nuclear

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Tuesday that he is optimistic about the potential for a resumption in nuclear talks with Iran despite a shaky ceasefire in the war that is looking increasingly in doubt.

Rubio defended the Trump administration’s approach to Iran and other global hot spots in back-to-back hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a House Appropriations subcommittee. He was briefly disrupted by protesters at each session.

In his first public testimony since the Iran war began at the end of February, Rubio said the Iranians have agreed to negotiate on nuclear points that they had not been willing to address in the past but would not offer an assessment on what those talks might produce.

“They have agreed to negotiate aspects of their nuclear program that just a month ago, just a year ago, they were refusing to even mention,” Rubio told the Senate. He noted, however, that there was no guarantee “it will lead to a deal that’s acceptable” and that negotiations have been made difficult by the instability of Iran’s leadership.

Rubio’s optimism ran counter to pessimistic reports from two semiofficial Iranian news agencies that Iran has stopped communicating with mediators after Israel threatened to bomb Beirut as it fights the Hezbollah militant group. President Trump disputed that Iran has cut off communication with mediators, calling Iranian reports of a cessation in talks “false and erroneous.”

Democrats criticize Trump administration’s approach to Iran, and Rubio defends it

Rubio’s wide-ranging testimony was met with fierce objections from Democrats, including tough questions about the status of U.S. foreign assistance to respond to diseases such as the Ebola outbreak in Africa. Rubio insisted that the dismantlement of the U.S. Agency for International Development had not affected Washington’s ability to assist with global humanitarian responses.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) blasted Rubio and Trump for foreign aid cuts and overseas intervention. Van Hollen specifically took aim at the U.S. and Israeli decision to strike Iran, accusing the Republican president of entering the war on behalf of Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “said he’s been waiting 40 years to do this,” Van Hollen said. “It turns out he finally found a president who was both stupid and reckless enough to join him. Let’s face it, Mr. Secretary, the Trump foreign policy has become a dumpster fire.”

Rubio’s testimony, which was taking place as Israel and Lebanon began a new round of political talks at the State Department with the situation between Israel and Hezbollah still uncertain, did not provide definitive answers on any of the main questions of the day.

He said Iran is not guaranteed a massive payout for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the crucial waterway for global oil shipments, and would have to commit to further concessions on its nuclear program to get significant sanctions relief.

“The more they give, the more they would get,” he said, later adding, “They’re not going to get it as a signing bonus.”

Rubio also said there are indications that Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is taking a bigger part in the discussions despite not being seen publicly since the war began.

“I think there are indications out there that he is increasingly engaging at some level, although all of his communications have been in writing and through intermediaries,” he said.

Democratic senator says drugs being on boats isn’t a targeting criterion for U.S. strikes

On other issues, Rubio dismissed questions about the legality of Pentagon strikes against dozens of alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean, which have killed more than 200 people since early September.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said the military’s targeting criteria for those strikes does not include drugs being present on the boat. He called it “odd” but said he could not share much more because the criteria are classified.

Rubio pushed back, saying every strike has a legal officer who makes a determination on whether a strike is legal. He also said the U.S. military has “walked away from strikes” multiple times because they did not meet the targeting criteria.

The Trump administration says the U.S. is at war with drug cartels, while many Democrats have questioned the legality and effectiveness of the strikes.

The Republican former senator faces a second congressional hearing Tuesday and a pair of others Wednesday about the State Department’s annual budget request, though questions have mostly focused on top foreign policy issues.

Rubio wades into Taiwan arms sales opposed by China

Rubio acknowledged that the Trump administration is holding up a new potential $14-billion arms sale to Taiwan but said it remained under consideration and would not be canceled. He noted that the U.S. recently sold arms to Taiwan in December worth $11 billion.

He said the deal is not under review because of pressure from China, although he said the Chinese bring up the issue in discussions with the United States. Trump also has described it as a great negotiating chip.

“They are constantly talking about Taiwan arms sales, but that in no way is what is holding up our decision-making or the White House’s decision-making,” Rubio said. “It is something the president will have to decide on the timing of when and how that is executed on.”

Protesters chant at Rubio about Cuba

Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, also was questioned about the Trump administration’s escalatory behavior toward Cuba, as Trump has hinted that the small island country could be the next U.S. target after operations in Iran are wrapped up.

He faced chants from protesters who urged him to “stop killing Cubans” when he entered the Senate briefing room. The protesters were quickly pulled from the room. Their chants also included “Let Cuba live!”

Rubio defended the administration’s approach to Cuba and said it would remain focused on changing the Cuban government’s policies.

“I really don’t believe this system is capable of reform unless new people take over or a new mindset takes hold,” he said.

Despite a series of meetings between U.S. and Cuban officials, Trump and Rubio have renewed threats against the island’s government, which take on greater weight following the administration’s announcement of criminal charges against former President Raúl Castro.

Over his congressional career and now as America’s top diplomat, Rubio has maintained that Cuba is a national security threat due to its ties to U.S. adversaries, and that Trump is intent on addressing it.

Amiri, Lee and Finley write for the Associated Press. Amiri reported from New York.

June 2 (UPI) — Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the Senate on Tuesday morning that Iran must reopen the Strait of Hormuz and commit to future talks on its nuclear program before the United States will make concessions.

He testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before a scheduled afternoon meeting with a House panel on State Department spending. Both sessions were planned so that Rubio could defend the department’s nearly $36 million budget request for the 2027 fiscal year.

Rubio is also President Donald Trump‘s national security adviser.

The Washington Post reported that Rubio’s testimony with lawmakers has been mostly friendly. He served in the Senate for 14 years and in the House for 8, representing Florida.

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have expressed frustration with the cost and potential political fallout from the war with Iran.

“This war and the administration’s decision to blockade has now held the entire world economy, and the U.S. economy, hostage to the ability to negotiate an agreement with Iran,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn, The Post reported.

The Strait of Hormuz, which has been closed by Iran since late February, must reopen, Rubio stressed. The strait is a critical waterway for shipping of much of the world’s oil, gas and fertilizer. The closure has caused gas prices to rise, causing anxiety as Republicans fear losing House and Senate seats in November.

Rubio said Trump demands that Iran enter into negotiating “severe and long-term limitations” on its nuclear program, including disposing of enriched uranium, and those talks could take months.

But he said he’s optimistic that Iran is more willing to negotiate on nukes.

“They have agreed to negotiate aspects of their nuclear program that just a month ago, just a year ago, they were refusing to even mention,” The Guardian reported Rubio said. He warned that it’s “not a guarantee that ultimately it will lead to a deal that’s acceptable,” and Iran’s leadership instability has made the negotiations more difficult.

Rubio said Iran had intended to use its conventional weapons capabilities as a “shield” to protect its nuclear program, The Guardian reported.

“What they tried to do is, they were going to try to build a conventional shield and hide behind that conventional shield,” he said, explaining why Trump wanted to start the war.

He also admitted, after questioning by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that another sticking point for Trump was that Iran stop supporting terrorist proxy groups. He said Trump is not willing to ease sanctions just for opening the strait.

Rubio said that Iranian Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei is believed to be alive.

“I would imagine, given what’s happened to multiple leaders in that system, being very public is probably not something that’s recommended for them internally,” he said. “But that said, I think there are indications out there that he is increasingly engaging at some level, although all of his communications have been in writing and through intermediaries.”

Along with Iran, lawmakers were expected to ask Rubio about the president’s comments about Cuba and Taiwan.

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi says the 2015 Iran nuclear deal is no longer a workable model. Iran’s nuclear technology and capabilities have advanced significantly, and any future agreement must reflect today’s realities, including the impact of the recent conflict.

South Korea has confirmed plans to develop a new class of nuclear-powered submarines under the Jang Bogo N Project. These will put South Korea in an exclusive class of nations operating nuclear-powered subs, with currently only China, France, India, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States having them in active service. The move has larger implications than providing the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) with just more capable submarines.

