang. afp Copyright © 2006 AFP AFX. All rights reserved. Republication or ***************************************************************** 26 AFP: SKorea opposes any UN military measures against North Tuesday October 10, 11:55 AM SEOUL (XFN-ASIA) - The government will not support any United Nations resolution containing military measures against North Korea in retaliation for its nuclear test, the prime minister said. 'We support a UN resolution, but our position is that the resolution must not include any military measures because of its possible impact on the Korean peninsula,' Prime Minister Han Myung-Sook told parliament. But she said South Korea would join the international community in punishing North Korea for its nuclear test on Monday. Han indicated South Korea would not necessarily oppose US and Japanese plans to seek sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This provides for mandatory sanctions or even as a last resort military action to ensure compliance with Security Council resolutions in cases of 'threats to international peace and security.' Han said there was 'public concern' about the use of Chapter VII, but that this did not necessarily mean military measures. afp Copyright © 2006 AFP AFX. All rights reserved. Republication or ***************************************************************** 27 AFP: Japanese planes to monitor for radioactive particles from NKorean test Tuesday October 10, 11:57 AM TOKYO (XFN-ASIA) - The government said it has sent planes to monitor for radioactive particles in the air from North Korea's declared nuclear test but that it could still not confirm the experiment. 'We've launched T-4 planes of the Air Self-Defense Force to monitor radioactive materials in the air,' Mamoru Kotaki, press secretary of the Defense Agency, told reporters. The material will be assessed for up to two weeks in a bid to verify North Korea's announcement Monday that it had tested its first atom bomb, officials said. 'But even if they do not detect any unnatural radioactive materials, it would be hard to declare that Pyongyang's nuclear test a failure as they said it was conducted underground,' Defense Agency spokeswoman Yoko Yato said. The Japan Chemical Analysis Center, which assesses material on behalf of Japanese government organizations, said no radioactivity had been detected so far. 'Analysis of dust from Monday's flight of the Self-Defense Forces is over and we didn't find any abnormal data,' said Yoshihiro Ikeuchi, an official at the analysis center. afp Copyright © 2006 AFP AFX. All rights reserved. Republication or ***************************************************************** 28 St. Petersburg Times: Crisis Over N.Korea Nuclear Test Issue #1211(77), Tuesday, October 10, 2006 --> UNITED NATIONS — The United States said Monday it will seek UN sanctions to curb North Korea's import and export of material for weapons of mass destruction, as well as its illicit financial activities. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said Washington wants a resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter that goes beyond the resolution adopted by the council in July after North Korea conducted seven missile tests.He said the U.S. wants to make it tougher for North Korea to produce or export nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and the means to deliver them, and to impose financial sanctions for what the U.S. contends is Pyongyang's counterfeiting and money laundering. Members of the ... © Copyright The St. Petersburg Times 1993 - 2005 ***************************************************************** 29 AFP: China ready to slap sanctions on N. Korea over nuclear test - by Gerard Aziakou Tue Oct 10, 7:40 PM ET UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - China signaled readiness to join other major UN powers in slapping sanctions on neighboring North Korea" /> over its nuclear test as a defiant Pyongyang reportedly threatened to fire a nuclear-armed missile unless it secures US concessions. "I think there has to be some punitive actions but also these actions have to be appropriate," Chinese Ambassador to the UN Wang Guangya told reporters. The key question is how far China and Russia, which despite their traditional close ties with Pyongyang have condemned the nuclear test, will be willing to go in backing tough sanctions pushed by the United States and Japan in a draft resolution invoking Chapter Seven of the UN Charter. Chapter Seven, invoked in cases "of threat to international peace and security" authorizes tough sanctions or even as a last resort the use of force to ensure compliance with Security Council resolutions. "We want to see some elements from Chapter Seven," Wang told reporters after a second round of private consultations with his British, French, Japanese, Russian and US counterparts. US Ambassador John Bolton described Wang's comment as "significant" although he conceded that "We don't have complete agreement on this." Beijing is by far the most important provider of aid and trade to the cash-strapped regime of North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> voiced confidence that China would back tough action, noting that Beijing had used unusually harsh rhetoric in calling North Korea's announced nuclear test "brazen" -- a term she said Beijing had used diplomatically "only four or five times in decades." Envoys of the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Japan met twice privately Tuesday to try to narrow differences on the sanctions and agreed to meet again Wednesday. Experts of the 15-member council also met Tuesday and were to meet again Wednesday to craft an acceptable draft resolution. The draft is based on US proposals for a raft of punitive measures under Chapter Seven, including international inspection of all cargo to and from North Korea, new financial curbs targeting Pyongyang's nuclear and missile programs, and restrictions on exports of goods with military uses and sales of luxury items. Japan put forward even tougher measures such as bans on North Korean ships and aircraft from entering or landing in member states' territories and on all North Korean products as well as a travel ban targeting senior North Korean government officials. But a defiant North Korea threatened to fire a nuclear-tipped missile unless the United States makes concessions in the standoff over Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program. "We hope the situation will be settled before an unhappy incident of us firing a nuclear missile occurs," South Korea" /> 's Yonhap news agency quoted an unidentified North Korean official in Beijing as saying. The Stalinist state has repeatedly argued it needs nuclear weapons to deter any attack from the United States, which it fears will try to topple one of the last pure Communist regimes in the world. Pyongyang said it was willing to return to six-party nuclear disarmament talks it has boycotted since last November, but "only if the United States takes corresponding measures." No further details were given. In Washington, Rice warned Pyongyang that launching a nuclear-armed missile "would not be good for North Korea's security". "The North Koreans are not confused about what would happen," she said. South Korea, which is not a Security Council member, made it clear it opposed any UN resolution involving military action. "We support a UN resolution, but our position is that the resolution must not include any military measures because of its possible impact on the Korean peninsula," South Korean Prime Minister Han Myung-Sook told parliament. Rice also reaffirmed that Washington was not considering military action against North Korea, a possibility the communist regime has frequently cited as a justification for its nuclear arms program. In Moscow, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Pyongyang had now become the "de facto" ninth world nuclear power and had dealt a "colossal blow" to non-proliferation efforts. Japan said Tuesday that its monitoring aircraft had detected no unusual radiation levels in dust samples collected over the major Japanese islands of Kyushu, Honshu and Hokkaido. "It is hard to say," if there has been a successful nuclear test, Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said in parliament. White House spokesman Tony Snow also said the United States did not have confirmation of a nuclear test. "There is a remote possibility that we'll never be able to determine fully," Snow said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 30 AFP: Nations grasp for response to NKorea nuclear crisis by Simon Martin Tue Oct 10, 8:10 AM ET SEOUL (AFP) - Japan has urged the international community to retaliate with sanctions on North Korea" /> as nations across Asia and the world considered what to do next after Pyongyang tested an atomic bomb. South Korea" /> warned its military was remaining on high alert Tuesday and even close ally China refused to rule out a harder line on the North after it carried out a nuclear test Monday despite calls to abandon its weapons programme. But the secretive regime showed no sign of backing down, and an official warned it could fire a nuclear warhead unless it secured concessions from the United States, the nation it says is the reason for needing a nuclear weapon. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, all nuclear powers -- were to meet later Tuesday to assess their options. Japan's new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pledged that his officially pacifist nation would not seek to develop the bomb itself after North Korea's test, but said the world had to take strong action. Tokyo called for a so-called Chapter VII resolution from the UN Security Council leaving all options open -- including mandatory sanctions and, as a last resort, military action in the name of peace and security. "North Korea's latest announcement is a serious challenge to Japan's security," the government spokesman, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki, quoted Abe telling his cabinet. "It also is a grave threat against the peace and security of East Asia and the international community," he said. At an emergency Security Council session Monday, the United States proposed mandatory sanctions including inspections of all cargo in and out of North Korea, financial curbs and restrictions on goods that could have military uses. China, which is the North's main ally and generally opposes sanctions as a diplomatic tool, refused to say whether it would back sanctions even though it said the test had harmed relations between Pyongyang and Beijing. "China, along with other members of the Security Council, will continue to exchange opinions as to what the next steps are to take," foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said. "All actions to be taken should help establish a denuclearised peninsula through diplomatic efforts, dialogue and consultation," he said. "We are firmly opposed to war as a means to solve the Korean peninsula problem." South Korean Prime Minister Han Myung-Sook also said Seoul, which is not a Security Council member, was opposed to any UN resolution involving military action. "We support a UN resolution, but our position is that the resolution must not include any military measures because of its possible impact on the Korean peninsula," she told parliament. It was not immediately clear how else the international community might proceed. North Korea called it a de facto "declaration of war" when the Council imposed limited sanctions after its test-launch of several missiles in July, and an official indicated Tuesday the regime would not bow to pressure. The unnamed official, quoted by South Korea's Yonhap news agency, said the country's underground nuclear test was an indication it wanted direct talks with the United States. "Politically and diplomatically, it is an expression of our intention to face the United States across the negotiating table," he was quoted saying. "We hope the situation will be settled before an unhappy incident of us firing a nuclear missile occurs," he said. "It all depends on how the United States reacts." Christopher Hill, the lead US negotiator in the stalled six-nation talks that tried and failed to prevent North Korea from proceeding with its nuclear ambitions, said Washington could not accept a nuclear North Korea. He said Washington would push for strong action from the Council, adding: "We're talking about really making it hurt." South Korea ordered its military to remain on high alert, although Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-Ung said they had detected no signs of preparations for any additional tests. But he could not rule out the possibility the North might attempt to test "various types" of nuclear weapons in the future, saying the regime possessed a stockpile of up to 50 kilograms (110 pounds) of weapons-grade plutonium. North Korea has repeatedly argued it needs nuclear weapons to deter any attack from the United States, which it fears will try to topple one of the last pure Communist regimes in the world. The North Korean official said Pyongyang was willing to come back to talks it has boycotted since last November, but "only if the United States takes corresponding measures." No further details were given. US newspaper reports said the test may have been far weaker than China had been told in advance, suggesting it may not have succeeded completely. "We have not been able to determine at this point whether it was in fact nuclear," an unnamed US official was quoted as saying. However South Korean Unification Minister Lee Jong-Seok said his government believed there was a nuclear test but could not assess its success. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 31 AFP: World should be 'very worried' about NKorea nuclear test - Blair Tue Oct 10, 7:44 AM ET LONDON (AFP) - The world should be "very worried" about North Korea North Korea's claim to have successfully tested a nuclear weapon, Prime Minister Tony Blair Tony Blairsaid. "We all should be very worried," he told BBC television on Tuesday following the impoverished hermit nation's announcement Monday that brought international condemnation and the threat of sanctions. "We have been working on this for many years to try and make sure that nuclear weapons are not proliferated and they are doing this in complete defiance of all their international obligations. "It is a very, very serious situation," he said, adding that the North Korean people lived "in virtual starvation, almost a form of political oppression akin to slavery" while billions were spent on weapons. Blair's Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said Monday that Britain is pushing for the United Nations United NationsSecurity Council to slap sanctions on North Korea in the wake of the test. Any sanctions should go further than the existing UN resolution 1695, imposed earlier this year, which requires all states to prevent missile-related items to be transferred to or from North Korea, she added. Questioned on the same subject, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, told BBC radio Tuesday that Washington hoped to resolve the crisis diplomatically, although he refused to exclude a military option. But he rejected suggestions that Pyongyang had been driven to carry out the test after President George W. Bush President George W. Bushbranded the regime part of the "axis of evil" in a 2002 speech. "The North Koreans have been pursuing nuclear weapons for at least 10 to 12 years," he told the broadcaster. "They signed the agreed framework in 1994 promising to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons and then began violating the agreement almost before the ink was dry. This has nothing whatever to do with the 'axis of evil' statement." Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 32 AFP: White House rejects criticism over North Korean test - by Laurent Lozano Tue Oct 10, 6:39 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House rebuffed criticism that failed US diplomacy led to North Korea 's nuclear test, while downplaying the significance of Pyongyang's blast, which rattled the world. White House spokesman Tony Snow branded criticism faulting the US approach for failing to bridge differences with North Korea, Iran and Iraq and leading to the world-stunning test announced by Pyongyang Monday as "back-seat generalship". "What you have is the fact that the United States has been engaged actively on all three problems ... We are continuing to work aggressively on diplomacy with the Iranians and with the North Koreans," Snow said. Snow responded to comments especially from opposition Democrats that the administration of President George W. Bush had taken the wrong approach to dealing with perceived global threats, as signified by the North Korean nuclear test, which came after years of attempts to convince Pyongyang to not develop a bomb. "What it tells you is that we started at the wrong end of the axis of evil," said former Democratic senator Sam Nunn, referring to Bush's designation for Iraq, Iran and North Korea. And North Korean specialist Selig Harrison, writing in the Washington Post, said US sanctions on North Korea have "given the initiative to hardliners in Pyongyang." The criticism appeared to put the White House on the defensive, coming as it did exactly four weeks before legislative elections. Pollsters say Democrats may have a chance to possibly end Republican control of Congress due to voter discontent over the Iraq war and other security issues. "Diplomacy had run its course when it came to Iraq," Snow said. "We are still hopeful that diplomacy is in fact going to yield the desired results when it does come to North Korea and Iran." US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack also rejected the idea that the US policy can be blamed for Pyongyang's first nuclear weapons test. "The North Korean regime has been developing a nuclear weapon for decades," he said. Snow meanwhile downplayed the significance of the test, despite the strong international reaction. "A massive event?" Snow said in response to a question at a White House briefing. "A big-deal event? There was an event... The earth moved, we can say that," he said. He added that the United States did not have confirmation of a nuclear weapon test. "This may take some time. It's a complex undertaking, and it involves questions like, was there venting or was there not," Snow said. "There is a remote possibility that we'll never be able to determine fully." But he added: "It does not change our view that this is an act of provocation, nor does it change the view, more importantly, of our partners in the neighborhood, who view it much the same way." Snow spoke of a "new sense of resolution" among US partners in dealing with North Korea, especially China and South Korea , who have joined the US, Russia, Japan in six-way talks with Pyongyang over halting its nuclear program. "Everybody is on the same page in terms of talking about sanctions," Snow declared. Earlier he brushed off calls by some analysts to accept North Korea's request for bilateral talks on its nuclear program. "If we're to deal one-on-one, we'd be playing a weaker hand, and the president is not going to play a weaker hand. Because the notion of dealing on one-on-one, again, gives the North Koreans a chance to try to split a united coalition. "We have less leverage than these guys (the Chinese and South Koreans) do. We have now brought into the diplomatic process the people who can make a difference. "The most significant factor from a diplomatic standpoint is that you got a lot more diplomatic muscle than you've ever had on either of these problems." McCormack also rejected bilateral talks with Pyongyang. "In a bilateral discussion with North Korea, all of a sudden all the pressure is on the United States to make concessions," McCormack said. "It's not a strong hand from which to start." He said that former president Bill Clinton 's administration negotiated with North Korea to little effect. "They negotiated an agreement with them. And the North Koreans were cheating on it almost as soon as the ink was dry on the thing," he said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 33 AFP: Presidential hopeful McCain blames NKorea problems on Clinton - Tue Oct 10, 6:20 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Senator John McCain, the top contender for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, blamed the Bill Clinton administration for a lenient foreign policy that permitted North Korea to develop nuclear weapons. McCain rejected criticism by leading Democrats, including the former president's wife, Senator Hillary Clinton , that the George W. Bush administration's refusal to engage North Korea bilaterally compelled Pyongyang to develop an atomic bomb. "I would remind Senator Clinton and other critics of the Bush administration policies that the framework agreement of the Clinton Administration was a failure," McCain said. "The Koreans received millions of dollars in energy assistance. They diverted millions in food assistance to the military. And what did the Koreans do? They secretly enriched uranium," the Republican lawmaker said. "We had a carrots and no sticks policy that only encouraged bad behavior. When one carrot didn't work, we offered another." McCain also faulted Senator Clinton and other Democrats for blocking efforts by the US administration and Republican supporters to develop more advanced missile defense systems. He argued for a tougher, less conciliatory line by Washington. "Korea doubts the world's resolve," said McCain. "It is testing South Korea , China, Russia, Japan and the United States. They have been criticized by the UN Security Council, but suffered no serious sanctions." McCain added: "We have talked and talked about punishing their bad behavior. They don't believe we have the resolve to do it. We must prove them wrong." Meanwhile, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday sent a letter to US President George W. Bush calling for a bipartisan summit, and called on both sides to end the blame game. "The political gamesmanship has to stop," said US Representative Peter Hoekstra (, , ). "The security of the United States, our allies and that of the world is at stake. America must reject the partisan divide that is building on this issue and put forward a united front against nuclear proliferation." "The threats are too great for this issue to become entangled in the upcoming election," Hoekstra added. "The world is coming together against North Korea, so must America's leaders." The text of the letter, read, in part: "I am requesting that you convene at the earliest opportunity a meeting in Washington of the bipartisan congressional leadership and appropriate committee chairs for consultations and briefings on this dire security threat and how the United States should address it." US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice , asked about the flap Tuesday, refused to be drawn into blaming Clinton. "I will not blame anyone for trying. I just know that the 1994 agreement, of course, didn't hold. The North Koreans cheated," she said, referring to the nuclear safeguard accord signed by North Korea and the United States, after Pyongyang vowed to freeze and dismantle its nuclear weapons program in return for the construction of safe nuclear reactors. Rice, who also endorsed US involvement in failed multilateral negotiations with North Korea after becoming secretary of state in early 2005, rejected suggestions that Clinton's policy helped Pyongyang develop nuclear weapons. "I think North Korea has been persistent and has been consistent in pursuing this nuclear weapons program for decades," she said. "Now it's going to have to be stopped, and the international community is speaking with one voice very loudly, because the North Koreans crossed an important line when they proclaimed that they had conducted a nuclear test." Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 34 AFP: China keeps door open on NKorea sanctions by Verna Yu Tue Oct 10, 5:51 AM ET BEIJING (AFP) - China has kept open the possibility of backing international sanctions against North Korea North Koreafor testing a nuclear weapon but insisted it remained opposed to military action. While conceding that bilateral ties had been damaged by the North's announcement, China maintained the best way to deal with the crisis was through diplomacy and that it intended to remain friendly with its close ally. "China, along with other members of the (UN) Security Council, will continue to exchange opinions as to what the next steps are to take," foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said when asked about China's position on sanctions on Tuesday. "We think the Security Council should take appropriate actions, but all actions should help establish a denuclearized Korean peninsula through diplomatic efforts, dialogue and consulation." At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, the United States and Japan immediately called for UN-backed sanctions to be imposed against North Korea to punish it for Monday's nuclear test. China has traditionally been opposed to the use of sanctions to solve global crises and has previously specifically rejected such measures against North Korea, its close Communist ally of more than 50 years. However North Korea went ahead with its nuclear test despite China's repeated urgings not to do so, triggering an unusually harsh statement from Beijing that has raised speculation it will back sanctions this time. In its initial reaction on Monday, China's foreign ministry said North Korea's test "brazenly" ignored the wishes of the international community. "The Chinese government expresses its resolute opposition," the statement said. The United States and Japan have also said they want to invoke Chapter VII of the UN charter against North Korea, which provides for military action as a last resort in addition to mandatory sanctions. When asked about Chapter VII, Liu said China opposed any military action against North Korea. "From China's perspective we are firmly opposed to war as a means to solve the Korean peninsula problem. This is known to all countries," he said. Liu said the North's actions had damaged ties between the two nations, although China intended to maintain a friendly policy towards the government in Pyongyang. "This will no doubt have a negative impact on China and North Korea's relations," Liu said. "But China's consistent policy of developing a friendly, neighborly policy towards North Korea remains unchanged." Liu maintained one of the best ways to deal with the crisis was through the China-hosted six-nation talks that began in 2003 and were aimed at curtailing North Korea's nuclear ambitions. "We have the obligation to bring everybody back to the negotiating table, which should take place within the six-party talks," Liu said. "Over the past several years, the six-party talks have achieved some positive (results) and we hope that process will continue." The six nations involved in the talks are China, the two Koreas, the United States, Japan and Russia. Meanwhile, Liu refused to comment on statements from US and South Korean officials that North Korea gave China 20 minutes' advance notice of Monday's test. "The details are not important," he said when asked about the issue. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 35 AFP: SKorea sees chance of more nuke tests in the North by Jun Kwanwoo Tue Oct 10, 7:45 AM ET SEOUL (AFP) - South Korea has said it could not rule out further North Korean nuclear tests given the communist state's large stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium, and ordered its military to stay on maximum alert. Unification Minister Lee Jong-Seok said separately Tuesday the government believes North Korea did conduct a nuclear test, despite some uncertainty overseas, but could not yet say whether it was successful as the North boasts. Seoul, still technically at war with the secretive Pyongyang regime half a century after the Korean conflict, has said it will never tolerate a nuclear-armed North. Defence Minister Yoon Kwang-Ung summoned the meeting of about 50 senior commanders, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the army, navy and air force chiefs. Yoon ordered the 650,000-strong military to "maintain steadfast combat readiness" to prevent North Korea miscalculating the situation. "North Korea's nuclear test is a grave threat to stability and peace in Northeast Asia, and it is an absolutely unpardonable provocative act that defeats the expectations of our government and people," Yonhap news agency quoted him as telling the closed-door meeting. The military chiefs assessed security and discussed the response to the announced nuclear test on Monday which shocked the world, the defence ministry said. The military has increased troop numbers near land and sea borders, but is maintaining its normal official alert level. Yoon told parliament there were no immediate signs the North was preparing further nuclear tests. But he could not rule out the possibility it might attempt to test "various types" of nuclear weapons in the future, saying the regime had a stockpile of up to 50 kilograms (110 pounds) of weapons-grade plutonium. "As long as it wants to have nuclear power, it would try to make efforts to have various types of nuclear weapons," he added. Protesters again took to the streets to vent anger. About 70-80 demonstrators in central Seoul set alight a mock missile plastered with a North Korean flag and a picture of the North's leader Kim Jong-Il. Scuffles broke out with firemen who tried to douse the blaze. Scores of people signed a "Down with Kim Jong-Il" petition. "The government believes North Korea actually conducted a nuclear test," Unification Minister Lee, in charge of North korean affairs, told a special parliamentary hearing. But he said it would not recognize Pyongyang as a nuclear power until it was known whether the test was successful. The science ministry said it plans to borrow a xenon nuclide detector from Sweden that can detect minute traces of radio-isotopes in the atmosphere, to confirm the test. It is due to arrive this week. A North Korean official warned Tuesday his country could fire a nuclear-tipped missile unless the United States makes concessions and holds direct talks, a South Korean media report said. Yonhap news agency quoted the unidentified official in Beijing as saying: "We hope the situation will be settled before an unhappy incident of us firing a nuclear missile occurs." "It all depends on how the United States reacts," he said. President Roh Moo-Hyun , under fire over his "sunshine" policy of engaging the North, met his predecessors over lunch to seek their views. Kim Dae-Jung, Kim Young-Sam and Chun Doo-Hwan attended. Kim Young-Sam, whose 1993-98 term was marked by cold relations with the North, said the engagement policy should be renounced and all joint economic projects suspended, including the Kaesong industrial zone and the Mount Kumgang tourist resort. The two projects launched by South Korea's Hyundai Group have been a major source of hard currency for the isolated and impoverished North. Hyundai has invested 1.5 trillion won (1.56 billion dollars) in them. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 36 AFP: White House seems to downplay North Korea nuclear test Tue Oct 10, 3:53 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - White House spokesman Tony Snow suggested that North Korea" /> North Korea's announcement that it carried out a nuclear weapon test was not necessarily as important as the international reaction it sparked. Snow cast some doubt on whether North Korea really carried out such a test. "A massive event?" Snow said in response to a question. "A big-deal event?" "There was an event," Snow told a White House briefing. When a reporter pointed out "you convened the Security Council," Snow added: "The Earth moved, we can say that," referring to the tremors detected by sensors. He also said the United States did not have confirmation of a nuclear weapon test. "This may take some time. It's a complex undertaking, and it involves questions like, was there venting or was there not," Snow said. "It was done in an underground facility, and no gases or other things escaped; it makes it much more difficult to monitor whether there are any radioactive traces and that kind of thing." "There is a remote possibility that we'll never be able to determine fully," Snow said. Earlier, Snow told reporters "unfortunately I can't give you anything" about the nature of the operation or the strength of the test. But he added: "It does not change our view that this is an act of provocation, nor does it change the view, more importantly, of our partners in the neighborhood, who view it much the same way." While the UN Security Council mulled the various courses of action it can take in response to Pyongyang's announcement that it tested a nuclear weapon, Snow spoke of a "new sense of resolution" among US partners, particularly those closest in proximity to North Korea, such as China and South Korea" /> South Korea. "Everybody is on the same page in terms of talking about sanctions," Snow declared. North Korea announced its first atomic bomb test on Monday, defying efforts to stop the secretive regime from joining the world's nuclear powers. Pyongyang has repeatedly argued that it needs nuclear weapons to deter any attack from the United States, which it fears will try to topple one of the last Communist regimes in the world. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States has no intention of entering into a dialogue with North Korea, and he rejected Pyongyang's charges that Washington had sparked the nuclear crisis. "In a bilateral discussion with North Korea, all of a sudden all the pressure is on the United States to make concessions," McCormack said. "It's not a strong hand from which to start." He recalled that former president Bill Clinton" /> Bill Clinton's administration negotiated with North Korea to little effect. "They negotiated an agreement with them. And the North Koreans were cheating on it almost as soon as the ink was dry on the thing," he said. McCormack said he does not believe the United States can fairly be blamed for North Korea's actions. "The North Korean regime has been developing a nuclear weapon for decades," he said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 37 Guardian Unlimited: China: N.Korea Must Be Punished for Test From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday October 11, 2006 12:01 AM AP Photo XGB103 By NICK WADHAMS Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The North Korean nuclear crisis settled into diplomatic debate Tuesday, with China agreeing to punishment but not the severe U.S.-backed sanctions that it said would be too crushing for its impoverished communist ally. Scientists and other governments, meanwhile, suggested that Monday's underground test was a partial failure, producing a smaller blast than planned. The Bush administration asked the U.N. Security Council to impose a partial trade embargo including strict limits on Korea's profitable weapons exports and freezing of related financial assets. All imports would be inspected too, to filter out materials that could be made into nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. The United States reiterated that it would not talk with the North Koreans one-on-one, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice assured the North that the U.S. would not attack. Rice rejected a suggestion that Pyongyang may feel it needs nuclear weapons to stave off an Iraq-style U.S. invasion. President Bush, she told CNN, has told ``the North Koreans that there is no intention to invade or attack them. So they have that guarantee. ... I don't know what more they want.'' U.S. Ambassador John Bolton sounded upbeat after Tuesday's round of talks at the Security Council, but said differences remained in advance of Wednesday's meeting. ``Look, we don't have complete agreement on this yet, that's hardly a news flash, but we're making progress and we're I think at a point we can try and narrow some of the differences we do have,'' Bolton said. China, which reacted to Monday's blast with a strong condemnation but considers North Korea a useful buffer against U.S. forces stationed in South Korea, said it envisioned only a limited package of sanctions - not what the United States and especially Japan were demanding. China and Russia object to plans to interdict shipments and block financial transactions. They also oppose a new suggestion that Japan proposed Tuesday - to include mention of the North's abduction of Japanese citizens in the 1970s and '80s. ``We certainly understand that Japan is close to the country. But I think you cannot ask by this resolution to kill a country,'' China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya told The Associated Press. He said the Security Council must impose ``punitive actions'' but that they have to ``be appropriate.'' Though far less than what the Americans and Japanese seek, even calling for some punishment was significant for China, which usually opposes sanctions, particularly against an ally such as North Korea. Pyongyang again demanded one-on-one talks with Washington and threatened to launch a nuclear-tipped missile if the U.S. doesn't help resolve the standoff. Bolton dismissed the demand, saying the North should instead ``buy a ticket to Beijing,'' and rejoin stalled six-nation talks over its nuclear and missile programs. The war of words suggested tough negotiations before the U.N. takes any action against North Korea. In the meantime, scientists and governments tried to determine what exactly happened early Monday, deep below the earth in North Korea's northeast mountains. The North Korean government has released few details. A South Korean newspaper quoted a North Korean diplomat, whom it did not name, saying that the blast was ``smaller in scale than expected. ``But the success in a small-scale (test) means a large-scale (test) is also possible,'' he said in comments posted on the Web site of the liberal newspaper Hankyoreh, which has good ties with the communist nation. The diplomat also said the North could take ``additional measures'' and that it doesn't fear sanctions. Philip Coyle, at the Center for Defense Information in Washington, a nongovernment think tank, expressed a growing view that ``they got a partial result'' and not the full-power explosion that they sought. Several Western estimates said the blast was less than a tenth the size of the bomb that the United States dropped on Hiroshima in 1945; the force of the Hiroshima bomb was equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT. But ``for them it was enough ... to say that it was a success. It helps them to claim that they are a nuclear power, and that the world should take them seriously, which is what they want. But I wouldn't be surprised if after several months they don't try again.'' The White House said there is a ``remote possibility'' that the world never will be able to fully determine whether North Korea succeeded in conducting a nuclear test Monday. Democrats said the test was evidence of a failed Bush administration policy, which White House press secretary Tony Snow denied. ``The Chinese, the South Koreans, the Japanese - they all have more direct leverage over the North Koreans than we do,'' Snow said. ``The people who have the greatest ability to influence behavior are now fully invested in equal partners in a process to deal with the government of North Korea.'' Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said President Clinton was to blame for his 1990s program to entice the North Koreans toward more cooperation. ``The Koreans received millions and millions in energy assistance. They've diverted millions of dollars of food assistance to their military,'' he said. After the reclusive regime announced it had set off an underground atomic explosion, the Security Council quickly condemned North Korea's decision to flout a U.N. appeal to cancel the test. The 15-nation council urged Pyongyang to return to stalled talks, refrain from further tests and keep its pledge to scrap its clandestine weapons program. Diplomats said Tuesday there was a general agreement that the Security Council must pass a sanctions resolution in the next few days. The council's image suffered badly the last time it deadlocked over a major crisis, over the summer when it needed a month to pass a resolution on ending the war between Israel and Hezbollah. ``All I can say is that we are having a very good discussion, trying to identify what really we are going to be able to achieve, and i think there is general understanding also about the need to get our act together, and fast,'' Japan's U.N. Ambassador Kenzo Oshima said. ``On that we agree.'' Despite the positive assessment, familiar fault lines that have plagued past negotiations over North Korea already began to appear. Japan, which holds the presidency of the Security Council for October, demanded the toughest sanctions of all, possibly including a blanket air and naval blockade of North Korea, as well as a ban on senior North Korean diplomats traveling abroad. In Tokyo, Japan's leader said the country could slap sanctions on North Korea without waiting for confirmation that it did indeed test a nuclear weapon. Yet China, traditionally an opponent of Security Council sanctions, warned that the world must not focus too much on punishment. China can use its veto power in the council to block any move, and would likely have the support of Russia. ``Instead, the international community and the United Nations should take positive and appropriate measures that will help the process of de-nuclearization on the Korean peninsula,'' Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said. One worry for Beijing is that too much pressure could cause economically unsteady North Korea to collapse, sending North Koreans streaming across the border into northeast China and inviting intervention by the American military. Nonetheless, China was clearly rattled that the North went ahead with the test. Liu vented China's anger against its communist ally over the test for a second day. ``The nuclear test will undoubtedly exert a negative impact on our relations,'' Liu said. He said Monday's test was done ``flagrantly, and in disregard of the international community's shared opposition.'' The North warned that it would soon be able to put a nuclear warhead on one of its missiles. ``We hope the situation will be resolved before an unfortunate incident of us firing a nuclear missile comes,'' Yonhap, the South Korean news agency, quoted an unidentified North Korean official as saying. ``That depends on how the U.S. will act.'' Yonhap did not say how or where it contacted the official, or why no name was given. The news agency quoted the official as saying the nuclear test was ``an expression of our intention to face the United States across the negotiating table.'' --- Associated Press reporter Edith M. Lederer contributed to this story. