Download Free Us And Russian Collaboration In The Area Of Nuclear Forensics Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Us And Russian Collaboration In The Area Of Nuclear Forensics and write the review.

Nuclear forensics has become increasingly important in the fight against illicit trafficking in nuclear and other radioactive materials. The illicit trafficking of nuclear materials is, of course, an international problem; nuclear materials may be mined and milled in one country, manufactured in a second country, diverted at a third location, and detected at a fourth. There have been a number of articles in public policy journals in the past year that call for greater interaction between the U.S. and the rest of the world on the topic of nuclear forensics. Some believe that such international cooperation would help provide a more certain capability to identify the source of the nuclear material used in a terrorist event. An improved international nuclear forensics capability would also be important as part of the IAEA verification toolkit, particularly linked to increased access provided by the additional protocol. A recent study has found that, although international progress has been made in securing weapons-usable HEU and Pu, the effort is still insufficient. They found that nuclear material, located in 40 countries, could be obtained by terrorists and criminals and used for a crude nuclear weapon. Through 2006, the IAEA Illicit Trafficking Database had recorded a total of 607 confirmed events involving illegal possession, theft, or loss of nuclear and other radioactive materials. Although it is difficult to predict the future course of such illicit trafficking, increasingly such activities are viewed as significant threats that merit the development of special capabilities. As early as April, 1996, nuclear forensics was recognized at the G-8 Summit in Moscow as an important element of an illicit nuclear trafficking program. Given international events over the past several years, the value and need for nuclear forensics seems greater than ever. Determining how and where legitimate control of nuclear material was lost and tracing the route of the material from diversion through interdiction are important goals for nuclear forensics and attribution. It is equally important to determine whether additional devices or materials that pose a threat to public safety are also available. Finding the answer to these questions depends on determining the source of the material and its method of production. Nuclear forensics analysis and interpretation provide essential insights into methods of production and sources of illicit radioactive materials. However, they are most powerful when combined with other sources of information, including intelligence and traditional detective work. The certainty of detection and punishment for those who remove nuclear materials from legitimate control provides the ultimate deterrent for such diversion and, ultimately, for the intended goal of such diversion, including nuclear terrorism or proliferation. Consequently, nuclear forensics is an integral part of 'nuclear deterrence' in the 21st century. Nuclear forensics will always be limited by the diagnostic information inherent in the interdicted material. Important markers for traditional forensics (fingerprints, stray material, etc.) can be eliminated or obscured, but many nuclear materials have inherent isotopic or chemical characteristics that serve as unequivocal markers of specific sources, production processes, or transit routes. The information needed for nuclear forensics goes beyond that collected for most commercial and international verification activities. Fortunately, the international nuclear engineering enterprise has a restricted number of conspicuous process steps that makes the interpretation process easier. Ultimately, though, it will always be difficult to distinguish between materials that reflect similar source or production histories, but are derived from disparate sites. Due to the significant capital costs of the equipment and the specialized expertise of the personnel, work in the field of nuclear forensics has been restricted so far to a handful of national and international laboratories. There are a limited number of specialists who have experience working with interdicted nuclear materials and affiliated evidence. Therefore, a knowledge management system that utilizes information resources relevant to nuclear forensic and attribution signatures, processes, origins, and pathways, allowing subject matter experts to access the right information in order to interpret forensics data and draw appropriate conclusions, is essential. In order to determine the origin, point of diversion of the nuclear material, and those responsible for the unauthorized transfer, close relationships are required between governments who maintain inventories and data of fissile or other radioactive materials. Numerous databases exist in many countries and organizations that could be valuable for the future development and application of nuclear forensics.
Strengthening U.S.-Russian Cooperation on Nuclear Nonproliferation: Recommendations for Action offers the consensus findings and recommendations of a joint committee established by the U.S. National Academies and the Russian Academy of Sciences to identify methods of improving the ongoing cooperation between the two nations in this area. The report finds that the best way to realize the enormous potential of the U.S.-Russian relationship on nuclear nonproliferation is to reinvigorate the relationship between the two governments as a true partnership. It recommends that the U.S. and Russia establish a Joint High-Level Commission of government and non-government experts to assess their cooperation and devise a strategic plan for moving forward. It suggests that the Senior Interagency Group that was recently established by the two presidents be empowered to carry out this strategic plan. The report then examines three issue areas, making specific recommendations in each: law and taxation, program organization and management, and scientific and technical cooperation.
The papers included in this volume comprise research from participants in the 2018 Nuclear Scholars Initiative and the Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI) Conference Series. PONI sponsors this research to provide a forum for facilitating new and innovative thinking and to provide a platform for emerging thought leaders across the nuclear enterprise. The papers in this volume span a wide range of technical and policy issues, further discussion in their respective areas, and provide innovative recommendations for pressing challenges. To that end, these papers explore such topics as the impacts of emerging technologies and capabilities, deep-diving on nuclear strategy and national policies, proposing paths forward for addressing proliferation challenges, and enhancing arms control in contentious environments.