South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense (MND) today published a document, the Basic Plan for the Development of Nuclear-Powered Submarines in the Republic of Korea, that sets out its ambition for a major advance in the country’s naval capabilities. The name of the program alludes to South Korea’s first submarine, the Jang Bogo class.

The MND has presented the thinking behind its nuclear-powered sub plans, noting that the vessels will offer “dramatically enhanced operational capabilities” compared to the ROKN’s existing diesel submarines. As well as their functionally unlimited range, the MND says the new nuclear-powered submarines will offer “higher mobility” than their predecessors, which pairs with nuclear submarines’ abilities to travel farther, and do so faster, as well as their underwater agility, at least in certain performance envelope areas.

The ministry also outlines that the new submarines “will play a core role in responding to threats such as North Korea’s submarine-launched nuclear and missile threats.”

“The Republic of Korea will transparently and firmly fulfill its nuclear non-proliferation obligations based on the trust of the international community,” the MND adds.

Clearly, this is a long-term program, with it being Seoul’s first venture into nuclear propulsion for a military application, although it does develop reactors for civilian purposes, which could be leveraged for such work.

The defense ministry expects that the construction process will take up to 10 years, after which the boats will be operated for more than 30 years.

A precise timeline has not been released, and it is also unclear how many hulls are expected to be built.

Back in October last year, TWZ reported on a key milestone toward the program launch, when U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he’d signed off on the plan.

“Our Military Alliance is stronger than ever before and, based on that, I have given them approval to build a Nuclear Powered Submarine, rather than the old fashioned, and far less nimble diesel powered submarines that they have now,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

The U.S. leader also claimed that at least some of the boats would be built in the United States. The MND hasn’t mentioned this possibility, and the wording of its announcement stresses the sovereign nature of the program and local industrial participation. However, with South Korean firms already building ships in Philadelphia and the United States needing more nuclear shipbuilding capacity, this dynamic could also come into play as a result of the Jang Bogo N Project.

Collapse of U.S. shipbuilding poses national and economic security risks | 60 Minutes

Before Trump’s remarks, South Korea had been open about its nuclear-powered submarine ambitions for years. In fact, related discussions date back to at least around 2003.

However, the plans long faced pushback, including from the United States, especially over nuclear proliferation concerns.

The ROKN already operates a sizable diesel-electric submarine force made up of 12 Jang Bogo class boats, nine Sohn Won-yil class submarines, and three Dosan Ahn Changho class vessels — these are also referred to under the Korean Submarine (KSS) nomenclature, being the KSS-I, KSS-II, and KSS-III, respectively.

The Jang Bogo and Sohn Won-yil classes are based on the German Type 209 and Type 214 designs, respectively, while the Dosan Ahn Changho class is a fully South Korean design.

Last year, South Korea also launched the first of three planned Jang Yeongsil class (KSS-III Batch II) submarines, the nation’s largest and most technologically advanced submarine class so far. You can read more about them here.

Whatever Seoul’s plan is for the production of the new boats, it is still possible, indeed likely, that the United States will provide assistance at least in relation to their propulsion systems.

Last year, South Korea’s defense minister said that South Korea would build its own submarines and modular reactors, but would receive a supply of enriched uranium fuel from the United States. Seoul’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), meanwhile, said that the country was already working on developing small nuclear reactors.

This fuel issue is interesting, bearing in mind that one of the hurdles for the program is a bilateral agreement that prevents it from enriching uranium and reprocessing spent fuel without Washington’s approval. Today’s announcement would suggest that the U.S. government has given the program the green light.

When it comes to the nuclear issue, it’s worth noting that, as it now stands, all nations operating nuclear-powered submarines also field nuclear weapons. Already, however, Australia is moving to acquire nuclear-powered submarines through the trilateral Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) defense cooperation agreement. Canberra has no plans for fielding nuclear weapons.

For South Korea, however, there remains a possibility that it may seek to develop a nuclear deterrent, something South Korean officials have talked about in the past, and that we have discussed on many occasions. The primary driver for this is the fact that neighboring North Korea possesses a ballooning nuclear arsenal and a growing number of delivery systems to convey it. Furthermore, it may now be pursuing its own nuclear-powered submarines with assistance from Russia. The degree to which Moscow is providing assistance is unclear, but it may well be propelling the program forward significantly. There is also the factor that, at least in some cases, the United States is not seen globally as the strategic partner it once was. In a South Korean context, Trump has reportedly talked about pulling some U.S. troops out of South Korea.

As a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), this would also stand in the way of South Korea acquiring nuclear weapons. Indeed, separate from weapons, the process of building enrichment or other nuclear facilities, or otherwise acquiring the highly enriched fissile material to power the submarines, would be an issue for the NPT.

The Jang Bogo N Project is certainly ambitious, and not just in terms of constructing the boats and securing the fuel required for them.

There will also be enormous investments required to develop suitable infrastructure to sustain a fleet of nuclear-powered subs, as well as training personnel in the operational and maintenance of naval reactors.

Beyond that, there is the question about the degree to which Seoul even needs nuclear-powered submarines. South Korea is already developing conventionally-armed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) that can be fired from some of its more modern diesel submarines. These would already offer a conventional second-strike capability to help deter North Korea. The ranges involved in striking North Korean targets hardly need a launch platform with nuclear propulsion.

At the same time, South Korean diesel-electric submarine technology already outstrips North Korea’s limited anti-submarine warfare capabilities.

South Korea Test Launches Ballistic Missile From Submarine

On the other hand, while South Korea’s new diesel-electric subs offer a conventional quasi-second strike capability, it is not anywhere comparable to a true strategic nuclear second-strike deterrent of the kind that highly survivable nuclear-powered boats could provide, if South Korea one day chooses to go nuclear. Even with just conventional ballistic missiles aboard, the ability of a nuclear submarine to disappear out to sea for long periods is unmatched, which would enhance the survivability of the boats and their missiles, and help the credibility of a far more limited conventional second strike deterrent.

Beyond the North Korean threat, the nuclear-powered submarine program promises boats with extreme endurance and a higher level of underwater performance that can range much farther afield, reflecting Seoul’s growing focus on a broader regional security picture. With this in mind, it’s clear that the Jang Bogo N Project is also directed against the threat posed by China. Beijing’s military capabilities are a growing concern for South Korea, a fact reflected in Seoul looking increasingly toward security challenges beyond the peninsula. 

In an underwater warfare context, China maintains a very large submarine force that includes diesel-electric and nuclear-powered types, and which it continues to expand in both size and capability.

The Chinese government has also previously spoken out against South Korea’s nuclear-powered submarine plans, calling for Seoul and the U.S. “to fulfill their nuclear non-proliferation obligations and do things to promote regional peace and stability, and not the other way around,” according to Reuters.

South Korea’s burgeoning submarine plans underscore how quickly its naval ambitions in general are evolving from coastal defense to a far more capable regional deterrent force, and one that will increasingly be able to undertake long-duration bluewater operations.

With the Jang Bogo N Project now underway, the ROKN can look forward to fielding its most advanced vessels yet. Depending on final plans for the production of these boats, it may well also cement its position as one of the few countries capable of designing and building nuclear-powered vessels. At the very least, it should put yet another piece in place should South Korea decide it needs a true second-strike strategic nuclear deterrent.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

May 29 (Asia Today) — South Korea and the United States will hold their first meeting in Seoul next week to discuss security issues agreed to at last year’s bilateral summit, including South Korea’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines.

South Korea’s Foreign Ministry said Friday the two sides will hold a launch meeting June 2-3 in Seoul for follow-up consultations on the security provisions of the joint fact sheet issued after the summit.

The meeting will come eight months after the two leaders announced agreements in the security section of the joint fact sheet in October.

The two sides are expected to discuss specific measures related to South Korea’s construction of nuclear-powered submarines, as well as expanded authority over uranium enrichment and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing.

With U.S. midterm elections scheduled for November, negotiations in individual areas are expected to gain momentum.