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 38 Guardian Unlimited: Was North Korea's Nuclear Device a Dud? From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday October 10, 2006 3:01 PM By JOHN LEICESTER Associated Press Writer PARIS (AP) - Was North Korea's nuclear device a dud, as some Western experts suspect? The apparent low yield of the North's test could signal that its scientists, working largely in isolation, haven't quite perfected the deadly art of efficiently splitting atoms. More than 60 years after the United States first tested a plutonium weapon - partly because scientists weren't sure that it would work - the technology is still tricky for novices to master. ``The devil is in the details,'' French nuclear proliferation expert Bruno Tertrais said. ``It's like cooking. The fact that you have the recipe does not make you a chef.'' North Korea is widely thought to have been seeking to make bombs from plutonium, the same material used in the device that the U.S. first tested on July 16, 1945, ushering in the atomic age. Robert Oppenheimer, who oversaw the U.S. weapons program, on that historic day lost his $10 bet that the bomb - nicknamed ``the Gadget'' - would not detonate. Only the North Koreans likely know what sort of explosion they were hoping for and whether the test was a success, as they claimed. But there's also a possibility that the device - if it was indeed nuclear - suffered what experts call ``a fizzle,'' when the fissile material that provides the bang, likely plutonium in North Korea's case, detonates only partly. A key reason for those suspicions was the apparent low intensity of the explosion. Russia estimated that it was a relatively large - equivalent to the force that would be unleashed by 5,000-15,000 tons of the conventional high-explosive TNT. But France and others had far lower estimates, ranging from 500-1,000 tons of TNT, prompting the French defense minister to comment ``that there could have been a failure.'' South Korea also said that it wasn't certain that the North's test was a success and that resolving that doubt would take about two weeks. France's atomic energy agency did not want to comment further Tuesday - partly, a spokeswoman said, because it was concerned that discussing where North Korea might have gone wrong could help it fix any problems for next time. While there is evidence that North Korea got Pakistani help with its nuclear program, the isolated, communist country also has had to figure out a lot of technical bomb-making details itself - another likely factor in a possible failed test, said Vladimir Orlov of the PIR Center, a nonproliferation think-tank. ``Both intellectually, technologically and financially, they are really in practical isolation, which is relatively good news,'' said Orlov. The apparent low yield, he added, ``indicates that the North Koreans really have trouble making what ordinary people would call a nuclear bomb, they really have a primitive nuclear device.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 39 washingtonpost.com: Bush's 'Axis of Evil' Comes Back to Haunt United States - By Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, October 10, 2006; Page A12 Nearly five years after President Bush introduced the concept of an "axis of evil" comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the administration has reached a crisis point with each nation: North Korea has claimed it conducted its first nuclear test, Iran refuses to halt its uranium-enrichment program, and Iraq appears to be tipping into a civil war 3 1/2 years after the U.S.-led invasion. Each problem appears to feed on the others, making the stakes higher and requiring Bush and his advisers to make difficult calculations, analysts and U.S. officials said. The deteriorating situation in Iraq has undermined U.S. diplomatic credibility and limited the administration's military options, making rogue countries increasingly confident that they can act without serious consequences. Iran, meanwhile, will be watching closely the diplomatic fallout from North Korea's apparent test as a clue to how far it might go with its own nuclear program. Photos [/world/photo] North Korea Nuclear Test Condemned North Korea declared Monday, Oct. 9, that it had conducted its first nuclear test, asserting a claim to be the world's newest nuclear power and drawing strong international condemnation. "Iran will follow very carefully what happens in the U.N. Security Council after the North Korean test," said Robert J. Einhorn, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). "If the United Nations is not able to act forcefully, then Iran will think the path is clear to act with impunity." Michael E. O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution scholar and co-author of the new book "Hard Power: The New Politics of National Security," said the U.S. response to North Korea will have ripple effects. "Iran will certainly watch what happens. North Korea watched what happened with Pakistan and decided that the world didn't punish Pakistan too hard or too long," he said. "Iran will certainly notice if North Korea gets treated with kid gloves." Political strategists debated the domestic implications of the North Korean test with midterm elections four weeks away. Some Republicans predicted it would take the focus off the Mark Foley congressional page scandal and remind voters that it is a dangerous world best confronted by tough-minded leaders. Some Democrats argued it would be seen as another failure of Bush's foreign policy and moved quickly to try to pin blame on the Republicans. "Is this going to help Republicans?" asked Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "The answer to that is absolutely not. This is another significant foreign policy failure for the administration." In Bush's 2002 State of the Union address, a speech designed to shift the political debate from a battle against al-Qaeda to a possible confrontation with Iraq, the president mentioned North Korea, Iraq and Iran and declared: "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. . . . In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic." All three issues came to a head in 2003: The United States invaded Iraq and discovered no weapons of mass destruction; North Korea began to obtain weapons-grade plutonium from fuel rods that had been under international observation; and Iran disclosed that it had made rapid progress with a previously secret uranium-enrichment program. In contrast to its handling of Iraq, the administration has tried to resolve the North Korean and Iranian nuclear breakouts with diplomacy. But progress has been slow, in part because the United States has been reluctant to hold bilateral talks with either country except within the context of broader talks with other nations. Former senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) faulted the administration for focusing on Iraq first, when greater threats loomed in North Korea and Iran. "We started with Iraq in the 'axis of evil' side, when we thought they did not yet have nuclear weapons, and that sent the signal to others that they better get them quick," he said. "I think we started on the wrong end of that." The administration launched a full-court press yesterday at the Security Council, proposing elements of a tough resolution that would call for imposing an arms embargo and a series of legally binding U.N. financial and trade sanctions. The United States also called for international inspections of all trade in and out of North Korea to enforce the sanctions. U.S. officials yesterday were focusing especially closely on the reaction of China, long North Korea's main benefactor. The Chinese government publicly denounced the test in unusually strong language, and a senior U.S. official said the private comments of Chinese officials were equally strong. While China has been reluctant to pressure North Korea, fearing a collapse of the government and mass refugees on its border, "the question is whether a chaotic North Korea is worse than a nuclear North Korea," the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic sensitivities. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appears likely to make a trip to the region soon to further build support for a tough response by China, Japan and South Korea. Several experts predicted that although China's leadership is angry enough to support some sanctions, it always will stop short of putting enough pressure on Pyongyang to force its collapse. "Full-up sanctions I don't see happening," said former White House Asia expert Michael J. Green, now at CSIS. James B. Steinberg, President Bill Clinton's deputy national security adviser and now dean of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, said the North Korea test will raise a larger question that echoes Ronald Reagan's most famous 1980 campaign line -- "With respect to the axis of evil," Steinberg said, "are you better off today than you were four years ago? . . . It's clear that the answer is we're worse off with respect to the nuclear proliferation problem in both North Korea and Iran than four to six years ago, and I would argue we're worse off in our overall security because of the situation in Iraq." Staff writer Dafna Linzer contributed to this report. 1996- The Washington Post Company | | [ border=] ***************************************************************** 40 [NYTr] All 9 Nuclear Powers are Violating NPT Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:41:17 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Ed Pearl Truthout - Oct 9, 2006 http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100906A.shtml All Nine Nuclear Powers Are Violating Non-Proliferation Treaty By Scott Galindez As North Korea becomes the eighth confirmed nuclear power (Israel is not confirmed but considered the ninth) some of the blame has to go to the original five nuclear powers. When the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty went into effect in 1970, the five countries who had nuclear bombs - the US, France, China, Great Britain, and the USSR - agreed to work to reduce and eventually eliminate their nuclear arsenals. Now, 36 years later, no disarmament talks are taking place between those countries. North Korea has been a "threshold" country since the late 80s. The fall of the Soviet Union eliminated shared security arrangements and prompted North Korea to aggressively pursue a nuclear weapon. The Clinton administration, recognizing the threat, entered into an agreement with North Korea to provide reactors for peaceful use in exchange for an end to the weapons program. In 2003, North Korea announced they were leaving the Non-Proliferation Treaty and reconstituting its weapons program, citing US failure to deliver the reactors. North Korea's joining the list of nations with nuclear weapons is a sad day for our world. As was the day that the United States became the first nuclear power, and the Soviet Union the second, etc.. As long as one country possesses the ability to annihilate another it is only natural for those without that power to seek it. In the early 90s, during the lead-up to the extension of the treaty, the US and other nuclear powers agreed to stop testing nuclear weapons. It was widely believed that without that step many other "threshold" nations would not have remained in the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has been a long time since the original five nuclear powers have made any progress in negotiating a reduction in their arsenals; in fact the Bush administration is building new lower-yield nukes with conventional uses that could spur a new arms race. If all of the nuclear powers that are condemning North Korea are serious about stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, perhaps they should read and come into compliance with the following section of the treaty they first signed in 1970 and extended in 1995: Article VI Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. It should also be noted that it is possible for countries to leave the nuclear club. North Korea would have been the 10th country if South Africa hadn't abolished their nuclear weapons. Iran May Not Be Next In 2003, during his winning presidential campaign in Brazil, candidate Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva criticized the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty as unfair. "If someone asks me to disarm and keep a slingshot while he comes at me with a cannon, what good does that do?" da Silva asked in a speech. He later said Brazil has no intention to develop nuclear arms. That is a good thing; I support non-proliferation, but the sentiment that da Silva expressed will continue to grow as more and more nations feel they are being conned by the nuclear powers. Let us hope that North Korea is the last to build the bomb, but let's also hope that one day North Korea, France, Great Britain, Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, China, and the United States dismantle the bombs they have and eliminate the threat of nuclear annihilation. [Scott Galindez is the Managing Editor of Truthout.] * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 41 [NYTr] Nuclear weapons: who has what Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:42:40 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Simon McGuinness The Irish Times - Oct 10, 2006 http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2006/1010/1160340167728.html Nuclear weapons: who has what A list of nations which currently have nuclear weapons [in order of size of arsenal] * Russia - Nearly 5,000 strategic warheads, and approximately 3,500 operational tactical warheads. In addition, it has more than 11,000 strategic and tactical warheads in storage. Exploded its first bomb in 1949. * The United States - More than 5,000 strategic warheads, more than 1,000 operational tactical weapons - meant for the battlefield and less powerful than the strategic arms - and approximately 3,000 reserve strategic and tactical warheads. Became the first country to carry out a nuclear test explosion on July 16th, 1945. [The USA was the first country to attack a civilian population with nuclear weapons ... and the second] * France - Approximately 350 strategic warheads. Exploded its first bomb in 1960. * China - As many as 250 strategic warheads and 150 tactical warheads. Exploded its first bomb in 1964. * Britain - About 200 strategic warheads. Exploded its first bomb in 1952. * India - Between 45 and 95 nuclear warheads. Exploded its first bomb in 1974. * Pakistan - Between 30 and 50 nuclear warheads. Exploded its first bomb in 1998. * Israel - Refuses to confirm it is a nuclear weapons state but is generally assumed to have up to 200 nuclear warheads. Unknown when Israel might have carried out a test explosion. * North Korea - Believed to have enough fissile material for about half a dozen weapons, but estimates vary widely and are unverifiable. (Sources: Arms Control Association; Nuclear Threat Initiative.) * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 42 Guardian Unlimited: Provocation and proliferation Comment is free | Leader Tuesday October 10, 2006 Kim Jong-il may have been feeling a slight autumnal chill under his trademark bouffant hairdo yesterday, as gales of condemnation blew into Pyongyang in the wake of the announcement that North Korea has conducted an underground nuclear test. From Beijing to Moscow via Washington, Tokyo and London came statements excoriating the "Dear Leader" for making the world a more dangerous place. These predictably seismic reactions reflected shock but little surprise, since Mr Kim has a nasty habit of doing exactly what he threatens. Part of the problem is the sheer isolation of the North Korean regime, a secretive and atrophied Stalinist relic that is closed to most foreigners and denies the most basic freedoms to its 22 million people. It is simply weird to hear it flaunt the test as "a great leap forward in the building of a great prosperous powerful socialist nation". This is a country whose annual per-capita income is just $1400 (compared to $22,000 for South Korea) and where only foreign aid staves off malnutrition and famine. Experts disagree on what the test says about the capabilities of the "hermit kingdom", but there is no doubt that it has crossed the nuclear "threshold" to be able to produce a basic weapon. It already has long-range ballistic missiles - tested last July 4 to remind the world's only superpower of its limitations - though weaponisation is still some way off. It has also sold missiles to Iran, Syria and Pakistan for hard cash. Confirmation from the horse's mouth that North Korea has become the world's ninth nuclear power is grim and disturbing news. Alarm was especially palpable in Asia, where instability on the Korean peninsula naturally worries China and Japan as well as Seoul. But this crisis is less about the prospect of an immediate nuclear exchange than fears that others will be encouraged to follow suit. Nuclear weapons were long the preserve of the "big five", with Israel, India and Pakistan joining their ranks outside any legal framework. North Korea's test may not formally kill off the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but expectations of its death cannot now be exaggerated. If Iran, which is accused of seeking nuclear weapons, manages to develop them too, as many fear it eventually will, the NPT will not survive. Mr Kim's triumph represents the failure of diplomacy. North Korea agreed in 1994 to freeze its nuclear ambitions, but revived them when George Bush became president. Its position hardened when the country was named as part of the "axis of evil". In 2003 it quit the NPT and threw out UN inspectors. Since then six-party talks and US financial sanctions have failed to persuade it to change tack. The main reason is that the lesson of US policy towards Iraq and Iran is that going nuclear is a deterrent to military action and regime change. It does not help the case of the five official nuclear states that they have dismally failed to meet their disarmament obligations under the NPT, maintaining the system of "nuclear apartheid". Blame cannot be laid solely at the door of the US. The North Korean test is a stinging failure for China, which has often responded in a low-key way as it zigzagged between propping up and pressuring Pyongyang. Now it has been humiliated, though it is hard to see why it should rethink its opposition to cutting off the oil on which its neighbour relies, since it still fears triggering an economic or political collapse that could mean yet more misery for the blameless and long-suffering North Korean masses. Universal outrage at Mr Kim means that the UN, soon to be led by the South Korean Ban Ki-moon, is likely to agree to some sort of targeted sanctions despite the customary reluctance of both Russia and China. The best hope for a way out of this nuclear blind alley must be for a more assertive role for Beijing, wielding some muscle in its own volatile backyard and showing that it takes its global responsibilities more seriously than it has in the recent past. