India, Pakistan Remain Lacking in Nuclear Security

[thethinker]

What I am suggesting is that the actions you mention (the relief from command and suspension) are indicators that nuclear security is taken seriously by those responsible for the oversight of US nuclear facilities.

What about the 3/3 score for "Personnel vetting" ?(post #18)

How was it calculated?

Just FYI, this too happened with reference to US nuclear security strongly suggesting current vetting and individual standards aren't acceptable :

Out-of-control missile officers and other nuclear threats

Too much complacency in nuclear security - Opinion - The Boston Globe

Late last year, General Michael Carey, the commander of the US intercontinental nuclear missile force, was relieved of his duties after a drunken bender in Russia, where he was participating in a joint nuclear security training exercise. On a mission that was intended to convey the seriousness of nuclear security, Carey's behavior did just the opposite.

This is not the only example of complacency among those responsible for securing nuclear weapons and materials. In 2012, a group of senior citizens, including an 82-year-old nun, was able to infiltrate a nuclear weapons site in Oak Ridge, Tenn., that housed enough highly enriched uranium to make hundreds of nuclear weapons. A few weeks later, guards at the same facility were suspected of cheating on a test to gauge its security system. A subsequent review of the facility revealed numerous security lapses. As if all of this weren't bad enough, the Air Force has announced that, during a drug investigation, 34 nuclear missile launch officers were caught cheating on missile operation tests.

So frankly, none of these scores seem credible considering massive lapses as pointed out.

 

[Yusuf]

This is the breakdown for US nuclear security scorecard, an area of interest being considered here is "Insider Threat Prevention".

Considering the recent personnel infractions who were in charge of US nuclear arsenal, what seems interesting is that all of areas related to that in the scorecard is 3 (which I assume is highest trustworthiness factor for vetting personnel).

If someone can explain how this is calculated and clarify the whole scoring process, it would be great.

While accountability and detailed analysis may be useful to examine pain points due to such reports, to think that such reports are the gospel of nuclear security is incorrect.

Many nations who supposedly are superior in "nuclear practices" did invade countries where no WMDs were found, tried to block nuclear programs of developing nations (CTBT anyone?) and so on.

So to assume that certain countries when score poorly means they really suck is plain wrong considering the credibility of nations who back such reports .

Go to NTI website and read their nearly 150 page document for this.

 

[thethinker]

Go to NTI website and read their nearly 150 page document for this.

Didn't you read it (post#13)? That is why I asked for the score calculation....

 

[thethinker]

Anyway, observations about the report (download link http://ntiindex.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2014-NTI-Index-Report.pdf) :

Page 63 lists the key inputs for arriving at these NTI scores.

4. METHODOLOGY

General

The NTI Index comprises categories that are related to
the nuclear materials security conditions for each country.
The NTI Index differentiates between countries that have
one kilogram or more of weapons-usable nuclear materials
("countries with materials") and those with less than one
kilogram of or no weapons-usable nuclear materials
("countries without materials"). The scope of the NTI Index
is limited to highly enriched uranium (HEU), including
spent fuel, separated plutonium, and plutonium content
in unirradiated mixed oxide fuel (MOX). Countries with
materials are assessed across all five categories; countries
without materials are assessed across three categories.
To score the indicators for the 2014 NTI Index, the research
team gathered data from the following sources:
"º "º Primary legal texts and legal reports
"º "º Government publications and reports
"º "º Academic publications and reports
"º "º Websites of government authorities, international
organizations, and non-governmental organizations
"º "º Interviews with experts
"º "º EIU proprietary country rankings and reports
(specifically, "Risk Briefing" and the "Business
Environment Ranking")
"º "º Local and international news media reports

Page 64 :

Data Review and Confirmation Process
After researching the 19 indicators and gathering all
relevant information, NTI and the EIU provided to the 25
countries 39 that possess weapons-usable nuclear materials
an opportunity to review and comment on the EIU's
preliminary results. The purpose of the data review and
confirmation process was to ensure accuracy of the 2014
NTI Index data, given that much of the research involved
subjects for which information is not always publicly
available. The research team also recognized that some
countries might be willing, upon request, to provide the EIU
with more detailed information than is readily available to
the public.
To make this process as simple as possible, the EIU
developed a document that presented the data for most of
the 2014 NTI Index indicators. Not all indicators, however,
were subjected to this confirmation process. For instance,
the EIU did not include data that were easily verifiable from
publicly available sources (for example, treaty ratification
status) or that were drawn from proprietary EIU databases
assessing political stability, effective governance, and
corruption. The data review and confirmation form
displayed 33 of the 56 subindicators. It also listed the
range of possible answers for each subindicator and
identified the answer the EIU assigned for the country.
The form allowed the reviewer to either agree or disagree
with the answer and provided a comment box in which the
reviewer could offer an alternative answer and justification.
The EIU used the submitted responses to reevaluate its
scores. In some cases, respondents provided information
that resulted in the EIU lowering a country's score, whereas
in other cases, scores were raised. When the responses
were unclear, the EIU contacted individuals for clarification.[/I]

Page 67 of the report just lists the methodology (as in grading criteria) but not able to find any specific calculations for giving 0-9 ratings for most of these topics.

