I got the tail end of this on C-Span but I would like more info. It drives me nuts that we are spending a minimal amount to secure Russia’s nukes and that no one seems to know how much material is actually missing. Goss reserved the remainder of his comments for closed session. This is from the NY Times:
In questioning Mr. Goss about the possibility that terrorists might use nuclear weapons, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the intelligence committee, called attention to a report sent to Congress in November by the National Intelligence Council that addressed the safety and security of Russian nuclear facilities and military forces.
Among other things, the report expressed concern about the total amount of nuclear material that could have been diverted or stolen from Russian facilities since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. It said that the Russian authorities had twice thwarted attempts by terrorists to conduct surveillance on nuclear weapon storage facilities in 2002, and cast doubt on Russian assurances that weapons-grade nuclear material lost from Russian arsenals had been traced and returned.
“We find it highly unlikely that Russian authorities would have been able to recover all the material reportedly stolen,” the intelligence council said in the report.
Mr. Goss said in response to a question from Mr. Rockefeller that “there is sufficient material unaccounted for so it would be possible for those with know-how to construct a nuclear weapon.”
This is not exactly news. Securing Russia’s nuclear materials has been an ongoing issue for nearly 15 years. Russia extorts money from us for this problem every year. They let a little get secured every year to keep the gravy train flowing.
So what is to flip out about? What would that accomplish?
I am sure the same statement about missing plutonium could be made about our own National Labs. The same claim for a British nuclear plant hit the headlines just today.
Sorry my friend, that’s a little too complacent for me. There is no excuse for Russia’s failure to properly secure their weapons and since the US is aware of this failure, the US is complicit as well. We spend $200 billion plus to invade Iraq on the premise that Iraq’s wmd could fall into the hands of terrorists. I think we should do more to secure weapons we know to exist and which we know know are not secure. More than likely Russia will be the first victim of nuclear terrorism.
It is not a question of spending money. There is the little matter of getting Russia to cooperate. It is their country after all. They shake us down every year. The situation improves a little every year.
Sure, the situation is terrible. Alternatives are limited.
Objectively, it is a real problem. Compared to N. Korea and Iran, this is not a problem.
I think this is a very real problem, but there’s not a big flap over it because it’s not new. Russia isn’t selling nukes to Syria, they are selling Air to Air and Surface to Air missiles. Russia has it’s own proliferation troubles too, and those have been going on since the Berlin wall came down.
Meanwhile (related to missiles and payloads) South Korea is stating they don’t think Korea has the long-range missile capabilities to deliver a nuclear payload.
Geez, people might start acting like foreign policy is complex or something.
and to add to that, now putin has come out saying that iran isn’t developing nukes either. it all sounds very cold war-ish to me. u.s. says black, russia says white…