North Korea's Nuclear Weapon Program : A Critical Analysis

North Korea's regime has one goal, to guarantee its survival. To accomplish that goal it desired the U.S. to maintain a strong presence on the Korean Peninsula to act as an international deterrent against possible foreign occupation of its nation. The DPRK encouraged the U.S. by signing the 1994 Agreed Framework, a formal commitment between the two countries that froze North Korea's nuclear programs in exchange for U.S. energy aid. In 2002 the Bush Administration did not honour its commitment and blamed North Korea for the Agreed Framework's collapse. North Korea retaliated by choosing to become a nuclear nation, an action guaranteed to insure a constant U.S. presence on the Korean Peninsula.

Fallout from nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site /

"TID-5551."

Consideration of three proposals to conduct research on possible health effects of radiation from nuclear weapon testing in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah, and nuclear weapon testing and studies related to health effects : an historical summary : responding to recommendations by the panel of experts on the archive of PHS documents /

Mode of access: Internet.

Our nuclear future; facts, dangers, and opportunities,

Mode of access: Internet.

Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.

Shipping list no.: 98-0230-P.

Close-in air blast form a nuclear event in NTS desert alluvium.

"Issued: October 2, 1964."

Nuclear Iran Prevention Act of 2013 : report (to accompany H.R. 850) (Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office).

Mode of access: Internet.

Reviewing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) /

"As currently interpreted, it is difficult to see why the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) warrants much support as a nonproliferation convention. Most foreign ministries, including that of Iran and the United States, insist that Article IV of the NPT recognizes all states' "inalienable right" of all states to develop "peaceful nuclear energy". This includes money-losing activities, such as nuclear fuel reprocessing, which can bring countries to the very brink of acquiring nuclear weapons. If the NPT is intended to ensure that states share peaceful "benefits" of nuclear energy and to prevent the spread of nuclear bomb making technologies, it is difficult to see how it can accomplish either if the interpretation identified above is correct."--P. 3

Air fluorescence excited by high-altitude nuclear explosions /

"United States Atomic Energy Commission Contract W-7405-Eng. 36"--Cover.

Nuclear health and safety : radiation exposures for some cloud-sampling personnel need to be reexamined : report to the Chairman, Committee on Veterans Affairs, U.S. Senate /

"B-222195"--P. [1]

Senate consideration of unratified treaties to limit nuclear testing.

Mode of access: Internet.

A rogue is a rogue is a rogue: US foreign policy and the Korean nuclear crisis

Two nuclear crises recently haunted the Korean peninsula, one in 1993/4, the other in 2002/3. In each case the events-were strikingly similar: North Korea made public its ambition to acquire nuclear weapons and withdrew from the Nonproliferation Treaty. Then the situation rapidly deteriorated until the peninsular was literally on the verge of war. The dangers of North Korea's actions, often interpreted as nuclear brinkmanship, are evident. and much discussed, but not so the underlying patterns that have shaped the conflict in the first place. This article sheds light on some of them. It examines the role of the United States in the crisis, arguing that Washington's inability to see North Korea as anything but a threatening 'rogue state' seriously hinders both an adequate understanding and possible resolution of the conflict. Particularly significant is the current policy of pre-emptive strikes against rogue states, for it reinforces half a century of American nuclear threats towards North Korea. The problematic role of these threats has been largely obscured, not least because the highly technical discourse of security analysis has managed to present the strategic situation on the peninsula in a manner that attributes responsibility for the crisis solely to North Korea's actions, even if the situation is in reality far more complex and interactive.

Latin America: Nuclear Capabilities, Intentions and Threat Perceptions

Three key states are relevant in considering future nuclear proliferation in Latin America: Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela. Argentina and Brazil are critical because of their relatively advanced nuclear capabilities. For historical and geopolitical reasons, neither Argentina nor Brazil is likely to reactive nuclear weapons programs. Venezuela’s President, Hugo Chávez, has repeatedly demonstrated interest in developing a nuclear program, yet Venezuela lacks any serious nuclear expertise. Even if it had the managerial and technological capacity, the lead-time to develop an indigenous nuclear program would be measured in decades. Acquisition of nuclear technology from international sources would be difficult because members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group would insist on safeguards, and potential non-Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) suppliers are highly surveilled, risking the exposure of such a program before Venezuela could put a deterrent into place. While South American states have historically opposed nuclear weapons, their acquisition by Brazil and Argentina would lead to little more than diplomatic condemnation. Brazil and Argentina are both geopolitically satisfied powers that are deeply embedded in a regional security community. On the other hand, Venezuela under President Chávez is perceived as a revisionist power seeking a transformation of the international system. Venezuelan acquisition of nuclear weapons would be met with alarm by the United States and Colombia, and it would prompt nuclear weapons development by Brazil and possibly Argentina, more for reasons of preserving regional leadership and prestige than for fear of a Venezuelan threat.

The Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Global Security Strategy of the EU

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) is one of the main security challenges facing the international community today. However the new Global Security Strategy of 2016 raises the question of non-proliferation of WMD only as an incidental matter, not addressing directly the threat, a fundamental threat in the regional and global security. This is a clear step backwards for the European common security.

Turkish Security Policymaking on Nuclear Issues: Conceptualizing Advanced Cooperative Security Strategies

Turkey is a non-nuclear member of a nuclear alliance in a region where nuclear proliferation is of particular concern. As the only North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member that has a border with the Middle East, Turkish officials argue that Turkey cannot solely rely on NATO guarantees in addressing the regional security challenges. However, Turkey has not been able to formulate a security policy that reconciles its quest for independence, its NATO membership, the bilateral relationship with the United States, and regional engagement in the Middle East. This dissertation assesses the strategic implications of Turkey’s perceptions of the U.S./NATO nuclear and conventional deterrence on nuclear issues. It explores three case studies by the process tracing of Turkish policymakers’ nuclear-related decisions on U.S. tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe, national air and missile defense, and Iran’s nuclear program. The study finds that the principles of Turkish security policymaking do not incorporate a fundamentally different reasoning on nuclear issues than conventional deterrence. Nuclear weapons and their delivery systems do not have a defining role in Turkish security and defense strategy. The decisions are mainly guided by non-nuclear considerations such as Alliance politics, modernization of the domestic defense industry, and regional influence. The dissertation argues that Turkey could formulate more effective and less risky security policies on nuclear issues by emphasizing the cooperative security approaches within the NATO Alliance over confrontational measures. The findings of this dissertation reveal that a major transformation of Turkish security policymaking is required to end the crisis of confidence with NATO, redefinition of the strategic partnership with the US, and a more cautious approach toward the Middle East. The dissertation argues that Turkey should promote proactive measures to reduce, contain, and counter risks before they develop into real threats, as well as contribute to developing consensual confidence-building measures to reduce uncertainty.