2.3 Insider Threat Prevention

Scored 0–9 (where 9 = most favorable nuclear
materials security conditions)

2.3.1 Personnel vetting Scored 0–3
2.3.2 Frequency of personnel vetting Scored 0–3
2.3.3 Reporting Scored 0–1
2.3.4 Surveillance Scored 0–2
2.4 Physical Security During Transport
2.4.1 Physical security during transport
2.5 Response Capabilities
Scored 0–2 (where 2 = most favorable nuclear
materials security conditions)
Scored 0–2
Scored 0–7 (where 7 = most favorable nuclear
materials security conditions)
2.5.1 Emergency response capabilities Scored 0–3
2.5.2 Armed response capabilities Scored 0–1
2.5.3 Law enforcement response training Scored 0–1
2.5.4 Nuclear infrastructure protection plan Scored 0–2

Lots of fancy graphics though, just like those company reports.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

So frankly, none of these scores seem credible considering massive lapses as pointed out.

So when India is criticized it must obsessively find fault elsewhere. Then it doesn't have to correct any problems. Excuse me, you are copying Chinese approach.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

More from the article:

South Asia remains the world's likeliest nuclear flash point given the high level of mutual mistrust and enmity between India and Pakistan. While the risk of an imminent strategic nuclear weapon exchange remains low given each nation's deterrents, Pakistan's development of tactical nuclear weapons could reduce barriers for a nuclear event in the subcontinent. Beyond nuclear weapons, the security of nuclear materials in both these countries remains inadequate. Given the multitude of variables involved in establishing a robust nuclear security architecture for these countries, domestic developments alone can do little to reduce the chance of a nuclear event. A general reduction in tensions between India and Pakistan — eventually leading to the normalization of bilateral relations — is just as important.

It should not be necessary to post an entire article, but apparently DFI posters are not capable of going to a link and actually reading.

Explains why one-line responses are the norm.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

One of interesting comments on the article:

The 2014 Nuclear Threat Initiative's Nuclear Materials Security Index, which is a unique public assessment of nuclear materials security conditions in 176 countries, ranked Pakistan above India. Pakistan scored three more points compared to 2012, and was recognized as "the largest improvement of any nuclear-armed state."

Pakistan's improvement is primarily due to an increased score for on-site physical protection resulting from new laws and regulations requiring licensees to provide physical protection to nuclear sites and on-site reviews of security.

And this will be answered by accusations of US lapses, because such articles are racist What a farce.

 

[thethinker]

So when India is criticized it must obsessively find fault elsewhere. Then it doesn't have to correct any problems. Excuse me, you are copying Chinese approach.

Criticized by West to be precise, even more precise to be US.

As far as going through links and posts, please point out where I said India doesn't have nuclear problems.

What was said is that while such reports bring out pain points that are useful in correcting practices, believing the rankings and taking them on face value is a farce. Especially reports by a conglomerate whose key players do all kinds of funny business when it comes to nuclear policies.

By the way, wasn't a nuclear missile crew caught cheating on exams in US? What does that indicate? What about those which went undetected?

So please enlighten us on why such scores on "nuclear safety" should be taken as a gospel especially considering the near perfect scores that US has in such reports?

Double standards much?

 

[thethinker]

More from the article:



It should not be necessary to post an entire article, but apparently DFI posters are not capable of going to a link and actually reading.

Explains why one-line responses are the norm.

Aren't you a DFI poster too? Or are you on a separate forum?

 

[thethinker]

One of interesting comments on the article:




And this will be answered by accusations of US lapses, because such articles are racist What a farce.

accusation : a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

Accusation - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Just so the above definition is clear, please clarify how are the following "accusations" if punitive measures(highlighted below in bold) have already been taken against offending personnel :

Air Force general in charge of nuclear weapons removed for lack of trust: defense officials

A top general in charge of the U.S. Air Force's arsenal of nuclear ballistic missiles has been relieved of his command due to loss of trust, defense officials told NBC News.

Air Force officials said Maj. Gen. Michael Carey was fired for "personal misbehavior" while on temporary duty at an unspecified location outside his usual command. The officials would not describe the behavior, other than to say that it did not involve any sexual improprieties, drug use, gambling, or criminal conduct.

Second-in-command of the country's nuclear arsenal is suspended as he is investigated for GAMBLING

The No. 2 officer at the military command in charge of all U.S. nuclear war-fighting forces has been suspended and is under investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigation Command for issues related to gambling, officials said Saturday.