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 ***************************************************************** 43 Guardian Unlimited: FAQ: Nuclear tests Tuesday October 10, 2006 The Guardian What is a nuclear test? Experiments are conducted with nuclear weapons first to assess whether they will detonate successfully and second to get a measure of the damage they are likely to inflict on people, buildings and infrastructure. Tests have historically been divided into three categories depending on whether they are detonated in the air, underwater or underground. How are tests carried out? Nuclear devices have been dropped from planes, fired on rockets, strapped to balloons, tethered to barges and buried deep beneath the ground for testing. Sizes vary from less than 1 kiloton to more than 20kt, with the largest test being the 50 megaton Soviet Tsar bomb in 1961. Scientists record radiation levels, shockwaves and seismic vibrations to work out their explosive power. Tests are nearly always conducted early in the morning so that clearing-up can be conducted in daylight. When have tests been conducted? At least 2,000 nuclear tests have been carried out, more than half by the US alone. The first nuclear test, by the US on July 16 1945, was part of the Manhattan project and was designed to study the effects of a nuclear explosion ahead of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Britain conducted its first test in October 1952 aboard the frigate HMS Plym off the Australian coast. The vessel was vaporised in the explosion. Signatories to the comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT) halted all nuclear tests in 1996, although non-signatories India and Pakistan both tested bombs in 1998. How can tests be detected? The treaty is backed up by a worldwide network of sensors called the international monitoring system which picks up the signs of a nuclear detonation. The IMS combines land-based seismometers to pick up shockwaves, chemical sensors to detect radioactive particles in the air and ocean-based hydrophones to listen for low-frequency soundwaves made by underwater explosions. Data from the sensors is continuously fed to the CTBT organisation in Vienna which feeds the information out to signatory nations. Was the North Korean test picked up in Britain? Recordings from the Eskdalemuir monitoring station in Scotland suggest it failed to detect the explosion, probably because it was too small. More than 20 stations around the world picked up the shockwaves, however. The US Geological Survey reported the explosion as magnitude 4.2 at 2.35am UK time, locating it 40 miles from Kimchaek, north-east of Pyongyang. How is a test confirmed? Most countries have dedicated teams of scientists on standby to analyse seismic and other data to confirm the size and location of a foreign nuclear test. In Britain, the job falls to a group of seismologists based at a converted country manor called Blacknest on the Berkshire-Hampshire border near the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment. They use readings from at least three IMS stations to triangulate the location of the test. They then scour the seismogram for a spike known as a P-wave, a high-velocity pressure wave caused by the explosion compressing rock around it. Although seismic waves can be used to distinguish between explosions and earthquakes, they cannot tell nuclear explosions from conventional detonations. To confirm a test is nuclear, scientists test air samples for specific isotopes of xenon gas that are produced only by nuclear explosions. Can a nuclear test be shielded? Yes. Nuclear bombs produce weaker shockwaves than equivalent conventional explosions because more energy goes into generating heat and radiation. Seismologists believe the North Korean test yielded the equivalent power of 550 tonnes of TNT, which suggests a 1-kilotonne nuclear device was tested. But the test bomb may have been at least five times larger if it was partly "decoupled", a technique used to deaden the seismic shockwaves by exploding the bomb inside a chamber instead of nestling it close to the surrounding rock. Theoretically, it is possible to muffle the shockwaves produced by a nuclear explosion 40-fold if it is completely decoupled. How else can nuclear bombs be tested? The CTBT bars future nuclear tests, but Britain and the US are among nuclear powers that have turned to computer simulations to study nuclear explosions. A £100m laser facility called Orion is being built at Aldermaston to reproduce for a fraction of a second the conditions inside a thermonuclear explosion. Can North Korea launch a nuclear missile? Many experts suspect North Korea has yet to build a nuclear bomb that is small and light enough to launch on a long-range missile. The country has developed Taepodong-1 missiles with a range of 2,000km, and is now working on the longer-range Taepodong-2 missiles, which will have an expected reach of 5,000-6,000km. Useful links Korea Herald (South) North Korean Central News Agency World Food Programme History of the Korean war - tcsaz.com CIA factbook: North Korea CIA factbook: South Korea [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 44 Irna: Pakistan ready to sign NPT if accepted as nuclear power - Oct 10 , IRNA - Pakistan has formally asked the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) for cooperation in providing the country nuclear supplies required for its legitimate nuclear needs as Islamabad is adhering strictly to guidelines for nuclear-related exports. According to The News, Foreign Office sources said Pakistan was prepared to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty provided it was accepted as a nuclear state. Foreign secretary Riaz Muhammad Khan is talking part in talks at the headquarters of the NSG at Vienna where the consultative group (CG) of the NSG has initiated deliberation to implement more effective control regimes over the unauthorized dealing in or of nuclear material. The CG's deliberation have attained significance in the backdrop of the nuclear test conducted by North Korea of its atomic bomb on Monday and it's threat to undertake further tests. Highly placed sources said that the deliberation of the consultative group would continue until next Thursday and Pakistan's experts on non-proliferation and ambassador in Vieana, Shahbaz Ahmad, is assisting Riaz in the process of discussions. Here in Islamabad Ms Fauzia Nasreen has taken over as acting foreign secretary in the absence of Raz. The NSG was formed in 1974 in the wake of the Indian nuclear test that perturbed the world community since India's clandestinely going nuclear alarmed the world. Since then Indians are under strict scrutiny of the NSG but now sources indicate that the United States is pressurizing it to be lenient towards India for cooperation. ***************************************************************** 45 ITAR-TASS: Nuclear arms are tool of political deterrence – Ivanov 10.10.2006, 19.00 MOSCOW, October 10 (Itar-Tass) -- Russia’s nuclear weapons are “a tool of political deterrence needed by this country,” Vice-Premier and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said on Tuesday. “The global conflict threat is minimum [for Russia], however, Russia was, is and will be a nuclear power. We will upgrade this weapon of political deterrence because it is necessary,” he said. As for other challenges, Ivanov named “terrorism, extremism, local conflicts and a large number of unrecognized states – territories where anything is possible.” © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, store in any medium (including in any other websites), distribute, transmit, re-transmit, broadcast, modify or show in public any part of the ITAR-TASS website without the prior written permission of ITAR-TASS. ***************************************************************** 46 UPI: Analysis: Mideast crisis worsens with time United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 10/10/2006 3:22:00 PM -0400 By CLAUDE SALHANI UPI International Editor WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 (UPI) -- Memo to the Bush administration: solve the Middle East crisis now before it gets even more complicated -- and deadly. Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and in the decades since, the Arab-Israeli dispute has only grown in scope and size, becoming more complex and explosive. Since Harry S. Truman sat in the Oval Office consecutive U.S. administrations have tried their hand at solving the Arab-Israeli dilemma only to hit a brick wall and give up. The blame for this can either be directed to Israeli intransigence, or on the Arabs' amazing ability to "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity," as Israel's former foreign minister, Abba Eban, used to say. Successive residents of the White House eventually ran out of time, or interest -- or both -- and turned their attention back to domestic politics, ultimately a field they tended to feel more comfortable dwelling in. Domestic politics, after all, is something American politicians comprehend far better than intricate disputes over who knows what in places they can hardly find on a map, let alone name, run by people who are supposed to be allies but have a hard time differentiating from those who are supposed to be foes. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi demonstrated America's lack of knowledge when it comes to the Middle East. Lott recently told a group of journalists after meeting with President Bush that, "It's hard for Americans, all of us, including me, to understand what's wrong with these people," Lott said, referring to Arabs and Muslims. Perplexed by the never-ending violence in the Middle East, the senator went on to ask: "Why do they hate the Israelis and despise their right to exist? Why do they hate each other? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me." Now don't let that surprise you since "President Bush had a similar challenge." Laurence Pintak, director of the Adham Center for Electronic Journalism at the American University in Cairo, wrote in a recent column, "it's not that President Bush was unable to tell the difference between Sunnis and Shias. Even after 30 years of covering the Middle East, that remains a very difficult task. But the president had no clue they even existed." Pintak quotes a new book by Peter Galbraith, "The End of Iraq," in which the author describes the president becoming "very perplexed during a briefing a few months before the invasion, when his guests kept talking about the Sunnis and Shias in Iraq. 'I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!' the president declared." Upon leaving the White House after four, or maybe eight years, departing presidents also leave the Arab-Israeli problem unsolved for the next administration to tackle. In the interim, the Middle East problem only accrues interest, much like a profitable bank account. Except in this instance it's not capital that is compiled and saved, rather it is hate and violence. The ultimate payoff comes after placing all those ingredients into a boiling pot and allowing them to percolate until the next Middle East war explodes. Take the Six Day War of June 1967. The United States intervened as a broker, after making sure Israel had ample amounts of guns and munitions to fight off the Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian armies. Once a cease-fire went into effect, attempts to negotiate a lasting settlement went nowhere. Stagnation set in and the Palestine Liberation Organization saw the day. Within a short time the PLO produced a plethora of offshoots, from extreme leftist-Marxist groups (PFLP, DFLP) to more moderate (Fatah) to groups who made no qualms about hiding their affiliation to other Arab regimes (Saiqa, Syria) (PLF, Iraq), (PFLP-GC, Syria, Libya and sometimes Iraq.) And as every administration tried to introduce a new plan from the United Nations Resolution 242 and 338, and other sets of numbers that makes it sound like a game of bingo; the Rogers peace plan, and the George Mitchell plan, the Oslo accords, the quadripartite Roadmap to peace, instead of smoothing the way, it only becomes more complicated with new players becoming more intransigent. Look at Hamas in the Palestinian territories and compare them to the Palestine Liberation Organization which is now seen as a moderate entity. Oh, how much easier negotiating a peace treaty with the PLO would have been rather than dealing with Hamas. Oh, how much easier sitting at the same table with Syrian president Hafez al-Assad might have been than trying to deal with his son Bashar and the Islamist groups -- Hamas and Islamic Jihad -- currently based in Damascus. Not to forget the strings Damascus can pull in Lebanon. Had a settlement to the Palestinian question been reached a decade or two ago, would there even be an Osama bin Laden to contend with today? Would the war in Iraq have been necessary? In all likelihood President Bush will leave the White House in 2008, leaving behind unfinished business in the Middle East. His successor will inherit an even more complicated situation, only this time with additional players, such as Iran who enters the scene with a nuclear card up its sleeve. The longer the Middle East problem is left unresolved, the more violent the next conflagration will be. Need proof? Look at the level of violence that was unleashed during 34 days of hell in Lebanon over the summer when Israel and Hezbollah clashed. The outcome of that short war -- or rather long by Middle East standards -- is yet to be decided. But one thing is already certain, and that is the level of worry some Western intelligence agencies are showing, given the uncertainty that continues to prevail in the Middle East, and the fact that UNIFIL II with its soon to be 15,000 troops offers Syria, Iran and Hezbollah 15,000 potential hostages. Mr. President, a settlement of the Middle East conflict should be a top priority. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 47 NRC: Revised: Time and Location Change NRC to Hold Public Meeting Nov. 1 in Rockville, MD on Proposed Revisions to Limited Work Authorization Rules News Release - 2006-12 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: No. 06-124 October 10, 2006 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on a supplemental proposed rule that would amend its regulations regarding the issuance of limited work authorizations (LWA) for construction related to new nuclear power plants. The proposed changes supplement the NRCs rulemaking to revise Part 52 of the agencys regulations, which deal with licensing processes such as Early Site Permits (ESP), Design Certifications and Combined Licenses (COL). The Part 52 proposal would clarify its relationship to Part 50, which has license requirements for currently operating reactors. The NRC will discuss the supplement in a public meeting Wednesday, Nov. 1, in room T9A1 of the Two White Flint North building, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville. The meeting, which will include opportunities for the public to ask questions on the proposal, will run from 1 p.m. until 3 p.m. The supplements changes would revise the definition of construction that requires either a LWA, a Part 50 construction permit or a COL. Under the proposed rule, no LWA would be required for activities such as site clearing, transmission line routing, road building and construction of permanent buildings not required in safety analysis reports for the nuclear power plant. A LWA, construction permit or COL would be required, however, for activities including excavation, pile-driving and foundation work for any structure, system or component required in a safety analysis report. The proposed rule would allow LWA applications before submission of an application for a construction permit or COL. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and NRC staff would have to render decisions on the LWA request before work could begin. For a site where a construction permit was issued but no plant was built, the LWA application could reference an existing environmental impact statement for the site, taking into account the possible need for updated information. The text of the proposed changes is available on the NRC's RuleForum page at by clicking on the"Draft Rule Text for Comment" link. The proposed changes will be published soon in the Federal Register, and after publication the proposed rule can be accessed on RuleForum by clicking on the "Proposed Rules" link. The deadline for commenting on the changes is 30 days after publication of the proposed rule, to guarantee consideration by the NRC. Comments submitted later than this date may be considered if practical. Comments can be mailed to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Comments can be hand-carried to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md., between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on federal work days, or they can be faxed to 301-415-1101. E-mail comments can also be sent to . In addition, comments can also be submitted through the NRCs eRulemaking Portal at . NRC news releases are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. Last revised Tuesday, October 10, 2006 ***************************************************************** 48 NRC: NRC Announces Availability of License Renewal Application for Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station News Release - 2006-12 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-127 October 10, 2006 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced today that an application for a 20-year renewal of the operating license for the Wolf Creek Generating Station is available for public review. The Wolf Creek plant is a pressurized water reactor located approximately three miles northeast of Burlington, Kans. The current operating license expires March 11, 2025. The applicant, Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp., submitted the renewal application Oct. 4. The application is available on the NRC Web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati ons.html. The NRC staff is currently conducting its initial reviews of the application to determine whether it contains enough information for the required formal reviews. If the application has sufficient information, the NRC will formally docket, or file it and will announce an opportunity for the public to request an adjudicatory hearing on the renewal request. Additional information about the NRCs review of reactor license renewal applications is available on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html. NRC news releases are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. Last revised Tuesday, October 10, 2006 ***************************************************************** 49 Guardian Unlimited: No subsidies for nuclear, says energy minister Mark Milner Industrial editor Wednesday October 11, 2006 The Guardian The government will not provide subsidies, either directly or indirectly, to encourage Britain's energy companies to invest in a new generation of nuclear power stations, energy minister Malcolm Wicks said yesterday. The operators of any new nuclear plant would also have to pay a "full share" of the costs of disposing of radioactive waste, the minister said, though he acknowledged the calculations involved were complex. "There will be no subsidies, direct or indirect. We are not in the business of subsidising nuclear energy. No cheques will be written, there will be no sweetheart deals," he told the House of Commons trade and industry select committee. Mr Wicks noted the government's energy review had concluded nuclear could be an important part of Britain's future energy mix but said the government would not try to tell the industry how many nuclear reactors should be built. "We are talking about liberalised markets; about the private sector. It is not for government to say we should have x number of nuclear reactors." Mr Wicks was pressed by MPs on whether nuclear was viable without a higher price for carbon. Under the European Union's emissions trading scheme, big emitters of carbon dioxide, including power generators, are given allocations for the amount of carbon dioxide they can generate. They can sell any unused part of their allocation or buy extra allowances from others if they over-pollute. At the end of the last trading year on the scheme many producers fell short of their full allocation, sending the price of carbon crashing. Yesterday Mr Wicks acknowledged the scheme was "rather fragile" at present. "It's like a two-year-old just learning to walk," he said. Some countries "were not playing the game" in allocating allowances and the European commission faced a "big test" in ensuring that in the next round of allocations all 25 member states showed they were serious about the issue. He was also asked about the problem of companies switching production from the UK to other countries where emission levels were not an issue. "It is a question of getting the balance right. We have to reach international agreement about carbon." He said emissions trading could provide a framework to which other carbon-emitting sectors, such as aviation, could be added. It could also be extended to include other countries beyond the EU. Mr Wick's firm renunciation of subsidies for nuclear new build is unlikely to dismay the generating companies. Vincent de Rivaz, chief executive of EDF Energy, said: "We have not said we wanted subsidies. We are not looking for subsidies. We are looking for a framework which will allow us to invest in low-carbon generation and that includes nuclear." Useful links British Energy Department of Trade and Industry British Nuclear Fuels Ltd Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Greenpeace Come Clean WMD awareness programme UK atomic energy authority National Radiological Protection Board Friends of the Earth World Nuclear Association World Nuclear Transport Institute [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 50 amarillo.com: Exelon studies