Updates on the big nuclear news items:

 
 (Image of a Russian ICBM driven through Red Square last year.  Taken from the news article here, image credit: Dmitry Kostyukov/AFP/Getty Images)


1) START negotiations finalized! Now, how will this play into the current divisive politics in the U.S.?
Last week, the U.S. and Russia finalized their agreements on the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).  The treaty includes new "verification" provisions and also allows the U.S. to continue developing anti-ballistic missile technology.  Obama intends to sign the treaty April 8, and then it gets reviewed by the Senate, requiring a 2/3 majority vote to approve its ratification.  This will require bipartisan support.  Will this issue bring up a lot of debate or will everyone in the Senate basically support it?  Here's an op-ed piece from the Boston Globe advocating for approval of the treaty, which brings up some of the key issues involved. 


2)  Yikes!  More enrichment plants in Iran!  And, battle plans being seriously discussed?
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency) apparently believes that Iran may have started building two more enrichment facilities underneath mountains.  Anonymous sources reported this to the New York Times.   Suddenly it is a very interesting time to look at news on Iran from around the world.  Some highlights:
* A Reuters article published in the Washington Post reports on a U.S. think tank that advocates Isreal using "tactical nuclear weapons" against Iran.  This means some experts out there are seriously advocating the use of nukes to prevent nukes. 
* An article from Press TV (an Iranian news source) characterizes Iran as a "pioneer in fight against U.S. unilateralism".  It quotes Iranian officials maintaining that the Iranian nuclear program as being solely for peaceful purposes.
* Meanwhile, the Jerusalem Post reported on former U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton claiming that "Obama is resigned to a nuclear Iran". 


 3) A report from the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Labs claims we need new replacement nuclear weapons technology.  Is this aimed to influence the policies in the still-pending Nuclear Posture Review?
As long as the U.S. has nuclear weapons, our government needs to ensure they will work, but hopefully without dangerous and environmentally damaging nuclear weapons testing.  Some nuclear weapons engineers are advocating greater funding for the development of new nuclear weapons technology to make sure our arsenal is robust.  This debate gets right into the politics - does the Obama Administration have the stamina and "political capital" to go up against the nuclear weapons labs or will they basically grant the labs whatever they want? A New York Times article describes the recent report and some of the reactions.  Very interesting!