South Korea will send an interagency delegation led by First Vice Foreign Minister Park Yoon-joo. Officials from the presidential National Security Office, Foreign Ministry, Defense Ministry, Ministry of Climate and Energy, Ministry of Science and ICT, Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources and Nuclear Safety and Security Commission will also attend.

The U.S. delegation will be led by Allison Hooker, under secretary of state for political affairs. Officials from the White House National Security Council, State Department, Energy Department and War Department are expected to travel to Seoul for the talks.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260529010008720

Iran is ready to reassure the international community that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons or instability in the region, President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Sunday, Anadolu reports.

“Prior to the martyrdom of Ayatollah (Ali) Khamenei, Iran’s late Leader, we declared — and we reiterate now — that we are ready to assure the world we do not seek nuclear weapons,” Pezeshkian said in remarks carried by state-run news agency IRNA.

“It is rather Tel Aviv that is driving regional instability,” he said, accusing Israel of pursuing a vision of “Greater Israel.”

Iranian negotiators will never compromise on the country’s “honor and dignity,” added Pezeshkian.

His remarks came a day after US President Donald Trump on Saturday said an agreement with Iran to end the war was “largely negotiated” and awaited finalization.

Regional tensions have escalated since the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran in February. Tehran retaliated with strikes targeting Israel as well as US allies in the Gulf, along with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

A ceasefire took effect on April 8 through Pakistani mediation and was later extended by Trump indefinitely.

READ: Iran shoots down Israeli spy drone in country’s south: Report

Unification Minister Chung Dong-young will face a prosecution investigation over allegations that he leaked classified information related to North Korea‘s nuclear facilities.

The Seoul Southern District Prosecutors Office said Thursday that it received the case from the Seoul Central District Prosecutors Office on May 21 and assigned it. Chung is accused of violating laws governing the disclosure of official secrets.

During a parliamentary committee session on March 6, Chung said North Korea is operating another uranium enrichment facility in the northwestern region of Kusong, along with previously reported ones in Yongbyon and Kangson.

The government has previously officially identified Yongbyon and Kangson as the main locations hosting the North’s uranium enrichment facilities, with Kusong being identified as a site for the first time.

At the time, the United States was reportedly said to have conveyed its concerns through South Korean diplomatic, security and intelligence agencies.

The unification ministry responded that Chung’s remarks were based on comments by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and reports and analyses released by research institutions, as well as media outlets.

The ministry said Thursday the prosecution’s assignment of the case was merely a procedural step following the complaint and should not be interpreted as the formal launch of an investigation.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

May 24 (UPI) — The United States on Sunday blamed the collapse of a U.N. nuclear nonproliferation conference on what it called some countries’ inability to take Iran’s threat to global nonproliferation seriously.

The nearly monthlong Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons ended Friday without consensus on an outcome document, which reviews implementation of the Cold War-era pact and sets recommendations and commitments for its 191 state parities.

Conference President Do Hung Viet of Vietnam said Friday, following weeks of work and four versions of an outcome document, that he would not put it forward for adoption as “the conference is not in a position to achieve agreement on its substantive work.”

The failure came amid mounting global insecurity, including the war in Iran, the modernization and expansion of nuclear arsenals and other geopolitical tensions, which complicated efforts to reach consensus.

The U.S. State Department on Sunday faulted on other NPT member states.

“The inability of some NPT States Parties to take Iran’s threat to global nonproliferation seriously will be addressed by the United States in our continuing engagements,” State Department spokesperson Thomas Pigott said in a statement.

He said the failure to adopt a document was made worse by what he described as Iran’s continued noncompliance with NPT-required safeguards and “its escalating nuclear activities.”

Pigott did not specify in the statement which activities he was referring to. The United States attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities in June, with President Donald Trump repeatedly claiming they were “obliterated.”

“For the NPT Review Conference to uphold its founding mandate, States Parties cannot turn a blind eye to Iran’s noncompliance, nor can violators be allowed to undermine the enforcement and accountability mechanisms at the core of the NPT,” he said.

Iran was quick to blame the United States, saying Washington’s “excessive demands” were at fault.

The United States was seeking to include language in the document concerning Iran, which accused the United States during the meeting of violating the treaty by attacking its nuclear facilities.

“The NPT Review Conference failed for the third consecutive time due to obstructionism by the United States and its allies,” Iran’s mission to the U.N. said in a social media statement.

Following the collapse of the conference, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed his “disappointment.”

“The current international environment, marked by deep tensions and an elevated risk posed by nuclear weapons, demands urgent action,” his spokesperson, Stephane Dujarric, said in a statement.

“The secretary-general appeals to all states to make full use of all available avenues of dialogue, diplomacy and negotiation to reduce tensions, lower nuclear risks and, ultimately, eliminate the nuclear threat.”

It is the 11th meeting of the treaty states parties and the third in consecutive review conference to end without an agreement.

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the failure of the conference to call for “urgently needed” concrete actions to avert a new nuclear arms race was due to the five nuclear-armed states’ use of “aggressive diplomatic intimidation tactics against non-nuclear weapons states.”

He also said U.S. leadership as “sorely lacking.”

“The foundations of the NPT, the cornerstone of global efforts to reduce and eliminate the world’s greatest danger, are cracking due to inattention, intransigence and ineptitude,” Kimball said in a statement.

This summer, the U.S. Navy will demonstrate the ability of the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, with its two A1B nuclear reactors, to power a base on land. The test at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia is part of a larger effort to ensure facilities can remain up and running even if existing power sources are lost due to attacks and other contingencies. Using ships to provide electricity ashore is not new, but being able to use a Ford class aircraft carrier in this way might open up additional operational possibilities, as well as help in future disaster relief scenarios.

Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao briefly mentioned the planned test at a hearing before members of the House Armed Services Committee on May 14.

“This summer, Norfolk Naval Base [sic] is going to be powered from an aircraft carrier,” Cao said on May 14. “We’re going to export the energy from the aircraft carrier to the base.”

“The Department of the Navy is executing a multi-pronged strategy to ensure the delivery of firm, baseload power to our installations for energy resilience and mission assurance,” a Navy spokesperson subsequently told TWZ directly when we reached out for more information. “One line of effort in the strategy is to deliver power from a Ford class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to a compatible shore installation, to demonstrate the capability to meet emergent, mission critical needs. An initial test of this capability is being planned for later this year at Naval Station Norfolk.”

This statement refers to the Ford class generically, but the USS Gerald R. Ford is currently the only ship of its kind to have been commissioned into service. It is also homeported in Norfolk and just recently returned from a marathon 326-day deployment. That is the longest an American carrier has been at sea since the Vietnam War, and included supporting the mission to capture Venezuela’s dictatorial former President Nicolas Maduro and combat operations against Iran.

USS Ford returns home after 11-month deployment for Iran war and Maduro’s capture

Supercarriers like Ford are already very much floating cities, with typical crew complements ranging from roughly 4,000 to 5,000 individuals, including members of the embarked air wing. They have immense power-generation requirements.

As noted, each Ford class carrier has two A1B nuclear reactors, the exact power output of which is classified. However, they are said to offer a 25 percent increase in “reactor energy” compared to the A4Ws used on Nimitz class aircraft carriers, as well as be simpler to operate. Based on that, the A1B is generally assessed to be rated at some 700 MWt. Two of them would then have a combined rating of 1,400 MWt. This is a fraction of what is offered by typical commercial power-generating reactors in the United States today. At the same time, those reactors are also designed to provide electricity across entire regions rather than just to a single military base.

Being able to use the Ford and other future carriers as floating power plants for major bases like Norfolk could offer a useful backup option for providing electricity if established power sources suddenly become unavailable for any reason. American officials have been increasingly sounding the alarm that many areas previously considered inaccessible sanctuaries, including in the U.S. homeland, could now be at risk during future conflicts. The scale and scope of long-range threats, as well as options for carrying out near-field attacks, only continue to grow. The proliferation of longer-range one-way attack drones, something where the barrier to entry is also low, has had a particularly pronounced impact on this threat ecosystem.