Texas sites for nuclear reactor 10/10/06 [Amarillo Globe News] HOUSTON - Exelon Corp., the largest U.S. nuclear power producer, said it is "actively" evaluating eight sites in Texas as possible locations for a nuclear reactor, a spokesman said Friday. Chicago-based Exelon, which entered the Texas generation market in 2002 with the purchase of two aging natural gas-fired power plants from TXU Corp., became the fourth company last week to say it wants to apply for a license to build a nuclear plant in Texas to meet growing power needs. Of the 19 preliminary proposals for new U.S. reactors, Texas has attracted the most interest, with four proposals, according to data from the Nuclear Energy Institute. Amarillo-based real estate developer George Chapman is working to attract a reactor to the Panhandle. The industry, dormant since the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear station in Pennsylvania, is undergoing a rebirth amid growing environmental concern about carbon emissions from fossil-fuel plants and rising costs of natural gas. President Bush supports new nuclear construction, and energy legislation passed in 2005 offers billions of dollars in incentives to owners of the first new plants to go into service. Two other Texas generators, NRG Energy and TXU, have proposed reactors in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which serves about 85 percent of the state's power needs. Princeton, New Jersey-based NRG owns 44 percent of the 2,560-megawatt South Texas Project, located southwest of Houston, while Dallas-based TXU owns 100 percent of 2,300-MW Comanche Peak station southwest of Fort Worth. In June, NRG proposed adding two reactors, totaling 2,700 megawatts, at the South Texas location. TXU said it was studying an expansion at Comanche Peak but did not disclose how much capacity it might build. TXU also is looking at other sites in Texas and sites outside the state. Exelon spokesman Craig Nesbit said the company is pursuing a new Texas reactor on its own, but he would not dismiss the idea of a partnership with one of the other companies. "I would never shut the door on anything," he said. ***************************************************************** 51 NRC: Solicitation of Public Comments on the Implementation of the FR Doc E6-16641 [Federal Register: October 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 195)] [Notices] [Page 59539-59540] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr10oc06-86] [[Page 59539]] Reactor Oversight Process AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Request for public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC is soliciting comments from members of the public, licensees, and interest groups related to the implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). An electronic version of the survey questions may be obtained from . This solicitation will provide insights into the self-assessment process and a summary of the feedback will be included in the annual ROP self-assessment report to the Commission. DATES: The comment period expires on December 1, 2006. The NRC will consider comments received after this date if it is practical to do so, but is only able to ensure consideration of comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Completed questionnaires and/or comments may be e-mailed to or sent to Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Office of Administration (Mail Stop T- 6D59), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. If you choose to send your response using email, please include appropriate contact information so the NRC can follow-up on the comments. Comments may also be hand-delivered to Mr. Lesar at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at . From this site, the public can access the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. For more information, contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 301-415-4737 or 800-397-4209, or by e-mail at . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bart Fu, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (Mail Stop: OWFN 7H2), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001. Mr. Fu can also be reached by telephone at 301-415-2467 or by e-mail at . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Program Overview The mission of the NRC is to license and regulate the Nation's civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and protect the environment. This mission is accomplished through the following activities: License nuclear facilities and the possession, use, and disposal of nuclear materials. Develop and implement requirements governing licensed activities. Inspect and enforce licensee activities to ensure compliance with these requirements and the law. While the NRC's responsibility is to monitor and regulate licensees' performance, the primary responsibility for safe operation and handling of nuclear materials rests with each licensee. As the nuclear industry in the United States has matured, the NRC and its licensees have learned much about how to safely operate nuclear facilities and handle nuclear materials. In April 2000, the NRC began to implement more effective and efficient inspection, assessment, and enforcement approaches, which apply insights from these years of regulatory oversight and nuclear facility operation. Key elements of the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) include NRC inspection procedures, plant performance indicators, a significance determination process, and an assessment program that incorporates various risk-informed thresholds to help determine the level of NRC oversight and enforcement. Since ROP development began in 1998, the NRC has frequently communicated with the public by various initiatives: conducted public meetings in the vicinity of each licensed commercial nuclear power plant, issued FRNs to solicit feedback on the ROP, published press releases about the new process, conducted multiple public workshops, placed pertinent background information in the NRC's Public Document Room, and established an NRC Web site containing easily accessible information about the ROP and licensee performance. NRC Public Stakeholder Comments The NRC continues to be interested in receiving feedback from members of the public, various public stakeholders, and industry groups on their insights regarding the calendar year 2006 implementation of the ROP. In particular, the NRC is seeking responses to the questions listed below, which will provide important information that the NRC can use in ongoing program improvement. A summary of the feedback obtained will be provided to the Commission and included in the annual ROP self- assessment report. This solicitation of public comments has been issued each year since ROP implementation in 2000. Although written responses are encouraged, there are specific choices to best describe your experience to enable us to more objectively determine your level of satisfaction. Questions In responding to these questions, please consider your experiences using the NRC oversight process. Shade in the circle that most applies to your experiences as follows: (1) Strongly Agree (2) Agree (3) Neutral (4) Disagree (5) Strongly Disagree If there are experiences that are rated as unsatisfactory, or if you have specific thoughts or concerns, please elaborate in the ``Comments'' section that follows the question and offer your opinion for possible improvements. If there are experiences or opinions that you would like to express that cannot be directly captured by the questions, document that in the last question of the survey. Questions Related to Specific Reactor Oversight (ROP) Program Areas (As appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions for improvement.) (1) The Performance Indicator Program provides useful insights to help ensure plant safety. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: (2) Appropriate overlap exists between the Performance Indicator Program and the Inspection Program. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: (3) NEI 99-02, ``Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline'' provides clear guidance regarding Performance Indicators. [[Page 59540]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: (4) The Performance Indicator Program, including the Mitigating Systems Performance Index, can effectively identify performance outliers based on risk-informed, objective, and predictable indicators. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: (5) The Inspection Program adequately covers areas important to safety, and is effective in identifying and ensuring the prompt correction of any performance deficiencies. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: (6) The information contained in inspection reports is relevant, useful, and written in plain English. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: (7) The Significance Determination Process yields an appropriate and consistent regulatory response across all ROP cornerstones. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: (8) The NRC takes appropriate actions to address performance issues for those plants outside of the Licensee Response Column of the Action Matrix. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: (9) The information contained in assessment reports is relevant, useful, and written in plain English. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: Questions Related to the Efficacy of the Overall ROP (As appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions for improvement.) (10) The ROP oversight activities are predictable (i.e., controlled by the process) and reasonably objective (i.e., based on supported facts, rather than relying on subjective judgement). [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: (11) The ROP is risk-informed, in that the NRC's actions and outcomes are appropriately graduated on the basis of increased significance. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: (12) The ROP is understandable and the processes, procedures and products are clear and written in plain English. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: (13) The ROP provides adequate regulatory assurance, when combined with other NRC regulatory processes, that plants are being operated and maintained safely. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: (14) The ROP safety culture enhancements help identify licensee safety culture weaknesses and focus licensee and NRC attention appropriately. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: (15) The ROP is effective, efficient, realistic, and timely. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: (16) The ROP ensures openness in the regulatory process. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: (17) The public has been afforded adequate opportunity to participate in the ROP and to provide inputs and comments. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: (18) The NRC has been responsive to public inputs and comments on the ROP. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: (19) The NRC has implemented the ROP as defined by program documents. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: (20) The ROP minimizes unintended consequences. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: (21) You would support a change in frequency of the ROP external survey from annually to every other year, consistent with the internal survey, as proposed in SECY-06-0074. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000 Comments: Please provide any additional information or comments related to the Reactor Oversight Process. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of October, 2006. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Stuart A. Richards, Division of Inspection & Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-16641 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 52 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc E6-16647 [Federal Register: October 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 195)] [Notices] [Page 59528-59529] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr10oc06-84] of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 47-00260-02, for the Unrestricted Release of Building B-747 and an Associated Storage Shed Located at the Union Carbide Corporation Site in South Charleston, WV AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for license amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Betsy Ullrich, Senior Health Physicist, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, (610) 337-5040; fax number (610) 337-5269; or by e-mail: exu@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 47- 00260-02. This license is held by Union Carbide Corporation (the Licensee), located at 3200 Kanawha Turnpike in South Charleston, West Virginia. Issuance of the amendment would authorize release of Building B-747 and an associated storage shed (together identified herein as the Facility) at the South Charleston site for unrestricted use. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated August 3, 2006. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal Register. II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would approve the Licensee's August 3, 3006, license amendment request, resulting in release of the Facility for unrestricted use. License No. 47-00260-02 was issued on August 15, 1956, pursuant to 10 CFR part 30, and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorized the Licensee to use unsealed hydrogen-3 (tritium) and carbon-14, and various sealed sources, for purposes of conducting research and development activities on laboratory bench tops and in hoods. The Facility is situated on 600 acres and is surrounded by multiple buildings containing office space and laboratories. The Facility is located in a commercial area. Use of licensed materials occurred throughout the Facility, an area totaling 1,536 square feet. In 2001, the Licensee ceased licensed activities within the Facility and initiated a survey and decontamination of the Facility. Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of the Facility, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination activities, in accordance with their NRC-approved, operating radiation safety procedures, were required. The Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC because worker cleanup activities and procedures are consistent with those approved for routine operations. The Licensee conducted surveys of the Facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the criteria in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities in the Facility and seeks the unrestricted use of the Facility. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows that such activities involved use of the following unsealed radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days: tritium and carbon-14. Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee conducted decontamination activities, as necessary, in the areas of the Facility affected by these radionuclides. The Licensee conducted a final status survey on July 27, 2006. The final status survey report was attached to the Licensee's amendment request dated August 3, 2006. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,'' Volume 2. The Licensee used the radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), developed there by the NRC, which comply with the dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs define the maximum amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, and materials, and in soils, that will satisfy the NRC requirements in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. The Licensee's final status survey results were below these DCGLs and are in compliance with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC thus finds that the Licensee's final status survey results are acceptable. Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities'' (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). The staff finds there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material at the Facility. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the final status survey [[Page 59529]] report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding the Facility. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC has identified no other radiological or non-radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts. The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility for unrestricted use is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Although the Licensee will continue to perform licensed activities at other areas of the South Charleston site, the Licensee must ensure that this decommissioned area does not become recontaminated. Before the license can be terminated, the Licensee will be required to show that its entire site, including previously-released areas, complies with the radiological criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the Facility and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey data confirmed that the Facility meets the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, denying the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this EA to the State of West Virginia for review on August 28, 2006. On September 15, 2006, the State of West Virginia Radiological Health program responded by electronic mail. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers. 1. Letters dated August 3, 2006 [ML062220617], June 19, 2006 [ML061720331], and January 27, 2006 [ML060320507]. 2. Facsimile dated January 31, 2006 [ML060320519]. 3. NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance.'' 4. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, ``Radiological Criteria for License Termination.'' 5. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.'' 6. NUREG-1496, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC- Licensed Nuclear Facilities.'' If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 29th day of September 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. E6-16647 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 53 NewsRoom Finland: Finnish watchdog wants Fortum to stay clear of sixth nuke 10.10.2006 at 10:38 The Finnish Competition Authority (FCA) told the Finnish Broadcasting Company (YLE) on Tuesday that the building of a possible sixth nuclear reactor in Finland should be handled by the competitors of Fortum, the utility of which the Finnish state owns 51.05 per cent. Fortum received a lashing last week when Matti Purasjoki, appointed by the government to get to the bottom of Finland's energy market, released his report. In addition to saying that Fortum's dominant position hurt competition, Mr Purasjoki recommended the building of more nuclear power. Juhani Jokinen, the director general of the FCA, told YLE that shutting Fortum outside the project would benefit competition. "There's no question that one needs improvements in that regard. There is a single player out there - Fortum, to be more precise - that dominates the market and that is not good for competition," Mr Jokinen said. Mr Jokinen advises Fortum's competitors to close ranks and start planning more nuclear power generation capacity without Fortum. "Fortum's competitors of course play a key role if we think about this from the point of view of competition." But Timo Kalli (centre), the chairman of Fortum's supervisory board, said that Fortum should not be prevented from taking part in the project if the alternative was a foreign player. Fortum owns considerable nuclear power generation capacity in Finland and Sweden. /STT/ © Copyright STT 2006 ***************************************************************** 54 [NYTr] Experts Warn of an Accidental Nuclear War Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 01:26:42 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Radio Havana Cuba http://www.radiohc.cu Experts Warn of an Accidental Nuclear War Boston, October 9 (RHC)-- Experts say that the world is on the edge of an accidential nuclear war -- with a Pentagon project to modify its deadliest nuclear missile for use as a conventional weapon against Iran, which could set off alarms in Russia and trigger an accidental response. According to a story carried by The San Francisco Chronicle, Russian military officers might misconstrue a submarine-launched conventional D5 intercontinental ballistic missile and conclude that Russia is under nuclear attack. Ted Postol, a physicist and professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Boston and Pavel Podvig, a physicist and weapons specialist at Stanford, agreed that the world is in danger of an accident of major proportions. Postol told reporters that "any launch of a long-range nonnuclear armed sea or land ballistic missile will cause an automated alert of the Russian early warning system." While he noted that the triggering of an alert wouldn't necessarily precipitate a retaliatory hail of Russian nuclear missiles, nevertheless "there can be no doubt that such an alert will greatly increase the chances of a