He is still assigned to the command but is prohibited from performing duties related to nuclear weapons and other issues requiring a security clearance, she said.

 

[Jagdish58]

What I said to angeldude12
.

hmmmm if we agree with USA , not question them & condemn Russia we are not profound ignorant

if we agree with Putin , you call him a daddy figure for Indian DFI member really being a senior member u get to personal attack

Simple u can call droping N-bomb on Japan is getting back on them pearl harbour attack & ending World war 2, But we call it barbaric use of power

1971 war we can argue , we did in the interest of the people in east pakistan being maulded by pakis . But pakis will rebutt telling indians had no business

OPINIONS DIFFER , THERE IS NO POINT IN GETTING PERSONAL :thumb:

 

[thethinker]

Certain Western "nations" (actually more like corporate controlled governments) like to form "conglomerates" to have an air of legitimacy and so that these kind of associations can be indirectly used to accomplish own self-serving agenda, make other nations tow the line and try to strong arm / meddle in affairs of others.

If that doesn't work, bring on regime changes as a last resort but do that under the guise of "bringing democracy" or "liberating from tyranny".

So don't be surprised to hear all kinds of remarks here (pro-Putin, anti-Yank, jew-hater and so on) since disagreement is not what these people are used to (well until now).

The wonders of power-shift and formation of new global alliances. :thumb:

 

[prohumanity]

Those who dropped nuclear bomb on Japan have no right to preach the world and who should or should not have nuclear weapons. This is called Hypocritical. 1.2 billion (with a B) have right to decide and bear arms to protect themselves. Isn,t right to bear arms an American value?
India does have right to bear arms and no country can take that right from this giant nation. Tell Netherland to shut up and keep smoking "pot" You know above 90% Netherland citizens are "pot heads" so they sometimes talk stupid when are high on "pot"
By the way, thinker, why they can't do regime change in Russia?

 

[sayareakd]

In fact I've been discussing why India is not more transparent and very secretive about our nuclear program. As we aspire to be a "great nation" we will have to act like one. We need to have process in place where we declare our stockpile (civil), our locations (civil) etc and I also say that we should come to a conclusion of what minimum credible deterrence means and put a number to it under the current threat perception and not give a vague we will respond with unacceptable damage thing. This threat perception should be reviewed say every two years as we build our stockpile. If we declare the number of warheads, the type and their yields, the enemy will also feel "assured" and "confident" of our program and we can build confidence building measures to reduce chance of nuclear conflict.

Minimum number should be 500.

 

[prohumanity]

I think ,number of Nukes is not real issue. It's the assortment of various types which ,also is very important. First, threat perception should be clearly analysed..and then, number and type should be specifically formulated....like for Paki threat, for China threat....for NATO threat and so on.
Number of Nukes is just one factor. Cyber war should be given very high priority. Like a few million Indians should be trained to jam/attack enemy servers and sites and overwhelm the internet pathways by crowding the traffic into enemies banking, financial market operations etc. Indians speak English and are computer savvy..and that can be a huge asset. India should prepare to have robust agriculture to ensure ample food supplies for its population and emphasize on education even more. I don't think buying a few more foreign fighter planes is the answer as preparation should be multidimensional and alliances and trade with like minded nation should be part of security planning. India should never lose time tested and reliable friends like Russia . Should try to understand and align with nations like China, Myanmar ,Vietnam etc. Carefully analyse and understand Western propaganda and motives ,be watchful of sincerely of western nations due to their betrayal and hypocritical attitude in the past. Still, should remain open minded about some of the western nations who genuinely want to be partners and are clean hearted in dealings. Keep an eye on slave like, proxy nations such as Paki, Saudi and others as they don't have a backbone of their own and are eager to please their masters for dollars. A very intelligent security planning is required by India in 21st century to protect its democracy, culture and societal values.
Most important: India does not need to match the arsenal of big enemies ..it just needs to have enough military strength to ensure that enemy attacker will ,also suffer tremendous damage if it attacks India. There is no need to compare defense budget as a determined, agile and patriotic force can defeat enemy with 10% of the enemies budget.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Regarding storage and transportation, Our system will remain dark ..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Dutch minister of Defence Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert is in China this week to 'enhance the co-operation' between China and the Netherlands

Despite, Its a world meeting its quite evident ..

This report sound BS to me.Who the hell is Netherlands???.

==============================

@Ewald Sir, The reason they mentioned are not clear, Transportation of nukes let it be in a Armored train or Military transport is always dangerous, There are many terrorist organization threaded in many nuclear armed countries ..

To me, Its looks like a support for China from the region ..

The 2014 Nuclear Security Summit is being held in the Hague, which is in the Netherlands.