Demonstrating the ability of a Ford class aircraft carrier to provide power ashore might open up other operational possibilities. The U.S. military, as a whole, is increasingly focused on new distributed concepts of operations involving widely dispersed forces, many of which could be forward-deployed at operating locations with limited established infrastructure.

Turning an aircraft carrier into a floating powerplant could be valuable in a wide array of non-combat scenarios abroad and at home, including during disaster relief missions. Getting the power back on is often a critical component of those operations, which in turn can help restore access to medical care and other essential services.

Many critical U.S. military facilities are themselves in areas prone to natural disasters, the impacts of which can be severe and have significant second-order ramifications. Bases provide epicenters for recovery, too, routinely providing essential services after disasters. They could do so after attacks or in other contingencies. Making sure they have uninterrupted power in any of those scenarios would be critical. There are also long-standing concerns about the resiliency of America’s aging power grids, which could also be an indirect threat vector, including from cyberattacks.

During his testimony, Acting Secretary Cao highlighted how a carrier serving as a powerplant could also provide other support in a non-combat scenario.

“The energy that’s produced from these, we can … use it for a four-stage distiller making water, fresh potable water,” he said. “On a carrier, we’re pumping millions of gallons over the side every day of fresh potable water that tests at pH 7 [neutral pH], right, that we can now export in places like California, where you have a drought.”

As noted, none of this is entirely new. The U.S. military has a long history of using ships, including conventionally-powered aircraft carriers, to provide power ashore. One of America’s very first carriers, the USS Lexington (CV-2), helped provide electricity to Tacoma, Washington, between December 1929 and January 1930. At the time, the city’s grid relied on hydroelectric power sources, the output from which had dropped severely due to a mix of environmental factors. In 1931, Lexington also brought medical personnel and humanitarian aid to Nicaragua following an earthquake, an early example of the general value of carriers in the disaster relief role.

During World War II, the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy in the United Kingdom collectively utilized at least seven Buckley class destroyer escorts as floating power plants. The Buckley class was well suited for this use given its propulsion system, which consisted of steam turbines powering electric motors. At least one of these ships, the USS Donnell, was converted to this role after suffering severe damage during combat operations in the North Atlantic. It was deemed to be too expensive to repair the ship to return to service in its original role.

An especially relevant past example is that of the MH-1A. This was a floating nuclear power plant converted from a World War II Liberty ship, originally named the SS Charles H. Cugle and later renamed Sturgis. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) operated MH-1A, which had a power rating of 10 MW, and used it to provide electricity in the Panama Canal Zone between 1968 and 1975. The ship and its reactor were subsequently returned to the contiguous United States. MH-1A was defueled in 1977. It remained in storage for decades before the decision was finally made to decommission it, a lengthy process that was only completed in 2018. Sturgis was subsequently scrapped.

At the time of writing, it is unclear if the Navy has any ships or barges in inventory that are explicitly capable of providing power ashore. Electricity is routinely provided to naval vessels in port from grids ashore, and the ability to send power the other way, at least in an ad hoc manner, has come up in the past. For instance, in 1982, the Navy considered sending the Los Angeles class attack submarine USS Indianapolis to Hawaii to serve as a floating nuclear power station in the wake of Hurricane Iwa. Indianapolis was not ultimately deployed for this purpose in that case.

As an aside, the Navy has also long used decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines as floating schoolhouses for sailors learning how to operate and maintain nuclear reactors.

There are examples of ship-to-shore power generation elsewhere globally. Currently, Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov is the only purpose-built floating nuclear power plant in operation today, and you can read more about it here. However, South Korea’s Samsung Heavy Industries is actively working on a new floating nuclear power station design, and similar developments could be on the horizon elsewhere. There are also non-nuclear floating power plant designs in service, notably with commercial firm Karpowership in Turkey, and in development today.

Floating Nuclear Power Plant (FNPP) “Akademik Lomonosov”

Powership Video

There are still questions about the viability of employing Navy carriers like Ford in this way today. For one, ships sitting in port are inherently more vulnerable than ones at sea. Carriers are high-value assets that would be top targets in any major conflict, to begin with. Using a carrier as a replacement for traditional power sources, especially for a base that may have already have been or still be under attack, could come along with substantial additional force protection requirements. At the same time, carriers are inherently well-protected and relatively hardened platforms, especially against lower-end, smaller-scale threats.

There is also an operational capacity question. The Navy is currently struggling to meet operational demands with the 11 carriers it has available now. Between continued delays in the construction of new Ford class carriers and the schedule for retiring aging Nimitz class ships, there is a possibility that the force could shrink further in the near term. The Navy just extended the service life of the USS Nimitz to bring its impending inactivation in line with the expected delivery date of the second member of the Ford class, the future USS John F. Kennedy.

Around the Yard at NNS: John F. Kennedy (CVN 79) Builder’s Sea Trials

Pulling any of the Navy’s heavily in-demand aircraft carriers, which provide unique power projection capabilities, out of rotation to sit in port generating power could be a tough sell. That being said, carriers that are in between deployments could be used in this way, in some cases with relatively minimal disruption to other aspects of the force generation cycle. The seriousness of the contingency in question would also factor into the Navy’s assessment of its general force requirements and priorities.

It is worth noting here that the U.S. military has already been making investments in other forms of energy resiliency at established bases, as well as the ability to provide significant amounts of power at forward locations, in recent years. Acting Secretary Cao’s comments last week about the upcoming test at Naval Station Norfolk were prompted by a question about ongoing work on new small modular nuclear reactors, or SMRs, to help power U.S. military bases. The U.S. Army is currently the lead service for those efforts, as you can read more about here. The U.S. Air Force has also been heavily involved.

“We’ve got to have an overall programmatic champion for the SMR program,” Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Caudle, the service’s top officer, who also testified at the hearing alongside Cao, said. “So I think we’re dithering a bit there, and not really landing on the pilot, and laying out the program of record.”

“While the Army may be tapped to be the overall lead for it [SMR], I see no world in which the Navy is not going to be part of that discussion and bring our expertise through our long-established Naval Reactors [office], deep understanding of reactor physics, and understanding [of] safe operation.”

As an aside, the Navy just recently announced its intention to expand its nuclear-powered fleets by using this method of propulsion on the future Trump class battleships. This, in turn, has raised new questions about the outlook for those ships, which you can read more about here.

When it comes to using Ford class aircraft carriers as floating nuclear power plants, the test this summer will help in determining whether this could be another mission to add to the repertoire of these ships.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The Los Angeles city attorney is often described as the most powerful elected official almost no one’s ever heard of.

The office prosecutes most misdemeanor crimes, defends the city against costly lawsuits and serves as the public’s chief lawyer at a time when L.A. faces frequent attacks from a hostile White House. Races for the office tend to be sleepy affairs, but this year’s contest has featured last-minute entrants, a whopping influx of cash and defections among the incumbent’s key supporters.

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto’s first term was marked by an explosion in costly litigation against the city and allegations of misconduct and mistreatment of employees. She has denied wrongdoing and defended her record, but now two well-funded opponents are flanking her from different sides of the political spectrum.

The race began to heat up last month after a data breach that saw a massive trove of LAPD records leaked onto the internet. That spurred the city’s police union to withdraw its endorsement of Feldstein Soto and tell its members to vote instead for John McKinney, a Los Angeles County prosecutor who has received a massive influx of corporate cash to support his campaign in recent weeks.

The progressive challenger is Marissa Roy, a deputy attorney general in the California Department of Justice. Roy, 34, has said she would run the office as a sprawling “public interest law firm” that sues to fight wage theft and renter harassment, champions a care-first approach to homelessness and stands as a legal bulwark against the Trump administration.

Roy Behr, a veteran political consultant in the city, said Roy and McKinney have clear brands and target audiences, whereas Feldstein Soto may now be a candidate without a constituency.