nuclear accident involving strategic nuclear forces." Mixing conventional and nuclear D5s on a U.S. Trident submarine "would be very dangerous," according to Podvig, the weapons specialist at Stanford. He said that it is especially volatile because the Russians have no way of discriminating between the two types of missiles once they are launched. Even Russian President Vladimir Putin recently warned that the project would increase the danger of accidental nuclear war. The San Francisco Chronicle article notes that an accidental nuclear war is not so far-fetched. In 1995, Russia initially interpreted the launch of a Norwegian scientific rocket as the onset of a U.S. nuclear attack. Then-President Boris Yeltsin activated his "nuclear briefcase" in the first stages of preparation to launch a retaliatory strike before the mistake was discovered. The United States and Russia have acknowledged the possibility that Russia's equipment might mistakenly conclude the United States was attacking with nuclear missiles. In 1998, the two countries agreed to set up a joint radar center in Moscow operated by U.S. and Russian forces to supplement Russia's aging equipment and reduce the threat of accidental war. Eight years later and the center has yet to open. A major technical problem exacerbates the risk of using the D5 as a conventional weapon: the decaying state of Russia's nuclear forces. Russia's nuclear missiles are tethered to early warning radars that have been in decline since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. And Russia, unlike the United States, lacks sufficient satellites to supplement the radars and confirm whether missile launches are truly under way or are false alarms. The scenario that worries weapons experts is what might happen if the United States launches a conventional D5 against Iran, for example, from a submerged Trident submarine. Depending on the sub's location, the flying time to Russia could be under 15 minutes so the Russians would have little time to confirm the trajectory before deciding to launch a nuclear strike on the United States. The D5 missile project involves the removal of nuclear warheads from as many as two dozen D5 ICBMs that are carried aboard the U.S. fleet of 12 Ohio-class Trident submarines. The Pentagon reportedly has the project on an accelerated schedule, with the goal of fielding the weapons alongside their nuclear variants in two years. Each Trident submarine carries 24 D5 missiles, and the plan calls for using two of those as conventional weapons in each sub. The rocket fired by a submerged submarine would barrel up through the ocean powered by its three-stage engine and rapidly ascend through the atmosphere at speeds up to 20,000 feet per second into outer space. The warhead compartment of the missile would then plummet back to earth, guided to its target -- according to the Pentagon -- within about 50 feet by sophisticated sensors. It would then explode on target, killing and destroying the 'enemy' -- and, hopefully, not ignite a total, accidental nuclear conflagration. * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 55 [du-list] Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions used in Lebanon? Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:59:07 -0700 X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61] X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61 X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST Amsterdam, 8th October, 2006 Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions used in Lebanon? During and after the 33-days war in Lebanon the story was rumoured that the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) should have used DU antitank shells or other types of munitions made from DU. The attention was especially focussed on the article “Scientists suspect Israeli arms used in South contain radioactive matter” by Mohammed Zaatari in the Daily Star (August 21, 2006) in which nuclear physicist Dr. Ali Kobeissi, a member of the Lebanese National Council for Scientific Research said that a crater caused by an Israeli munition in Khiam contained “a high degree of unidentified radioactive materials.” Many people within the movement against uranium weapons considered Kobeissi’s statements as a “piece of evidence” for the alleged use of DU by the IDF. In order to verify or to falsify the assertions that DU has been used I brought a visit to Lebanon as part of a delegation from the Amsterdam based organisation Dromen, Denk, Durven, Doen (Dreaming, Thinking, to Dare, to Do), among others working on human rights issues and questions on the Middle East. On September 25 I visited Dr. Kobeissi in Nabatiyeh. He told that he tested some deep pits made by Israeli weapons with a geiger counter from a local scrap dealer and that his results indicated the presence of uranium. He stressed that he has never said ‘depleted uranium’ and regretted the political bickerings between different sects. He measured 50 nanosievert (nSv) per hour in the outside rim of the pits and 300 nSv in the heart of most pits with the exception of one which measured 800 nsV/h. He also declared that these dose rates in the pits decreased considerably day by day. On my suggestion that these higher measures could be due to the concentration of uranium in the ash (‘concentrated background radiation from the burnt material’) he agreed that this possibility is highly likely. At his home Kobeissi had collected tens of samples from shrapnel and soil from more than 50 different places. None of these samples measured a higher radiation dose rate than the background radiation dose rate. The samples were measured with a calibrated geiger counter from Laka Foundation. Finally there is no reason to assume that the IDF has used DU antitank shells. Firstly there were no armored targets in Lebanon and secondly the Mine clearance teams - present on many places in the south of Lebanon, especially because of the enormous abundance of cluster bombs ­ haven’t found no spent DU antitank shells. According to Peter Boeckhart, who is in charge for making reports in post-conflict areas for Human Rights Watch, only a few bunker busters have been used in Lebanon (on bridges), but he couldn’t tell me where. No chance that these munitions were equiped with a load of DU. Instead of bunker buster types of munitions Boeckhart said that the use of serial bombing was much more seen. A mosque in Beirut was bombed with a load of more than 20 tons by serial bombing. In short, there is no reason to believe that DU weaponry has been used by Israel. Henk van der Keur Laka Foundation www.laka.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 56 Deseret News: Nuclear predicament — Tremors: Utahns, others voice shock [deseretnews.com] Tuesday, October 10, 2006 By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News The nuclear test North Korea set off Monday wasn't powerful enough to detect in Utah, but it triggered international shock waves. Among those expressing horror are downwinder groups of fallout survivors. The South Korean government said its seismographs detected the test as a magnitude 3.58 to 3.7 temblor. The U.S. Geological Survey pegged it as a "light" jolt of magnitude 4.2. It was centered about 40 miles north of Kimchaek, North Korea, and 55 miles southwest of Chongjin, North Korea. "We haven't seen anything" on the Utah Seismograph Network, said Relu Burlacu, manager of the network, based at the University of Utah. Because Utah is more than 5,600 miles from the blast and the shaking was slight, he said, the detonation's signal was "kind of buried in the noise." "In general, we can see events worldwide in the magnitude range 4.5 (to) 5, easily," he said, but the reported shaking was "quite small for us" to record it. Another factor, said Walter J. Arabasz, director of the seismograph stations, involves "differences between seismic radiation from a shallow explosive source versus a normal earthquake." Shaking from a deep quake may propagate better through the ground than shaking from a shallow blast. Regardless of the bomb's size, seismic waves of concern are rumbling through the world. "Absolutely reprehensible" was the comment by Downwinders United, which identifies itself as a group of downwind victims of nuclear testing who come from seven states. "The last thing this world needs is another nuclear-armed state, since none of the existing nuclear nations can apparently behave themselves properly" in terms of ridding the world of all such weapons, commented J Truman, a resident of Malad, Idaho, and a member of Downwinders United. The group is adamantly opposed to nuclear testing by any country. Such a test "can only be viewed for what it is — a nuclear attack against all humanity," he added. Mary Dickson, a Salt Lake resident, added in the group's press release that these are perilous times. With the test, the international situation becomes increasingly fragile and complex, she said. "How we respond as a nation and as an international community is exÉtremely critical since it will have major repercussions," she said. Downwinders United expressed concern that the detonation will be seen as a signal by the United States and others to resume nuclear testing of their own. "The language that is being used by the international community to condemn North Korea's actions should apply equally to all nations' intention to test," said Dickson, "including our own." © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 57 Bush Radio: 5000 ex-nuclear factory workers may have disease Bush Radio 89.5 fm Newsroom: Bush Radio 89.5 fm is the Mother of Community Radio in Africa. Based in Cape Town, South Africa, Bush Radio exists with the sole purpose to uplift, develop and educate the communities it serves. To find out more about Bush Radio go to www.bushradio.co.za, where you can also listen on-line. Tuesday, October 10, 2006 By Tando Mfengwana 10 October 2006 Approximately 5000 former employees of the Pelindaba nuclear facility, near Pretoria, may possibly be suffering from an occupational disease related to chemical and radiation exposure. The Cape Times reports that this emerged from a survey of 208 former employees and found that 72 had probable occupational disease. The report said that this could mean that 5 100 workers from the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa, a state owned company that boast 30 000 workers, could have the occupational disease. The survey is said to have been commissioned by the anti-nuclear lobby group, Earthlife Africa, after employees complained of contracting diseases from the radiation. The report says that during the investigation by Earthlife Africa, 15 employees died out of the 208 surveyed. Mashile Phalane of Earthlife Africa is reported to have said that the organisation began its investigation due to the death of a young graduate who died in the facility after inhaling gas. The group approached Health Gap Network to survey ex-Necsa workers. Phalane provided medical files of 208 former staff of Necsa. Sixty-eight percent of them were between the ages of 41 and 60 years old, many had been retrenched and 45 percent had over 10 years of exposure to the chemicals and radiation. posted by Bush Radio 89.5fm Newsroom @ 12:28 PM 0 comments   0 Comments: + Name:Bush Radio 89.5 fm + Location:Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa ***************************************************************** 58 KCPW: Radioactive Waste Could Stack Up in Utah On Air At Library Square Oct 10, 2006 by Jonathan Brown Utah's radioactive waste storage site wants to stack that waste higher. Energy Solutions is asking the state for a change in regulations that would allow radioactive waste to be piled up to 83 feet high at the storage site west of Salt Lake City. The state's Division of Radiation Control has given its preliminary approval, but now the D-R-C is taking public comment on the proposal. Public hearings are scheduled Wednesday (October 11) from 2 to 4 at the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (168 North 1950 West, Room 201) and from 7 to 9 at the Tooele County Health Department (151 North Main Street, Room 162). Written comments can be submitted to Dane Finerfrock, Executive Secretary, Utah Division of Radiation Control, P.O. 144850, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850. The public comment period ends November 10. Posted in KCPW Newsroom. Copyright 2006 KCPW : Copyright © 2006 KCPW ***************************************************************** 59 Morning Sentinel: Nuclear waste: Uncle Sam's unmet obligations A long, long time ago, when the nuclear power industry was just getting started with substantial help from the federal government, Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. That act said the federal government must take responsibility for managing nuclear waste. --> Tuesday, October 10, 2006 Editorial: A long, long time ago, when the nuclear power industry was just getting started with substantial help from the federal government, Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. That act said the federal government must take responsibility for managing nuclear waste. In a series of followup pieces of legislation, including the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and a subsequent 1987 amendment, Congress authorized the federal government to collect money from nuclear power consumers -- through a surcharge on their electricity bills -- to pay for the ultimate disposal of nuclear waste. The law directed the feds to begin removing high-level radioactive waste from states by early 1998 as their part of the bargain. The federal government has collected $24 billion in payments from electricity ratepayers across the country, $279 million of it from Maine Yankee customers. But it has done nothing to haul away the 550 metric tons of nuclear waste stored in this state, or the waste lying around in any other state, because they have not been able to convince any state to permanently accept the waste. Forgive us, but this ranks as deadbeat behavior, even if it comes from Uncle Sam. We pay the government lots of money to do something, and they don't do it. Generally, a case like this of payments made and services never rendered is a recipe for a lawsuit. Which is just how Maine Yankee and other nuclear power plants across the country saw it. In a series of separate lawsuits filed years ago, they asked for damages against the U.S. Department of Energy for not holding to its agreement to remove the radioactive waste. This past week, those actions finally bore fruit, when the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ordered the feds to pay Maine Yankee ratepayers $75.8 million in damages. Damages in the tens of millions were awarded to ratepayers of other utilities as well. Now, don't go spending that money on a weekend shopping spree or fancy dinner yet. It's highly likely that the federal government will appeal the ruling, and the ratepayers' money that should rightfully be returned to those who paid it will continue to be tied up in the politics of nuclear waste disposal. Yet the ruling is at least a sign that it is still the law of the land that money should be paid only for services rendered. In the end, of course, we'd rather the federal government kept our money, took the nuclear waste out of Maine and stored it safely elsewhere, as it promised to do a very long time ago. Copyright © 2006, Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc. ***************************************************************** 60 Salt Lake Tribune: Dump wants to pile it on By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune Updated:10/10/2006 01:16:18 AM MDTEnergySolutions wants to grow up - literally. Stymied in its effort to sprawl onto adjacent property, the company has asked regulators to allow waste to be piled 83 feet above ground level, roughly twice the level now allowed. The proposal, if approved, would free the mile-square hazardous and radioactive waste site to grow by nearly 50 percent. Critics call the idea another example of unchecked growth at the landfill, the nation's only commercially owned and operated facility for low-level radioactive waste and its largest in terms of volume. At least two critics of the latest EnergySolutions growth project plan to raise their concerns at public hearings on Wednesday. Charles Judd, onetime president of the company formerly known as Envirocare of Utah, has been poised for months to sue the state for allowing the growth without seeking a review by the Legislature and the governor. He says a 1990 law requires it. So does an environmental group, the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL), which has an appeal of EnergySolutions' boundary expansion before the Utah Supreme Court. Like Judd, HEAL notes state law requires that a radioactive facility that grows by more than 50 percent - as EnergySolutions has - to be approved by the governor and Legislature, not just by the Radiation Control Division that reviews plans for routine license amendments. More than 80 such amendments have cleared the way for growth at the Tooele County site in its 18 years of operation. Licensed for 4 million cubic yards in 1990, it now has approval from state regulators to accept 8.8 million cubic yards. With the higher cell limits now proposed, and by combining two disposal cells with similar types of waste into a new "Supercell," the capacity will be 13.1 million cubic yards. Just this expansion alone will increase the waste capacity by 49.2 percent. Greg Hopkins, vice president of communications for EnergySolutions, said his company only wants to be more efficient and meet contracts, many of which offer disposal for 20 years. The review by state leaders won't be needed because all of the growth is staying within the disposal site's current boundaries, he said. "This assures we will have the capacity to fulfill the obligations to our customers." Judd questioned the state's motive in continuing to grant the expansions without the review triggered in the 1990 law. He said the radiation agency has an interest in allowing more waste because its budget is tied to waste volumes. "If the state is buying into [EnergySolutions'] strategy, it's just so they can keep the waste coming in, keep the money coming in," Judd said. In the past, agency officials have said they have followed the law with Envirocare and EnergySolutions. EnergySolutions also confirmed Monday that it reduced its work force by 10 percent, or 30 people, last week. The company had expected a lower volume of waste than in its recent years, so the reduction in work force was not a surprise. Hopkins said the layoffs were due to lower than expected waste volume coming to the facility in the last quarter. fahys@sltrib.com Public comment opportunities * Public hearings on EnergySolutions' new "Supercell" are slated for Wednesday. More information about the proposal can be found on the Web, http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov. * The Utah Department of Environmental Quality will hear comments from 2 to 4 p.m., in Room 201 of its Salt Lake City headquarters, 168 N. 1950 West, Building No. 2. * A second meeting is planned for 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., in Room 162 of the Tooele County Health Department building, 151 N. Main St. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 61 Nevada: NO CONFIDENCE IN YUCCA MOUNTAIN A Message from Governor Kenny C. Guinn On September 8th, the Secretary of the Interior vetoed the Private Fuel Storage (PFS) facility for storing radioactive spent nuclear fuel in Utah after PFS had already received a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct the facility on the Goshute Indian reservation in western Utah. There are many lessons here for people on all sides of the radioactive waste debate. PFS pursued the license application over the strong objections of the people in Utah and their congressional representatives. In the federal scheme for nuclear power, the feelings of the citizens of Utah, or of any other state, don't matter because the federal government preempts all authority in this area. Opponents' arguments may drag things out, but the NRC has never seen an application it wouldn't license. So, after a nine-year licensing process, the NRC granted PFS a license in spite of almost unanimous opposition to the project within the state of Utah. The difference this time was that the Secretary of the Interior is the legally-designated trustee for federal and Indian lands, and he had to decide whether an interim storage site for radioactive spent (used) nuclear fuel would be a prudent use of these lands. He concluded it was not. The lesson for those who would ride roughshod over state and public concerns about nuclear waste is that relying on federal preemption to gain approvals is not a secure foundation for a project. Spending millions on an NRC license application process, as PFS did, is not a good investment if the state and its people do not want the project. The law may not require it, but project developers had better meet the state's concerns, and not only those of the five NRC commissioners sitting in Washington. There is another especially interesting aspect to this decision-the reason why the Secretary said it was imprudent to proceed with PFS. The facility was to store "dry" casks containing radioactive spent fuel on an "interim" basis with the fuel ultimately to bet shipped to the federal waste repository the Department of Energy wants to put at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The Interior Secretary concluded, among other things, that he was not confident the Yucca Mountain repository would ever open. Of course, the Secretary is just facing up to the facts about Yucca Mountain. In 2002, when Congress gave DOE the green light to proceed to an NRC license application, DOE promised to file such an application in 2004 and to open the facility in 2010. Today, four years later, DOE's application date has slipped to 2008 with the projected opening to after, perhaps many years after, 2017 - if that facility opens at all. The new head of the DOE waste office, Ward Sproat, admitted in a recent Senate hearing that the delays were mainly due to DOE's own management problems - problems that stem ultimately from the difficulty in rationalizing an almost uniquely bad and unsafe site and the impossibility of covering up fundamentally fatal flaws at Yucca Mountain. The Secretary's finding is extraordinary because the Bush administration has put opening Yucca Mountain at the center of its nuclear policy and is constantly putting an optimistic face on the project. This was the first time a federal official (and certainly one as high-up as a cabinet secretary) acting in a fiduciary capacity, had to make a decision on the prudence of relying on DOE promises. Just as important as the Interior Secretary's finding on PFS are the recent remarks of the president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, retired Admiral Frank "Skip" Bowman, who told members of the House energy and water subcommittee that spent nuclear fuel is perfectly safe being stored at commercial nuclear power plants, and that the need for a Yucca Mountain repository is more for "public perception of confidence in where we are going." Bowman went on the say that, as a contingency, interim storage sites should be set up, but not using the same method used to choose Yucca Mountain. "No more picking a state and forcing it down somebody's throat," said Bowman. Nevada should take heart from the fact that the State's assessment of Yucca Mountain's dim prospects are shared by top federal and industry officials who know in their hearts that Nevada is right even if they don't always admit it. We should also take heart from the fact that there are top-level officials willing to say the emperor has no clothes. If the nuclear crowd wants to reduce public hostility and foster an atmosphere of broad public acceptance for nuclear facilities, they should start by leveling with the public and accepting that such facilities ought not and cannot be shoved down people's throats. ***************************************************************** 62 Telluride Watch: Nuclear Company Plans to Build Uranium Mill Published:10/10/06 (AP) A uranium producer plans to build a mill outside Naturita to service several uranium mines in western Colorado and eastern Utah. Energy Fuels Resources Corp., based in nearby Nucla, owns mines near Gateway and in Utah between Moab and Blanding. One of the things this area lacks is a uranium mill, said company President George Glasier. But what we really need is a mill thats closer to the actual mines well be producing from. The facility has been planned to be built within three years next to the U.S. Department of Energy site just outside of Naturita, Glasier said. The company will have to wait about two years for the state to license the mill and then spend nine months constructing it. About 100 people will be employed to operate the mill, Glasier said, and additional mines could be opened in the future to extract more uranium, which has roughly tripled in value from $15 per pound since 2002 and could hit $60 early next year. The only existing mill in the area, in Blanding, Utah, is operating at capacity. Glasier said the facility will also process vanadium, a chemical element used to harden steel, which is in huge demand in China and India. Vanadium is worth almost as much as the uranium, he said. The mill could revitalized the west end of Montrose County and create an economic boom in the area, said County Commissioner David Ubell. Several uranium mills operated in western Colorado until the uranium market crashed in 1981 after the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island Colorado Environmental Coalition organizer Lee-Ann Hill said there are environmental concerns that the mill could impact air quality as well as how uranium ore will be stored and transported. ***************************************************************** 63 Guardian Unlimited: Abe vows Japan will not go nuclear Justin McCurry in Tokyo Tuesday October 10, 2006 The Guardian A member of staff at Japan's meteorological agency shows the point on a seismograph where North Korea’s nuclear test was registered. Photograph: Katsumi Kasahara/AP Japan will not consider developing a nuclear deterrent in response to North Korea's test, the prime minister, Shinzo Abe, said today amid fears that Pyongyang's apparent entry into the nuclear club could spark a regional arms race. "We have no intention of changing our policy that possessing nuclear weapons is not our option," Mr Abe told a parliamentary committee. "There will be no change in our non-nuclear arms principles. We want to seek a solution through peaceful and diplomatic means." But he described the test as "grave threat and challenge to the security of our nation" and warned that if yesterday's explosion was confirmed to have been caused by a nuclear device, Japan would "need to swiftly take our own tough measures against North Korea". Japan, the only country to have been attacked by nuclear weapons, depends on the US nuclear umbrella for its security, while honouring its vow not produce or possess nuclear weapons, or allow them to be based on its soil. Tokyo, however, refused to rule out the option of pushing for unspecified "military sanctions" through the UN. "We will discuss sanctions at the UN security council," the chief cabinet secretary, Yasuhisa Shiozaki, told reporters. "We are considering all possibilities. What kind of resolution it will be will be based on the results of the discussion at the security council." Voices calling for Japan, a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, to consider the nuclear option grew louder after North Korea test-fired seven ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan in July. Yasuhiro Nakasone, prime minister in the 1980s, said recently that there was "a need to study the issue of nuclear weapons" because Japan may not always be able to depend on US protection. Before he became leader earlier this month, Mr Abe said possessing an arsenal of small nuclear weapons would not necessarily violate the Japanese constitution. Mr Abe, a neo-nationalist, has vowed to reform Japan's postwar constitution to allow its self-defence forces to behave more like a conventional army in playing a bigger role in overseas missions and helping allies under attack. While many Japanese support constitutional revision, a vast majority oppose the idea of a nuclear deterrent. But anti-nuclear activists warned that North Korea's nuclear programme, combined with future proliferation elsewhere, in Iran for example, would place Tokyo under immense pressure to go nuclear. "I simply can't believe Mr Abe when he says Japan will never develop nuclear weapons," Hideyuki Ban, the co-director of the Citizens' Nuclear Information Centre, told the Guardian. Mr Ban said Japan's plutonium stockpile, believed to total more than 43 tons, could be diverted from civilian energy use to build nuclear weapons "in a matter of months". Other said domestic calls for Japan to build nuclear weapons would remain in the minority. "Inevitably, the test will spur the view that Japan should consider its own nuclear weapons option," said Mark Fitzpatrick, the senior fellow for non-proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. "The anti-nuclear sentiment remains deeply entrenched in Japan, however. The desire for a nuclear option will remain a minority opinion as long as the Japanese believe they are covered by America's nuclear umbrella." Go Ito, a professor of international relations at Meiji University in Tokyo, said Japan would require US approval before it could consider a nuclear deterrent. "Mr Abe probably thinks that, for the moment, it would be more beneficial to Japan to adhere to its three non-nuclear principles, but he is also trying to keep the window open as wide as possible," he said. Useful sites North Korea virtual library CIA factbook: North Korea UN security council UN nuclear non-proliferation treaty NK news - database of North Korean propaganda North Korea Database North Korea Zone [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 64 SF Chronicle: Group files longshot bid... wants Livermore to Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:55:26 -0700 Good morning, colleagues, and a fun, well written read to lift the spirits. >From this Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle -- a feature story on our partnership to submit a "green" bid for Livermore Lab management. The heart of the article outlines how we would transition Livermore to civilian science. Enjoy, Marylia Group files longshot bid for control of lab / Anti-nuclear activists, partners want Lawrence Livermore to focus on peaceful pursuits Sunday, October 8, 2006 (SF Chronicle) Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer It's a classic David versus Goliath standoff. A band of nuclear disarmament advocates, college educators and wind-energy developers is positioning itself to go up against a consortium led by the University of California and the politically powerful San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp. for control of one of the nation's top nuclear design labs. The band, which includes longtime advocacy group Tri-Valley CAREs, acknowledges it has little chance of outbidding the UC-Bechtel group for management rights to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which has been run by UC for more than half a century. But it plans to press ahead anyway. The U.S. Department of Energy has given all comers until Oct. 27 to submit their contract bids. "We do not believe the Department of Energy is going to choose our bid. But that isn't how I define 'winning,' " said Marylia Kelley, one of the Bay Area's best-known critics of the lab. She runs Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment), an activist group that in its 23 years of existence has won widespread respect for its serious and studied approach to its work. But, Kelley said, if her group's bid encourages public support for phasing out the lab's nuclear weapons work and diverting its thousands of scientists into research on global warming, alternative energy sources and other subjects, that'll be a moral victory. Short of that, it'll be a moral victory if the campaign stirs enough public interest to put pressure on Lawrence Livermore officials to run the lab in a more environmentally conscious way and to be less secretive about their work developing and refining the world's scariest weapons. On Sept. 21, Kelley and her colleagues announced they were bidding for the contract, teaming up with New College of California, Nuclear Watch of New Mexico and WindMiller Energy, a small wind-energy firm in rural New York state. "It's important for us to try to push for citizen oversight of this laboratory (so it can) use science for the benefit of the human experience," said New College President Martin Hamilton. The Energy Department is expected to name the winning bid in March. So far, the UC-Bechtel consortium has been the only other competitor to step forward. A UC spokesman could not be reached to comment on the rival bid. Susan Houghton, chief spokeswoman for Lawrence Livermore, declined to comment. The bid marks the first time UC has had to compete to run the lab it has managed for more than half a century under exclusive contract with the Energy Department. In 2003, Congress and the department, fed up with security, safety, management and financial scandals, ordered that all future contracts with national labs be open to competition. Last December, UC-Bechtel beat out Lockheed Martin Corp. and the University of Texas for control of Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, a lab that UC has also managed for decades. UC and Bechtel officials say they'll refuse to release a public copy of their bid for Lawrence Livermore on the grounds that the information might be exploited by other competitors. In an attempt to shame UC-Bechtel, the activists plan to post their entire bid for the contract online later this month. "Lawrence Livermore is a publicly funded institution, funded off taxpayers' dollars," said Tara Dorabji, outreach director for Tri-Valley CAREs. "All bids should be public, and we'll make ours public." Dorabji said that if her group manages to win the contract through an extraordinary set of circumstances, the lab would undergo a transformation. The group, she said, would: -- Spend the majority of lab research funds -- largely provided by the Energy Department and the Pentagon -- to develop cleaner, renewable energy and to fight global warming. "Currently, the lion's share (of money) is going to weapons development," Dorabji said, but the lab is already doing "unclassified, fabulous research" on global warming that should be expanded. -- Greatly speed up plans to move the lab's huge cache of plutonium to a safer, remote site. Lab officials currently plan to remove the plutonium - perhaps initially to a site in New Mexico, then perhaps to final storage elsewhere - by 2014. By contrast, Dorabji's group would get rid of the plutonium four years earlier, after holding public hearings to locate the safest, most secure new site. -- Cancel the lab's current plans to expand its "biodefense" research facility to study far more dangerous microbes. Accidental release of killer bugs "could cause many, many, many deaths in the Bay Area as a whole," Dorabji said. -- Ban secret experiments using the National Ignition Facility, the lab's multibillion-dollar superlaser, which is used primarily to simulate nuclear explosions to test the existing stockpile. Rather, the group would encourage scientists to use the laser for peacetime research, such as experimental simulations of natural phenomena deep inside the Earth and in outer space. -- Mop up chemically and radioactively contaminated sites at the lab. "None of us want to close the lab," said Barbara Dyskant, vice president of WindMiller Energy, a three-employee firm that she runs with her engineer husband, Barry K. Miller. "They have wonderful scientists there whose expertise could be very, very well rewarded by working on non-weapons research." Hamilton said New College's participation in the bid for the Livermore contract is consistent with the 1,000-student school's innovative activities, among them its recent move to save the Roxie Cinema by blending it with the campus' media studies program. The Livermore contract bid "is a challenge I could not pass up," Hamilton said. "A lot of us use Don Quixote as a metaphor (for our work)." But unlike the fictional Quixote, "we don't want to attack windmills -- we want to use them to generate energy." E-mail Keay Davidson at kdavidson@sfchronicle.com. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper version inlcudes photo of Tara and Martin. Copyright 2006 SF Chronicle http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/08/BAGS3LL5A21.DTL --------------------------------------------------------------------- Marylia Kelley Executive Director Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) 2582 Old First Street Livermore, CA USA 94551 - is our web site address. Please visit us there! (925) 443-7148 - is our phone (925) 443-0177 - is our fax ***************************************************************** 65 Knox News: `Cold source' testing at ORNL successful By Staff reports October 10, 2006 OAK RIDGE - Tests of a new "cold source" at the government's High Flux Isotope Reactor were successful last week, paving the way for restart of the research reactor by year's end, officials said. According to information released by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the tests with the refrigeration system went "just as we expected." The system uses liquid helium and hydrogen to cool beams of neutrons to -425 degrees Fahrenheit. The cold source slows the movement of neutrons produced in the lab's reactor, enabling scientists to perform a broader range of experiments with materials. Kelly Beierschmitt, the executive director at the reactor, said ORNL employees would continue doing tests and safety reviews during the next couple of months and prepare for full-scale operations. The full restart of the 40-year-old reactor is tentatively scheduled for Dec. 19. "This is a very exciting time here at our reactor," Beierschmitt said in a statement. ORNL has spent about $70 million in recent years on infrastructure upgrades at the reactor and new equipment, such as the cold source, to improve the overall research capabilities. The High Flux Isotope Reactor is a complement to the newly constructed Spallation Neutron Source, a $1.4 billion research center a couple of miles away on Chestnut Ridge. Together, the research facilities are expected to make Oak Ridge the "neutron capital of the world" and attract scientists from around the globe to do neutron-scattering experiments that explore the basic structure and properties of materials. Another new facility, the Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences, will provide lab space for the engineering of new materials on a nano-scale based on the studies at the SNS and the research reactor. The Spallation Neutron Source also has a cold source, which lengthens the wavelength of neutrons and makes the pulses or streams of radioactive particles more useful for studies of polymers and certain biological materials. Stephen Nagler, who heads the lab's Center for Neutron Scattering, said the Oak Ridge capabilities are unique. "The neutron science community is eager to utilize these extraordinary capabilities, and we will soon be ready to provide them," Nagler said in a statement released by ORNL. © 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** 66 Knox News: Y-12 confirms fire in uranium warehouse By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com October 10, 2006 OAK RIDGE — A spokesman at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant today confirmed there was a fire Sept. 22 in a key warehouse where highly enriched uranium and other materials are stored. But he said the uranium itself did not catch on fire and the entire incident was over in a "matter of minutes." The Project On Government Oversight, a Washington-based watchdog group, was the first to report on the incident. Peter Stockton, an investigator with POGO, said the group has long been concerned about the Y-12 warehouse, Building 9720-5, because it is constructed of wood and is considered vulnerable. Bill Wilburn, a Y-12 spokesman, said the incident occurred while workers were using a protective "glove bag" to examine a package of highly enriched uranium that was wrapped in plastic and masking tape. A glove bag allows workers to examine uranium without the possible release or direct exposure to the radioactive material, Wilburn said. During the procedure, a small piece of the uranium apparently oxidized upon exposure to air and caused some combustion of the plastic packaging and masking tape, he said. Neither the uranium nor the glove bag caught fire, Wilburn said. Workers immediately put out the fire using powdered graphite, known as coke, he said. "There were no injuries and no release of contamination," the Y-12 spokesman said. "They responded quickly, and the other folks evacuated the building. The whole incident only lasted a matter of minutes." Wilburn said an investigation of the incident was being conducted, but he said he did not know the status of it. He said he could not comment on POGO’s comments about the building being constructed of wood. "I can’t discuss the building or what it’s made out of," he said. Wilburn said safety was the top priority, and he said the Y-12 workers responded quickly and properly. He said there are procedures in place to deal with a uranium fire, if that had occurred. The workers were dealing with a "legacy" material that has been in storage at the Oak Ridge nuclear facility since the 1970s, Wilburn said. He said Y-12 is in the process of "de-inventorying" Building 9720-5, as part of the preparations for moving into a new storage facility for highly enriched uranium. The new $500 million storage center is under construction and about 35 percent completed. Y-12 officials typically do not like to discuss their storage facilities in depth for safety and security reasons. According to a study guide for workers published in 1997, Building 9720-5 is used for storage and shipping of safeguarded nuclear materials. "The mission carried out in the warehouse includes the shipping and receiving of nuclear materials, materials management, material verification, storage, container unpacking and glove-box operations," the document states. "The warehouse, Building 9720-5, contains storage vaults, modular storage vaults, storage cages, weighing stations, confirmatory measurement, forklifts and criticality accident alarm stations. The materials handled in the warehouse include uranium, lithium, beryllium, and thorium and come in the form of canned subassemblies, fuel assemblies, oxides, metals and alloys." Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. © 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** 67 DOE: Secretary of Energy and Rep. Chabot Highlight Clean Coal and Hydrogen Research and Tout Americas Economic Growth in Ohio October 10, 2006 CINCINNATI, OH  U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today joined Rep. Steve Chabot (OH-1st) to tour the hydrogen and clean coal research laboratory at the University of Cincinnati (UC) highlighting the importance of science and technology in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and touting Americas robust economy. Secretary Bodman discussed President Bushs commitment through the American Competitiveness Initiative to invest more than $136 billion over 10 years to increase investments in research and development and the Presidents Advanced Energy Initiative, which seeks to diversify our nations energy sources and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Scientific research conducted in laboratories at the University of Cincinnati and across the nation is crucial to technological development that will transform the way we power our homes and businesses and keeps our economy thriving, Secretary Bodman said. Through the Presidents American Competitiveness Initiative, we are harnessing the power of American innovation and making critical investments to ensure that America will lead the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come. Secretary Bodman discussed the importance of clean coal and hydrogen fuel cell research as part of Presidents Advanced Energy Initiative, which boosts federal spending on clean energy sources, and alternative and renewable fuels by 22 percent in this fiscal year. This initiative seeks to make alternative and renewable fuels practical and affordable to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and promote greater energy security. To draw on the nations scientific and technological resources, Secretary Bodman highlighted the American Competitiveness Initiative, which seeks to double federal spending on basic researchwith special emphasis on the physical sciences and engineeringover the next ten years. "The University of Cincinnatis alternative energy research programs are a tremendous asset to our community and the nation, Rep. Chabot said. This is an excellent opportunity to highlight UC's good work and to promote future research partnerships." In addition to discussing positive impacts of scientific research and development on strengthening Americas energy security, Secretary Bodman touted the nations strong economy, underscored by new unemployment figures released last week. The unemployment rate dropped to 4.6 percent in September accounting for 37 straight months of job growth. The economy has created 6.6 million jobs since September 2003, up from the previous estimate of 5.7 million. These figures indicate that the American economy is strong by almost any measure. Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 [ ] U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 68 SF New Mexican: Full-time LANL workers fear losing jobs Tue Oct 10, 2006 5:48 pm By ANDY LENDERMAN The specter of layoffs to contract workers has employees worried at Los Alamos National Laboratory, although the details of some 350 to 550 job cuts have yet to be finalized. A lab spokesman said there are no plans for more layoffs beyond those. And the cuts won't affect the lab's regular employees, officials say. Still, the president of a lab employee association says regular, full-time employees of Los Alamos National Security LLC are worried the layoffs could hit them in the future. "The mood is very unsettling," said Manny Trujillo of the Union of Professional and Technical Employees, an employee association. "People are basically afraid of what may happen with this budget shortfall." Los Alamos National Security, which manages the lab for the federal government, said a $175 million budget shortfall brought on the layoffs. The lab is expected to pay $55 million more in gross-receipts taxes this year and needs $70 million to cover pay raises and pension costs. It also must fund a $50 million fee to Los Alamos National Security for running the lab, a spokesman has said. Lab Director Michael Anastasio told lab employees last month that the lab is working on ways to deal with the shortfall. "What we're doing is taking prudent steps under the assumptions that budgets will remain relatively flat," lab spokesman Jeff Berger said. "We're not planning on a bailout. We are planning judiciously for a flat budget." The lab's current budget is about $2.2 billion. It employs 8,290 regular employees, 1,617 students and postdoctoral researchers, and more than 2,500 contractors. "We have no plans for anything additional" beyond the announced 350 to 550 contractor layoffs, Berger said. Those cuts would affect temporary support jobs, lab officials said. Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., is demanding more information about which workers will be targeted. "More answers are needed about the contract employee cuts and the impact both at the lab and in the surrounding community," Udall said in a statement. "We know (the National Nuclear Security Administration) has opted to cut approximately 10 percent of the contract labor force, but we have not yet received enough information to determine who and what essential operations will be affected. There is a lot of uncertainty in the LANL community right now." But the federal agency that oversees the lab supports the current plan to address the budget shortfall. "One of our goals in the search for a new management and operating contractor for Los Alamos National Laboratory was to select a contractor who could best achieve the department's national security mission in a safe, secure and cost-effective manner, using sound business practices," NNSA Deputy Administrator Tom D'Agostino said in prepared remarks. "During the procurement process we acknowledged that some administrative costs would rise and we said that we expected the costs to be absorbed through more efficient management of the laboratory." Los Alamos County Councilor Jim Hall said the council is sorry to see the announcement. "If you take away at least 350 high-paying jobs, that has a tremendous impact on the northern part of the state," Hall said. The head of a nuclear watchdog group said lab managers knew that budget problems were coming. "As usual, it's the folks on the lowest rung of the ladder that end up getting hurt," Jay Coghlan of Nuclear Watch New Mexico said. "It seems like the privileged scientists in Los Alamos County are being well protected. But it's more like the blue-collar workers from, for example, Rio Arriba County that are going to be laid off." Anastasio in a recent speech to employees said the shortfall will be addressed without cutting Los Alamos National Security employees or a program called Laboratory Directed Research and Development. "I reiterate that there will not be a (reduction in force), nor is one being planned for the future," Anastasio said. Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or . Comment posting on our site has been temporarily suspended. Thank you for your patience. ©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican ***************************************************************** 69 Hanford News: Energy Department drops appeal of fine for Hanford waste handling This story was published Tuesday, October 10th, 2006 By The Associated Press RICHLAND, Wash. (AP) - The federal government has dropped its appeal of a $270,000 fine over the handling of radioactive waste at the Hanford nuclear reservation, two years after the fine was first imposed. The issue arose in 2004 when the Department of Energy shipped 83 drums of laboratory equipment, protective clothing and other debris, which was contaminated with Hanford waste, to Hanford from South Carolina's Savannah River National Laboratory. The laboratory had tested treatment methods on waste samples from Hanford's underground tanks, which hold 53 million gallons of hazardous chemical and radioactive waste left from decades of plutonium production for the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal. Federal law allows the waste to be shipped to South Carolina for study and returned to Hanford, exempting it from provisions of state and federal hazardous-waste regulations. But the state contends those exemptions do not apply to waste generated at Savannah River - debris such as equipment, clothing and supplies that may have been contaminated in the testing process. Waste brought to Hanford also falls under state regulations for hazardous waste, which mirror federal regulations, state officials said. The state fined the Energy Department and two contractors for not following regulations, which include requiring trained workers to observe the packing of the drums, verify the type of waste and place a tamper-resistant seal on the drums. The Energy Department contended that the waste produced during laboratory testing could be returned to Hanford under an exemption that allows waste residue to be returned after offsite testing. However, the agency has dropped its appeal of the fine. "We felt it was time to move on," said Colleen French, an Energy Department spokeswoman. The Washington State Pollution Control Hearings Board had agreed with the state Department of Ecology, finding in a summary judgment ruling that the 83 drums could not be considered residues from the original waste stream. The penalty was the largest that the state had issued to the Energy Department, which manages cleanup of the highly contaminated Hanford site. The fine was paid by Fluor Hanford, a contractor hired to clean up parts of the site. The Energy Department still must consider whether it is a reimbursable cost under Fluor's contract. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 70 Business Review (Albany): Bechtel to close most of Schenectady operation Bectel plans to close its Schenectady operation and consolidate the majority of its operations at one site in a Pittsburgh suburb, the company announced Tuesday. A satellite office will remain in Schenectady and employ 65 to 70 of the 330 people currently working for the division of the multinational company, said Jim Dillon, the manager of procurement operations. The remaining employees will be offered jobs at the Pittsburgh operation, Dillon said. Bechtel Plant Machinery is located at 107 Nott Terrace. The company does engineering and project management work for the Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program. Bechtel began looking at consolidating the positions in Schenectady and West Mifflin, Penn., six months ago, Dillon said. Employees were told of the decision this morning via a "streaming video" that they could access from their computer work stations. The employees all knew about the study so the decision was not a total surprise, Dillon said. "It is a sister operation of ours in Pittsburgh and we are trying to make sure we provide the best service at the lower price to the Navy," he said. The consolidation will take place over the next two years. "We do not expect very many people to be moving in the next six to nine months," Dillon said. "We imagine in a year most of the people will have moved and the satellite office will be in effect." Dillon could not cite the average company salary, but said the bulk of the Bechtel Plant Machinery employees hold white collar jobs as engineers and other professionals. Just two years ago the U.S. Department of Defense awarded a $228.1 million contact to the plant for work on a nuclear propulsion system. Schenectady Mayor Bryan Stratton said he will work to try and overturn the decision. He is asking Sens. Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton and Rep. Michael McNulty to review the situation immediately. "This operation is funded by federal taxpayers and Bechtel is a major contractor," Stratton said. "We want Congress and the Pentagon to give us an explanation why this operation which has been in Schenectady for so many years, and which my father­ -- the late Congressman Sam Stratton -- helped to bring to Schenectady, must now be consolidated with a similar operation outside of Pittsburgh." © 2006 American City Business Journals, Inc. and its licensors. ***************************************************************** 71 lamonitor.com: Cleanup resumes at airport The Online News Source for Los Alamos Monitor Staff Writer Department of Energy environmental cleanup efforts at Los Alamos County Airport have recently resumed, but have not met the Sept. 12 completion date. DOE public affairs staff did not respond by publishing time to provide a response. However, Airport Manager David Ploeger said he is pleased with how the project has been executed. "They are making wonderful progress on the project," he said. "Most of the ash will be cleaned up at the end of the month." The ash pile is the result of incinerator operations on the site during the 1940s. The project was put on hold last year in November after a World War II rifle grenade was uncovered and later detonated by a Los Alamos National Laboratory bomb squad. The site is located on the north-facing slope of Pueblo Canyon, several hundred feet northwest of the airport. The old ash pile is approximately 150 feet wide and another 150 feet below the mesa top. The DOE expects to move approximately 2,100 cubic yards of ash material and 450 cubic yards of tin cans and other debris. The main landfill covers 11.5 acres and the debris disposal area landfill consists of five acres. The landfills are legacy Solid Waste Management units and contain both Los Alamos County municipal waste and Los Alamos National Laboratory office waste that was generated between 1940 and 1975. The county has completed the construction of concrete pads at the airport and projects such as the landfill remediation project to the north of the airport. The two landfills adjacent to the Los Alamos Airport will be contoured, compacted and covered with several layers of protective material that will prevent moisture from mixing with the landfill trash. Upon successful completion of covering the landfills, the county will build hangars and additional tie-downs on five concrete pads that have been poured on the landfill cap. To carry out the work, the Department of Energy contracted with North Wind to level out the site and place an asphalt cap over the landfill. The area is one of the last developable and available parcels of land for the expansion of airport facilities, Ploeger said. The Zia Corporation was responsible for operating the landfills for the DOE until 1975, when Los Alamos County assumed the operation. The main airport landfill is located north of the airstrip and east of the airport buildings. The debris disposal area landfill sits on the north side of the airstrip near its eastern end. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 72 Oak Ridger: DOE wants to try unprecedented pond cleanup at K-25 plant site Story last updated at 1:35 pm on 10/10/2006 (AP) The Department of Energy is considering an unusual ecological enhancement approach to cleaning up a contaminated pond at a uranium-enrichment plant. The Energy Department is in the middle of a massive cleanup project at the K-25 plant site, preparing it for private use. But before the site can be turned over to new owners, the pond, which contains polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCB, must be cleaned. The department traditionally uses what it calls the muck-and-truck approach draining, dredging and filling a pond with dirt. The ecological enhancement approach will preserve the pond and rectify the aquatic habitat. The strategy will significantly enhance the quality of the pond by putting in new vegetation and taking out the nonnative fish, Oak Ridge National Laboratory environmental scientist Mark Peterson told The Knoxville News Sentinel. Peterson has been monitoring pond conditions and PCB levels since 1989 and developed the idea to preserve the pond. His process involves removing the fish population estimated at 100,000 and separating native sunfish that feed on terrestrial insects and are largely uncontaminated from the nonnative fish, such as grass carp, which consume the ponds vegetation, and largemouth bass that feed on smaller fish. After removal and separation, scientists would either completely replace the fish population or return the native uncontaminated fish. A vegetative buffer would be placed around the pond to keep geese from using the area, said Jim Kopotic, DOEs team leader for cleanup projects at the federal site. As ecological changes take hold, PCB-contaminated sediments will be covered, reducing potential for human health concerns, Kopotic said. By Energy Department Cold War nuclear sites standards, the pond is not overwhelmingly polluted. The main concern is the presence of PCBs, which are a widespread plague on the environment because of their broad usage years ago in electrical transformers. Kopotic emphasized that the pond rehabilitation is the preferred cleanup process by DOE and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, but is only a proposal at this point. Its also the cheapest option, with an estimated cost of $4.1 million compared to $10 million to close out the pond, according to DOE. But not everyone is convinced ecological enhancement is the best idea. We dont think this is a permanent solution, said Susan Gawarecki, executive director of the Local Oversight Committee, which studies environmental projects for local governments. Gawarecki said removing contaminated sediments might be the best answer, after which the pond could be re-established. A public meeting about the pond and several other smaller ones is scheduled for 6 p.m. Oct. 19 at the DOE Information Center in Oak Ridge. Information about the project is available for public viewing there. ***************************************************************** 73 KNDO/KNDU: Senate Race Heats Up Over Hanford Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA | Political Controversy Over What To Do With Hanford RICHLAND, Wash.- The Washington Senate race is heating up. The Hanford watchdog group Heart of America Northwest criticizes Republican challenger Mike McGavick over his stance on Hanford cleanup. McGavick is all for cleanup at the site, but believes there are some long term resources we need to take advantage of. However, Heart of America Northwest says cleanup is the only thing we should be doing. The Department of Energy is proposing sending nuclear fuel for reprocessing at Hanford, d now, the Hanford watchdog group is hitting McGavick hard over his stance on the issue. "Mike McGavick apparently never learned the lesson that the rest of us learned in kindergarten, which is you have to cleanup your mess before you get to make a new one," said Gerry Pollet, Executive Director of the group. McGavick swiftly responded, defending his position. He said we would not have to send more waste to the site, failing to use the resources could be financially crippling for the Tri-Cities. "This is just a politically driven attack by people who oppose any continued nuclear activity in the Tri-Cities, and I think that would cause this great national asset of all that talent in the Tri-Cities to be dispersed, and I don't think the nation and the region are well served by that," he said. The plan would allow use of the FFTF nuclear reactor at Hanford. They would run the reactor in a national effort to expand the nuclear energy program. Senator Cantwell's camp responded with this. "Senator Cantwell believes we should continue research on nuclear solutions, as part of a balanced national energy policy. But this certainly shouldn't come at the expense of cleaning up existing nuclear waste," a statement from her camp said. More than 53 million gallons of waste sit in Hanford's tanks, awaiting vitrification. Treatment is expected to start by 2019. McGavick adds that the reactor could be operated without sending more waste to the site. .gif"> All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and KNDO/KNDU. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************