[Op-Ed] 2012 Nuclear Security Summit: What it was and wasn’t
Duyeon Kim | Mar 31, 2012 |Here's an op-ed in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists assessing the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit by yours truly. Below are some highlights of the piece:
- The 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul could have been a watershed moment for nuclear security, but it was largely a review of past successes.
- Still, there were noteworthy accomplishments, like setting a more detailed vision for the safety and security of nuclear and radioactive materials.
- Moving forward, the 2014 summit must be drastically different and must set future goals, rather than dwelling on past accomplishments.
2012 Nuclear Security Summit: So What?
Duyeon Kim | Mar 26, 2012 |Fifty-eight world leaders will be in Seoul, Korea Monday and Tuesday to agree on ways to prevent nuclear terrorism.
Since when have we ever seen a nuclear terrorist incident?
True, nuclear terrorism is an extremely low probability scenario but its consequences are unimaginable.
Still, the threat is certainly real because terrorist groups including al-Qaeda are believed to pursue weapons of mass destruction. And an international consensus exists on the threat. More sobering is that there’s enough nuclear materials in the world to make 100,000 additional nuclear bombs.
Who really cares except a select group of policy wonks?
By agreeing to chair this summit, the largest Seoul has ever hosted, Korea has entered tough waters. It would, and still, puzzle many: nuclear terrorism is still a foreign concept for Koreans, they don’t have nuclear weapons or fissile materials, and security is always framed in the context of their number one threat, North Korea, which does not even make it on the Summit agenda, though for good reason. So the lack of initial interest and awareness is natural. The other problem is the lack of public outreach and education on the issue ahead of the Summit and amid this increasingly globalized and interconnect world – but this is true for all countries, not just Korea...
UN and IAEA on Nuclear Issues
Duyeon Kim | Sep 19, 2011 |There are two major international gatherings this week. While we're expecting Middle East issues to grab the spotlight, there are other critical nuclear issues that could and should be addressed. The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation has posted factsheets on the IAEA General Conference in Vienna and the UN General Assembly in New York.
UN-Wide Report on Fukushima & Nuclear Safety-Security
Duyeon Kim | Sep 14, 2011 |The UN High-level Meeting on Nuclear Safety and Security chaired by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will be held on September 22nd on the sidelines of the 66th UN General Assembly in New York. On May 20, 2011, Secretary-General Ban launched a UN-wide study on the implications of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster that will be presented at the upcoming Meeting and released to the public.
The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation has obtained a copy of the report. Below are excerpts of the relevant sections on nuclear safety-security:
[Op-Ed] Nature and Malice: Confronting multiple hazards to nuclear power infrastructure
Duyeon Kim | Sep 07, 2011 |I co-authored an op-ed with Igor Khripunov for The Bulletin today.
You can read the full piece on The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists website.
Key points are:
As the IAEA has suggested, the lessons of Fukushima that need particular study are "those pertaining to multiple severe hazards" that might afflict a nuclear power plant. Such complex hazards can emerge from natural disaster, sabotage by terrorists or other malcontents, or be a combination of natural events and intentional acts. Nuclear safety and security staffs -- whose cultures are quite different -- should be trained to interact with one another as they respond to all three types of severe hazards.
You can also view it on the Center's website here.
We cut a section due to word count, but we raised a point that pushed the envelop a bit. Click "Read more" if you're curious:
Securing Ghaddafi’s Chemical and Nuclear Materials
Patricia Morris | Aug 24, 2011 |On August 21, the Libyan opposition forces stormed the capital, Tripoli, and took control of President Ghaddafi’s compound. The war is not over, as Ghaddafi loyalists continue to battle the rebels, and the Transitional National Council (the organization formed to represent the opposition) will need to begin work to fill the power vacuum. The council has a huge task ahead of it to restore order, rebuild the country, create legitimate national institutions and cobble its different factions into some sort of working government. More immediately, the opposition and NATO have to secure Ghaddafi’s chemical weapons and low-enriched uranium stockpiles.
In addition to Ghaddafi’s arsenals of conventional weapons, he is rumored to have stockpiled chemical weapons agents. NATO has pledged to secure the chemical weapons so that Ghaddafi forces cannot use them against the opposition and civilians, but the opposition will also need to be involved. James Corbett, a member of the Center for Research on Globalization, doesn’t believe the Ghaddafi regime would use these weapons in a last ditch effort to hold on to power, since it hasn’t used them yet. However, the greater risk is that, amidst the chaos of Ghaddafi’s overthrow, these stockpiles could be susceptible to theft by smugglers or terrorists. Terrorist organizations, such as Aum Shinrikyo in Japan, have successfully used chemical weapons against civilians in the past.