“It wouldn’t surprise me at all if she didn’t make the runoff. What she’s facing are two people with pretty clear critiques from different directions,” he said of the incumbent. “All she’s left with is ‘I did an OK job in an office that people don’t really understand.’”

Feldstein Soto, 67, says she’s the steady hand the city needs as it faces a budget crisis and gears up to host the Olympics in two years. She scoffed at her opponents’ lack of experience in a recent interview, dismissing Roy’s campaign promises as “insane,” and noting that McKinney’s history as a felony trial prosecutor has little overlap with the city attorney’s job.

“This is not the time for on-the-job training,” she said.

A former corporate lawyer, Feldstein Soto squeaked through the primary before sailing to victory in her bid for the position in 2022. She has since taken heat for defending aggressive LAPD crowd control tactics, and also for her refusal to prosecute hundreds involved in 2024 campus protests against the war in Gaza.

Although Feldstein Soto has received endorsements from Mayor Karen Bass and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), critics say frequent personality clashes have alienated her from the city’s Democratic kingmakers. McKinney called her a “bully” in a recent interview and said her behavior has demoralized her staff.

Feldstein Soto pushed back on those criticisms, touting steps she has taken to modernize the office and enhance public safety. She argued many of the allegations against her stem from a 2024 lawsuit filed by a disgruntled employee, who claimed they were subjected to a “barrage of retaliatory actions” after reporting issues within the office, including mishandling of grant funds, discriminatory treatment of co-workers and “inappropriate alcohol consumption” in the workplace. The case remains pending. Feldstein Soto said the employee was fired for having improper outside employment.

Los Angeles City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto hosts a May 12 news conference to discuss the recent prosecution and conviction of a UCLA early childhood teacher charged with sexual abuse.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Explaining her decision to drop most charges in the campus protest cases, Feldstein Soto pointed out many lacked enough evidence for prosecution.

The city’s legal payouts have exploded under her watch — jumping from $64 million in the mid-2010s to $294 million in the last fiscal year. Feldstein Soto said the rising costs reflect an increase in “nuclear verdicts” in civil courts nationwide.

Feldstein Soto noted the city’s payouts were inflated by a “cascade of horrible” cases that were pending when she took office. She said she could only mitigate the damages, citing as examples cases that involved the city’s misuse of federal housing grants and a massive sewage spill.

“I’ve protected the city at every turn,” she said. “I’m the only candidate in my race who has the receipts to prove that I can do this.”

Roy said the biggest challenge may be convincing Angelenos to cast a vote at all in what has historically been a low-turnout, down-ballot contest.

“It’s where we always start, to be honest,” she said. “It is one of the most important, least understood positions.”

In a city where 60% of residents are renters and many feel under siege by the Trump administration, Roy has campaigned as a civil rights avenger ready to spar with landlords or the White House on behalf of working-class Angelenos.

She recently hit the streets sporting a crisp purple blazer, violet chrome manicure and a battered pair of black Rothy’s flats, evidence of the shoe-leather she and her army of volunteers have already invested in the race.

Roy typically starts her pitch by explaining what the city attorney actually does, then delivers her vision for the post.

“Of course it’s the lawyer for the city, but what people don’t realize is it’s also the lawyer for the people,” she said to one would-be voter in Silver Lake.

John McKinney, a county prosecutor running for L.A. city attorney, speaks at a May 5 news conference where he received endorsements from Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman and the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union for rank-and-file LAPD officers.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

McKinney, 58, said he wants more “aggressive” prosecutions for misdemeanor gun crimes, and believes the city attorney has the power to “leverage” homeless people into mental health or addiction treatment after they’ve been arrested.

Despite having no experience as a civil litigator, the deputy L.A. County district attorney also thinks he can help drive down lawsuit costs for the city.

McKinney told The Times he envisions himself as “a protector, as the local prosecutor, and a defender, as the general counsel of the city.”

“I think public safety is the number one priority, or should be, of all elected officials,” he said.

While Feldstein Soto and Roy have raised considerable war chests, McKinney has received just $72,000 in direct contributions, according to campaign finance records. But independent expenditures supporting his bid have supercharged his finances in the last two weeks, pouring $1.7 million into the race.

The vast majority of those funds have come from a political action committee backed by Airbnb, which Feldstein Soto sued last year for violating price-gouging laws in the wake of the wildfires. The city attorney has aggressively prosecuted and sued those seeking to profit off wildfire victims, winning a $1.2-million settlement against another rental company in a price-gouging suit this week.

Feldstein Soto said both of her challengers are financially beholden to special interests, pointing to McKinney’s Airbnb windfall money Roy has taken from a political action committee bankrolled by an organization whose attorneys often sue the city.

“They’re not investing millions of dollars for fun and for free because they think these candidates are going to be great city attorneys … they are expecting a return on investment,” Feldstein Soto said.

McKinney said Airbnb simply believes in his campaign to clean up the city, which would improve tourism and the company’s profits in the city.

Roy said she has received broad support from across the legal profession and is committed to reducing lawsuit payouts that have “spiraled out of control.”

Dan Schnur, a USC professor and former advisor to Republican politicians in California, said Feldstein Soto’s biggest obstacle might not be her opponents, but voters themselves fed up with elected officials citywide.

“The challenges she faces are very similar to what Bass is going on in the mayor’s race,” he said. “This is a very impatient and angry electorate that wants change now.”

A drone attack that caused a fire close to the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant in the United Arab Emirates has raised further concerns about nuclear security and military escalation in the Gulf as discussions of peace between Iran and the United States hang in the balance.

Barakah was the first nuclear power station to be built on the Arabian Peninsula. Here is what we know about it:

What is the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant?

Barakah is a nuclear energy plant located in Al Dhafra, the largest municipal region of the emirate of Abu Dhabi. It is the UAE’s only nuclear power plant.

Construction of the plant began in 2012, and its first reactor became commercially operational in 2021.

The plant is located close to the border with Saudi Arabia, about 225km (140 miles) west of the UAE’s capital city, Abu Dhabi.

The facility features four pressurised water reactors, the most common type of nuclear power reactor. The model used here is the advanced power reactor 1400, a pressurised water reactor design developed in South Korea. Each reactor of this type has the capacity to produce 1,400 megawatts (MW), which is enough to power roughly 1 million homes.

According to the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC), the plant’s reactors produce 40 terawatt-hours (TWh) each year, which is equivalent to about 25 percent of the UAE’s electricity needs. The website for the London-based World Nuclear Association also confirmed that Barakah, when fully operational, meets 25 percent of the UAE’s electricity needs.

According to a September report by the Abu Dhabi media office, Barakah had produced 40TWh of clean energy over “the past 12 months”.

Since nuclear power plants produce a lower amount of carbon dioxide emissions than conventional power plants, the ENEC said Barakah saves up to 22.4 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year, equivalent to removing 4.8 million cars from the roads.

What happened in the attack on Sunday, and how has the UAE responded?

Authorities in Abu Dhabi said a single drone strike caused a blaze to break out at an electrical generator outside the Barakah plant’s inner perimeter in the Al Dhafra region on Sunday. No injuries were reported, and officials said radiation levels remained normal.

The UAE’s nuclear regulator said operations at the Barakah facility had not been affected. “All units are operating as normal,” it said in a social media post.

In a statement, the UAE’s Ministry of Defence said two more drones had been “successfully” intercepted and the drones had been launched from the “western border”. It did not give more details.

The UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted a statement on X on Sunday saying the country condemned “the unprovoked terrorist attack” in “the strongest terms”.

The statement added: “The UAE emphasised that it will not tolerate any threat to its security and sovereignty under any circumstances, and that it reserves its full, sovereign, legitimate, diplomatic, and military rights to respond to any threats, allegations, or hostilities in a manner that ensures the protection of its sovereignty, national security, territorial integrity, and the safety of its citizens, residents, and visitors, in accordance with international law.”