The United States and the Russian Federation have engaged in bilateral and multilateral nuclear security work for more than two decades. This cooperation was launched in reaction to the break-up of the Soviet Union and the urgent need to introduce measures to secure nuclear materials and facilities in the former USSR (FSU). Through this cooperation, both countries increased mutual confidence in the nuclear area, established regular contact between Russian and US nuclear government experts and nuclear scientists, and enriched overall nuclear security technologies and procedures, all of which has ultimately led to sustainable progress in nuclear security in Russia and has benefited nuclear security in the United States and globally. However due to the increase in energy demand and the rapid development of nuclear energy technologies, new nuclear security challenges are emerging in other regions of the world where implementation of sustainable nuclear security measures is largely constrained by limited resources and insufficient domestic capacity.
The U.S. National Academies and the Russian Academy of Sciences convened a joint workshop to identify methods of overcoming impediments to cooperation between the United States and Russia on nonproliferation. The workshop emphasized approaches and techniques that have already been shown to work in U.S.-Russian programs and that might be applied in other areas. The workshop was intended to facilitate frank discussion between individuals in the United States and Russia who have some responsibility for cooperative nonproliferation programs in the hope of identifying both the impediments to cooperation and potential methods of addressing them. This report summarizes the discussions at the workshop.
In this report 55 experts from the two countries provide policymakers with a menu of more than 50 projects that advance key objectives for both countries across five thematic areas. The series of projects on nuclear science, nuclear energy, nuclear safety, nuclear security, and nuclear environmental remediation were jointly prepared by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) and the Moscow-based Center for Energy and Security Studies (CENESS) and their Dialogue on Potential U.S.-Russia Nuclear Cooperation.
The U.S. National Academies (NAS) and the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), building on a foundation of years of interacademy cooperation, conducted a joint project to identify U.S. and Russian views on what the international nuclear security environment will be in 2015, what challenges may arise from that environment, and what options the U.S. and Russia have in partnering to address those challenges. The project's discussions were developed and expanded upon during a two-day public workshop held at the International Atomic Energy Agency in November 2007. A key aspect of that partnership may be cooperation in third countries where both the U.S. and Russia can draw on their experiences over the last decade of non-proliferation cooperation. More broadly, the following issues analyzed over the course of this RAS-NAS project included: safety and security culture, materials protection, control and accounting (MPC&A) best practices, sustainability, nuclear forensics, public-private partnerships, and the expansion of nuclear energy.
Russian influence in Central Asia is waning. Since attaining independence, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan have forged their own paths—building relationships with outside powers and throwing off the last vestiges of Soviet domination. But in many ways, Moscow still sees Central Asia through the lens of the Soviet Union, and it struggles to redefine Russian relations with the region. In The Fight for Influence, Alexey Malashenko offers a comprehensive analysis of Russian policies and prospects in Central Asia. It is clear that Russian policy in the formerly Soviet-controlled region is entering uncharted territory. But does Moscow understand the fundamental shifts under way? Malashenko argues that it is time for Russia to rethink its approach to Central Asia. Contents 1. Wasted Opportunities 2. Regional Instruments of Influence 3. Russia and Islam in Central Asia: Problems of Migration 4. Kazakhstan and Its Neighborhood 5. Kyrgyzstan—The Exception 6. Tajikistan: Authoritarian, Fragile, and Facing Difficult Challenges 7. Turkmenistan: No Longer Exotic, But Still Authoritarian 8. Uzbekistan: Is There a Potential for Change? Conclusion Who Challenges Russia in Central Asia?
A Brookings Institution Press and Chatham House publication The Russian annexation of Crimea was one of the great strategic shocks of the past twenty-five years. For many in the West, Moscow's actions in early 2014 marked the end of illusions about cooperation, and the return to geopolitical and ideological confrontation. Russia, for so long a peripheral presence, had become the central actor in a new global drama. In this groundbreaking book, renowned scholar Bobo Lo analyzes the broader context of the crisis by examining the interplay between Russian foreign policy and an increasingly anarchic international environment. He argues that Moscow's approach to regional and global affairs reflects the tension between two very different worlds—the perceptual and the actual. The Kremlin highlights the decline of the West, a resurgent Russia, and the emergence of a new multipolar order. But this idealized view is contradicted by a world disorder that challenges core assumptions about the dominance of great powers and the utility of military might. Its lesson is that only those states that embrace change will prosper in the twenty-first century. A Russia able to redefine itself as a modern power would exert a critical influence in many areas of international politics. But a Russia that rests on an outdated sense of entitlement may end up instead as one of the principal casualties of global transformation.