And here is the recording of our side event to the CD on nuclear risk reduction and the NPT featuring UK Amb David Riley, China Amb Shen Jian, Austrian Amb Alexander Kmentt, Reto Wollenmann from Swiss MFA and our own Sarah Ruth Opatowski. A rather interesting discussion youtu.be/hJgR_j4Hi6I?...
Pres. Macron says France will increase its nuclear arsenal. Not the first things that comes to mind amid all the tragedy and destruction, but it’s hard to see a successful NPT RevCon this year www.reuters.com/world/europe...
It’s hard to be optimistic right now. But the best-case scenario is that the real costs of wars of choice eventually lead to military restraint - simply because war is usually the worst outcome for everyone involved
The problem, of course, is that when things go smoothly against the odds, the takeaway is that there are no consequences and that taking risks is a good strategy. So you keep pushing the limits — until you find yourself in a much bigger conflict where things might not go your way
Broad Iranian attacks against the Gulf states in response to US and Israeli attacks against Iran are a perfect illustration of escalation risks. Your adversary has a say, and in a war things rarely go as smoothly as planned.
Link to the 2022 briefing of the Head of Russian CBRN Protection Troops Gen. Kirillov telegra.ph/Brifing-po-u...
Reviving the issue (with addition of France to the mix) after 3+ years rises all sort of questions, but the fact that Russian officials don’t refer to (don’t remember about?) the 2022 statement also speak volumes 6/x
At the time it sounded like a really big deal, realistically speaking much more important than “dirty bomb” or “false flag operation”. But this issue has never been raised again or at least I’m not aware of any sustained attempts to deal with it from the Russian side 5/x
But somewhat more strikingly, the same statement casually mentioned «contacts between the Office of the President of Ukraine and representatives of the United Kingdom concerning the possible acquisition of technology for nuclear weapons development» 4/x
No false flag operation happened, and nothing related to the story received independent confirmation since. And mind you, in 2022, Moscow claimed that the “dirty bomb” was in the final stages of development 3/x
You might remember the Russian MoD statement from October 2022, accusing Ukraine of building a “dirty bomb” to use it in a false flag operation against Russia. The highest level of the Russian military has reached out to its counterparts with this message 2/x
Russian statement today about the UK and France working together on providing Ukraine with nuclear weapons and delivery systems is not the first time Moscow has mentioned this. A short thread with some context 1/x
But also the paper continues that enough seismic stations would pick up even “fully decoupled nuclear explosions down to yields of a few kiloton”. And that’s in 1987…
This from 1987 discussion about the feasibility of a Low Threshold Ban is pure poetry
Because the volume of the cavern required increases in direct proportion to the yield of the nuclear explosion, it is generally agreed that full decoupling would be completely impractical for yields above 10 kt
The full decoupling of a 5-kt explosion would require a cavity 60 to 90 m in diameter (big enough to contain a 20- to 30-story building) sgs.princeton.edu/sites/defaul...
Probably not but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well, CTBTO said they didn’t see anything in their data…
"The CTBTO’s IMS did not detect any event consistent with the characteristics of a nuclear weapon test explosion [on 22 June 2020]. Subsequent, more detailed analyses has not altered that determination" www.ctbto.org/resources/fo...
Yeah, especially if human intelligence was the source. But also, it's an open question what this means. The US has accused Russia of non-zero yield testing since 2019...
Pretty strong accusation against China on testing. Does this mean the US is now going to have a "yield producing nuclear test" (6 years later?)? Will the US release any supporting evidence?
UnderSecT DiNanno: "China has used decoupling method to decrease the effectiveness of seismic monitoring to hide their activities from the world. China conducted one such yield producing nuclear tests on June 22 of 2020"
UnderSecT DiNanno: on testing, Russia and China test in violation of moratorium. China has conducted "nuclear explosive tests, including preparing for tests with designated yields in the hundreds of tons".
UnderSecT DiNanno: the US has options to increase its arsenal if directed by the President: upload, developing new theater ranged systems, and changing extended deterrence posture
Some more bits from UnderSecT DiNanno's statement: Tactical nuclear weapons will also have to be addressed as well as the new Russian systems (including alleged nuke in orbit)
This of course has been the position of Republican admins for a while. But also Abu Dhabi talks were clearly with Russia only. And in 2020, Trump admin gave up on this point and negotiated bilaterally
US UnderSecT DiNanno at the CD right now: bilateral arms control is impossible in 2026 because of China.
Arms control is dead, long live arms control
Pres. Trump just now "Rather than extend “NEW START” (A badly negotiated deal by the United States that, aside from everything else, is being grossly violated), we should have our Nuclear Experts work on a new, improved, and modernized Treaty that can last long into the future".
Another bit of good news, US EUCOM says US and Russia agreed to reestablish high-level military-to-military dialogue (it seems Grynkewich and Gerasimov) www.eucom.mil/pressrelease...