There was no immediate claim of responsibility, and the statements by the ministries did not publicly blame any country.

But Anwar Gargash, an adviser to the UAE’s president, wrote in an X post on Sunday: “The terrorist targeting of the Barakah clean nuclear power plant, whether carried out by the principal perpetrator or through one of its agents, represents a dangerous escalation and a dark scene that violates all international laws and norms, in criminal disregard for the lives of civilians in the UAE and its surroundings.”

Gargash’s post appeared to blame Iran and its proxy network of allied armed groups in the region, which Tehran calls the “axis of resistance”.

The launch point of the drones remained unclear, but on Sunday, Saudi Arabia also reported it had intercepted three drones that had been launched from Iraq, where some Iran-allied groups operate. If Iranian Shahed-136 drones, which have an estimated range of 2,000km to 2,500km (1,240 to 1,550 miles), were fired from Iraqi territory, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE would fall well within their reach.

Other reactions

Neighbouring Gulf states Saudi Arabia and Qatar condemned the attack on the Barakah plant.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kuwait also issued a statement denouncing the attack, which it called “heinous”.

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs condemned the attack, calling it “unacceptable”, saying it represented “a dangerous escalation” and urging a return to diplomacy.

Has Iran responded to the incident?

Iran has not claimed responsibility for the drone attacks, and there has been no public statement from Iran about the incident at Barakah.

However, in the aftermath of the drone attacks, United States President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post: “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

Iranian Ministry of Defence spokesperson Reza Talaei-Nik said on Sunday that the military is “fully prepared” to confront any new aggression from the US and Israel.

Iran has previously warned that countries where US military assets are deployed or Israeli-linked interests are located are viewed as legitimate targets.

Iran has also accused the UAE of strengthening ties with Israel while reports have emerged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a “secret” visit to the Gulf state during the US-Israel war on Iran. The UAE has denied this.

US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee also said last week that Israel had deployed Iron Dome air defence systems and personnel to the UAE to help defend against possible Iranian attacks.

What has the IAEA said?

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the global nuclear watchdog, said Sunday’s incident in the UAE had forced one reactor to rely temporarily on emergency diesel generators.

IAEA chief Rafael Grossi expressed “grave concern” and warned that military activity threatening nuclear facilities was “unacceptable”.

How serious could a strike on a nuclear facility be?

Attacks on nuclear power plants are especially worrying because they can risk damaging critical safety systems or reactors, which could release radioactive material into the atmosphere, not only over the country targeted but also across neighbouring states. Radiological material, specifically the hazardous isotope Caesium-137, could be released into the atmosphere.

The release of radioactive material could result in environmental contamination and poses major risks to public health. Water, if contaminated, becomes undrinkable while farmland and fisheries could become unsafe for decades, depending on the isotope released.

Short-term, acute exposure to radioactivity can cause burns and acute radiation sickness, which can be life-threatening.

Prolonged exposure, even to smaller doses, can increase the risk of illnesses such as cancer, especially thyroid cancer and leukaemia. Children and pregnant women are especially vulnerable.

Over the course of the US-Israel war on Iran, energy infrastructure has become a target.

Iran’s only functioning nuclear plant, the Bushehr power plant, has come under repeated attacks in the war. There are fears that damage at Bushehr could contaminate water across the entire Gulf region, most of which lacks groundwater and relies heavily on the desalination of seawater. Desalination plants are not specifically built to filter radioactive material, and not all plants currently are fitted with the technologies required to do so.

May 17 (UPI) — A drone strike on a nuclear power plant in the United Arab Emirates sparked a fire at the facility Sunday, defense officials said.

The UAE’s Defense Ministry said three drones entered the country from the “western border direction,” two of which were intercepted. The third carried out a strike on an electrical generator at the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant in Abu Dhabi, the BBC reported.

Politico said there were no reports of injuries or a release of radiation at the facility.

No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, but the UAE’s Foreign Ministry described it as an “unacceptable act of aggression.”

“The targeting of peaceful nuclear energy facilities is a flagrant violation of international law, the U.N. charter and the principles of humanitarian law,” the ministry said.

Rafael Grossi, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in a statement on X that “military activity that threatens nuclear safety is unacceptable.”

May 15 (Asia Today) — South Korea may announce a basic plan for acquiring nuclear-powered submarines as early as this month, officials and diplomatic sources said Friday.

According to foreign policy and security sources, the government is preparing a “Korean nuclear-powered submarine basic plan” that would outline its core principles and a timeline for acquisition.

A Defense Ministry official said the plan is being developed in coordination with relevant agencies but said the exact schedule could not be confirmed.

The official also said it has not been decided whether the Defense Ministry will lead the announcement.

Although no specific date has been set, some observers expect the plan could be released before the Shangri-La Dialogue, an Asian security forum scheduled to take place in Singapore later this month.

The plan is expected to include the defensive nature of the submarines, their missions and roles, a detailed timeline, fuel procurement and financing plans and South Korea’s commitment to complying with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

If announced, the plan would mark a formal declaration of the government’s intention to pursue nuclear-powered submarines.

A joint fact sheet released after a recent South Korea-U.S. summit said the United States had approved South Korea’s construction of nuclear-powered submarines and would work closely with Seoul, including on fuel procurement.

Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back recently visited the United States and discussed cooperation on nuclear-powered submarine construction with U.S. defense officials.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260515010004184

Mérida, May 12, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The US and Venezuelan governments, in coordination with the United Kingdom and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), completed the extraction and secure transfer of 13.5 kilograms of enriched uranium. 

This radioactive material had been stored since 1991 following the decommissioning of a nuclear research reactor of the Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research (IVIC) in Miranda state.

The operation to remove the uranium, enriched over 20 percent, was carried out in late April under strict security and IAEA oversight. The shipment was transported by land to the port of Puerto Cabello, and then by sea on a British vessel to the US Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina.

The Venezuelan government, led by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, released a statement on Thursday, May 7, explaining that it had “repeatedly communicated to the IAEA the need to remove the disused sources and materials that remained in the country.”

The official statement emphasized that the January 3 US military attack, in which two US missiles struck approximately 50 meters from the reactor, had “objectively increased the risk level and urgency” of extracting the radioactive material. Caracas emphasized that the transfer was carried out in accordance with safety standards and international nuclear non-proliferation treaties.

The US Embassy in Venezuela described the operation as “a victory for the United States, Venezuela, and the world.” In a statement released on Friday, the diplomatic mission praised the “decisive leadership of President Donald Trump” and the work of US on-the-ground teams that “completed in months what would have normally taken years.”

According to the official US note, the recovered material will be used for research and the development of new technologies as part of what the Trump administration calls a “nuclear renaissance.”

While the statement did not detail specific uses, the dilution and processing of highly enriched uranium can provide inputs for medical isotope production, experimentation with next-generation reactors, and fuel development for small modular reactors (SMRs), which operate at enrichment levels up to 20%.

The State Department, through Assistant Secretary for Arms Control and Nonproliferation Christopher T. Yeaw, has stated that “working alongside our DOE/NNSA, UK, IAEA, and Venezuelan counterparts, we’ve demonstrated how effective partnerships can eliminate nuclear proliferation risks and enhance global nuclear security.”

For its part, the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that it provided “nuclear safety and security guidance, training, and technical expertise.” In a statement, the IAEA highlighted the risk of radioactive material “falling into the wrong hands,” while Director General Rafael Grossi praised “the professionalism of all the parties involved.”

The IAEA has provided details of the transfer of uranium enriched to just above 20 percent of the fissile isotope uranium-235 from the RV-1 reactor at IVIC, located 15 km southwest of Caracas. This level is regarded as the threshold for “highly enriched uranium” (HEU), though it is significantly below the 80 percent required for a nuclear weapon.

The RV-1 was Venezuela’s first nuclear research reactor and a pioneer project in Latin America. The initiative was established in 1960 under the vision of scientist Humberto Fernández-Morán. Its primary function was the production of radioisotopes for medical purposes, as well as for experiments in the fields of physics and biology. Following the decision to close the facility permanently in 1991, the site was converted for use as a Gamma Ray Sterilization Plant (Pegamma).

The old reactor drew renewed attention during the US January 3 bombings, which included strikes that hit IVIC facilities and also saw special forces kidnap President Nicolás Maduro.

The uranium removal marks the conclusion of Venezuela’s nuclear history, which began in the 1950s under the “Atoms for Peace” program.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

The U.S. Navy says its future Trump class battleships are now set to be nuclear-powered. This is a huge development that will impact the cost and complexity of the design. With those issues in mind, now-former Secretary of the Navy John Phelan had said this was “unlikely” to happen just four weeks ago.

The Navy announced its intention to fit a nuclear propulsion system to the Trump class warships in its latest annual shipbuilding plan, which was released earlier today. The document also refers to these future large surface combatants as BBGNs, or nuclear-powered (N) guided-missile (G) battleships (BB). USNI News was first to report on this development.

The only nuclear-powered surface vessels in the Navy’s fleet today are its Nimitz and Ford class aircraft carriers. The service has not had a nuclear-powered surface combatant since the 1990s, when the one-of-a-kind cruiser USS Long Beach and frigate USS Bainbridge, as well as four Virginia class cruisers (not to be confused with the subsequent Virginia class of attack submarines) left active duty. Nuclear propulsion offers functionally unlimited range, as well as a major boost in onboard power generation. It also comes with cost and complexity, in terms of a ship’s core design, and what it takes to operate and maintain it. We will come back to those issues later on.

The Navy has now outlined plans to acquire 15 Trump class BBGNs, one virtually every other year, between Fiscal Year 2028 and 2055. Two are also set to be ordered back-to-back in Fiscal Years 2030 and 2031. An initial official estimate has put the price tag of each of these ships at $17 billion. This is more than what the service expects to spend on each of the next three Ford class aircraft carriers, the projected unit costs of which range from roughly $13 to $15 billion.

“Our Fleet deserves and our national security requires the most comprehensive capability a surface combatant can provide, not just what we can make do with tradeoffs. The nuclear-powered Battleship is designed to provide the Fleet with a significant increase in combat power by longer endurance, higher speed, and accommodating advanced weapon systems required for modern warfare,” the Navy’s new shipbuilding plan declares. “Adding capability at the highest end of the high- low mix, the Battleship’s primary role is to deliver high-volume, long-range offensive fires and serve as a robust, survivable forward command and control platform, it is not a destroyer replacement.”

The shipbuilding plan highlights various aspects of the planned arsenal on each of the Trump class warships, including its ability to launch a mix of nuclear and conventional missiles, including hypersonic types, loaded into large vertical launch system (VLS) arrays. Each one of the vessels will also have an electromagnetic railgun, a pair of traditional 5-inch naval guns, laser directed energy weapons, and various additional weapons for close-in defense.

“Vastly increased power generation capacity provides warfighting capability across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, including through electronic warfare tools and high-output lasers that allow us to reduce reliance on high-cost single-use munitions for both attack and defense,” the shipbuilding plan also notes. “The internal volume and capability to embark a fleet command staff allows us to take the Maritime Operations Center concept to sea. As a tactical command-and-control platform, the Battleship can lead a Surface Action Group (SAG), integrate its systems with a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) for layered defense, or operate autonomously, possessing the organic capability to defeat advanced threats and distributing our force capability.”

The Navy has said in the past that each of the Trump class warships will displace approximately 35,000 tons, very roughly three times that of the newest Flight III subvariant of the Arleigh Burke class destroyer. They are also expected to be between 840 and 880 feet long, have a beam (the widest point in the hull) between 105 and 115 feet, and be able to reach a top speed greater than 30 knots.

As noted, as recently as four weeks ago, the Navy was pushing back on the idea, at least publicly, that the Trump class warships could be nuclear-powered. The service’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year, which was rolled out last month, describes the vessels as non-nuclear BBGs that will feature “diesel generators, gas turbines, [and] propulsion motors.”

“That [the $17 billion estimated unit cost of a Trump class warship] is the early initial estimate. We’ll see where we really settle down as we get through that and start to rationalize some of the costs. So let’s see where we land on that first ship, and then what the economies of scale get us to as we move through it,” former Secretary of the Navy John Phelan had also told reporters at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Navy League’s Sea Air Space 2026 exposition on April 21. “I think a little bit with those numbers, they’re still moving around, because this question is it nuclear-powered, is it not nuclear-powered?”

“It could be [nuclear powered], but it’s unlikely, but it could be,” Phelan said at that time. “I think we’re trying to understand all the proper trade-offs.”

Phelan was fired unexpectedly and with little explanation the following day, with veteran Navy officer Hung Cao taking over as Acting Secretary. On April 23, The New York Times, published a report, citing anonymous sources, saying former Navy Secretary’s sudden exit was tied to disagreements with President Donald Trump over plans for the Trump class battleships, including efforts to accelerate their production and entry into service. There have been reports pointing to other factors in Phelan’s dismissal, including friction with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, as well.

“He’s a very good man. I really liked him, but he had some conflict with, not necessarily with [Secretary] Pete [Hegseth], but with some other[s],” President Trump himself told members of the press on April 23. “He’s a hard charger, and he had some conflicts with some other people, mostly as to building and buying new ships. I’m very aggressive in the new shipbuilding.”

“I think it’s a logical question to think, hey, here’s a big capital ship. It’s going to be carrying a lot of load, you know, in places that we don’t necessarily need a strike enforcement air wing as a large ship there that’s in command of a flotilla,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle also said at a roundtable around the Surface Navy Association’s (SNA) main annual symposium back in January. “Wouldn’t it be logical to be nuclear powered? And that brings a tail to the construction of that that [sic] just really fell outside the scope of what we want to do on the speed to get this thing in the water. And so what you trade off with, with persistency that only nuclear power can do, is you end up having, you know, the ability to go produce that — it pushes the battleship into a timeframe that just didn’t meet the operational need of the ship.”

TWZ has reached out to the Navy for any more information it can offer about when and why the decision was made regarding nuclear propulsion for the Trump class. We have already raised numerous questions about the plans for these warships in the past, including their exact operational utility, as well as the costs and risks involved. As Phelan and Caudle previously indicated, nuclear power can only add to the design’s complexity and up-front price tag, as well as what it will take to operate and maintain the ships once they enter service. These were factors in the Navy’s past decision to move away from nuclear propulsion on surface warships. Russia’s Kirov class battlecruiser Admiral Nakhimov is the only nuclear-powered surface combatant in service anywhere in the world today. Nuclear-powered surface ships of any kind remain a relative rarity globally, as well, even among nuclear powers.

The choice now to use nuclear reactors to power the Trump class comes at a time when naval shipbuilders in the United States are already under heavy strain, and have been struggling in many cases to stay on budget and schedule. Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries, is the only yard in the country currently building nuclear-powered surface vessels of any kind, which are the Ford class aircraft carriers. While the USS Gerald R. Ford is in service now, work on subsequent ships in the class continues to be beset by delays and cost growth.

There is also immense pressure on U.S. shipyards that built nuclear-powered submarines. This has been magnified by plans to provide Virginia class boats to the Royal Australian Navy as part of the trilateral Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) defense cooperation agreement. The same yards are also responsible for producing the new Columbia class nuclear ballistic missile submarines. Those boats have to be delivered on a tight schedule to ensure there is no gap in the ability of the leg of America’s nuclear triad to meet operational requirements, and there is little, if any, margin left.

The Navy has other shipbuilding plans, as well. Naval shipyard capacity in the United States, or the lack thereof, has been an increasingly worrisome issue for years now, and remains concerning despite U.S. government efforts to reverse the trend in recent years. The Navy’s new shipbuilding plan does underscore the service’s determination to avoid past shipbuilding pitfalls with the new battleships.

“Learning from the lessons of prior shipbuilding programs, the Battleship acquisition plan is a prime example of how we are changing the way the Navy does business. This will be the first clean-sheet surface combatant designed in more than 30 years, and we are deliberately incorporating modern digital engineering, advanced production practices, and AI [artificial intelligence] enabled design tools to reduce cost and schedule risk from the outset,” the shipbuilding plan states. “To strengthen this approach, we are adopting proven best practices from foreign partners with advanced shipbuilding techniques. This includes front loading production engineering to ensure high design maturity before construction begins, using precision modular construction methods, and tightly integrating design, planning, and production teams to minimize rework and accelerate throughput.

“We are also applying long term production planning, rigorous process control disciplines, and deeper supplier integration to stabilize the industrial base and improve quality across distributed construction sites. Modeled on commercial shipbuilding, this digital-first approach will accelerate design, reduce manual rework, and create a direct link between design and production,” it continued. “The Battleship will employ a highly modular architecture that enables distributed construction across the industrial base while allowing U.S. shipyards to focus on final assembly, integration, and testing. This strategy strengthens workforce stability, increases industrial base resilience, and delivers a more predictable, affordable path to fielding the capability.”

As it stands now, the Navy is still planning to order the first Trump class warship, set to be named USS Defiant, in Fiscal Year 2028. The current expectation is that it will not enter service until Fiscal Year 2036. This underscores an additional point that the program will carry over into the next presidential administration (and potentially beyond). Further major changes could well be made to its scale and scope, or it could be outright cancelled, in that timeframe.

For now, at least, the Navy has settled on its future Trump class battleships being powered by nuclear reactors.

Update: 5/12/2026 –

A U.S. Navy official has now provided the following statement in response to TWZ‘s queries for more information about the decision to use nuclear propulsion on the Trump class battleships:

“The Battleship requirements entail the appropriate balance of survivability, lethality, affordability, endurance, operational flexibility, and industrial feasibility. The FY27 Navy Shipbuilding Plan’s inclusion of a nuclear-powered Battleship will provide the Fleet with a significant increase in combat power by longer endurance, higher speed, and accommodation of advanced weapons systems required for modern warfare.“

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

SEOUL, May 12 (UPI) — Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power, or KHNP, said Tuesday it partnered with Southern Nuclear Operating Co. of the United States to enhance nuclear engineering.

The state-backed enterprise signed a memorandum of understanding at its head office in Gyeongju, around 180 miles southeast of Seoul, with the U.S. nuclear company.

Under the agreement, KHNP said, the two would expand technical exchange programs and share best practices in operating nuclear facilities.

The South Korean company noted the partnership aligns with the efforts over the past few years to shift its operations toward an engineering-based system.

“This agreement is expected to help our engineers broaden their global perspective and provide an opportunity for our engineering system to advance further,” KHNP senior executive Kim Young-seung said in a statement.

“Down the road, we will do our utmost to perfect the Korean-style engineering system through close cooperation with overseas operators and international organizations,” he added.

Last June, KHNP signed a deal worth at least $18 billion to build two nuclear reactors in the Czech Republic. To support the project, the company plans to collaborate with various partners both at home and abroad.

As of the end of last year, KHNP ran a total of 26 nuclear reactors in South Korea. It is also constructing four new reactors in the country. KHNP is not publicly traded.

Iran may negotiate on how it uses nuclear facilities, but it will not destroy uranium or allow it to be moved overseas, senior researcher Sultan Al-Khulaifi says.

SEOUL, May 7 (UPI) — North Korea is not bound by the global treaty aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, its U.N. envoy said Thursday, calling efforts to force Pyongyang to comply with the pact a “wanton violation” of international law.

Kim Song, North Korea’s permanent representative to the United Nations, made the remarks in a statement carried by the state-run Korea Central News Agency during an ongoing review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at U.N. headquarters in New York.

The United States and other countries at the conference are “groundlessly taking issue with the present status and exercise of sovereign rights of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, a nuclear weapons state outside the treaty,” Kim wrote, using North Korea’s official name.

“The position of the DPRK as a nuclear weapons state does not change in accordance with rhetorical assertion or unilateral desire of outsiders,” he said. “Clarifying once again, the DPRK is not bound by the NPT in any case.”

North Korea formally withdrew from the NPT in 2003 and in 2022 passed a law declaring itself a nuclear state. Leader Kim Jong Un later called the country’s nuclear status “irreversible,” and Pyongyang amended its constitution to codify the expansion of its nuclear forces.

Pyongyang has repeated the assertion frequently, including during a rare address to the U.N. General Assembly in September, when a senior diplomat vowed the North would “never give up” its nuclear weapons.

In a 2025 report, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated that North Korea possesses about 50 nuclear warheads and has enough fissile material for about 40 more. South Korean President Lee Jae Myung said in January that North Korea was producing enough weapons-grade material to build between 10 and 20 nuclear weapons annually.

The envoy’s statement comes ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump’s visit to China next week, where speculation has persisted that the trip could provide an opportunity to revive leader-to-leader diplomacy with Kim Jong Un.

Trump held a pair of high-profile summits with Kim during his first term in office and has suggested on several occasions that he would meet with the North Korean leader again.

Kim appeared to leave the door open to renewed diplomacy with Washington in remarks last year, saying he retained “fond memories” of Trump but warning that denuclearization was off the table.

On Monday, a White House official told Yonhap News Agency that a Trump-Kim meeting was “not currently on the schedule.”

Pyongyang says its status as nuclear-armed state ‘will not change based on external rhetorical claims’.

North Korea’s envoy to the United Nations has declared that Pyongyang will not be bound by any treaty on atomic weapons and that no external pressure will change its status as a nuclear-armed state.

Ambassador Kim Song’s statement – carried by state media on Thursday – came as the United States and other countries criticised North Korea’s nuclear programme at the ongoing UN conference reviewing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Pyongyang withdrew from the NPT in 2003 and has since conducted six nuclear tests, promoting multiple UN Security Council sanctions.

The country is believed to hold dozens of nuclear warheads.

“At the 11th NPT Review Conference currently under way at UN headquarters, the United States and certain countries following its lead are groundlessly calling into question the current status and exercise of sovereign rights,” Kim said, according to the official Korean Central News Agency.

“The status of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as a nuclear-armed state will not change based on external rhetorical claims or unilateral desires,” he added.

“To make it clear once again, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea will not be bound by the Non-Proliferation Treaty under any circumstances whatsoever.”

He continued that the country’s status as a nuclear-armed state has been “enshrined in the constitution, transparently declaring the principles of nuclear weapons use”.

North Korea has long insisted that it will not give up its nuclear arsenal, describing its path as “irreversible” and pledging to strengthen its capabilities.

It has sent ground troops and artillery shells to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and observers say Pyongyang is receiving military technology assistance from Moscow in return.

The nine nuclear-armed states – Russia, the US, France, the United Kingdom, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea – possessed 12,241 nuclear warheads in January 2025, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reported.

The US and Russia hold nearly 90 percent of nuclear weapons globally and have carried out major programmes to modernise them in recent years, according to SIPRI.

The nuclear issue has been at the heart of the US and Israel’s war on Iran, with US President Donald Trump saying that Tehran – a signatory to the NPT – can never have a nuclear weapon.

Iran denies seeking an atomic weapon and has long demanded Washington acknowledge its right to enrich uranium.

The Department of Energy is seeking millions of dollars for work in part on a new bunker-busting nuclear weapon called the Nuclear Deterrent System-Air-delivered (NDS-A) in its latest budget request. At present, there is only one specialized air-delivered deep-penetrating weapon known to be in America’s nuclear stockpile, the B61-11 gravity bomb, and there have been discussions about a potential successor for decades now.

The Fiscal Year 2027 budget request for the Department of Energy, which was released last month, includes a new line under Weapons Activities for Future Programs. The Department is asking for $99.794 million in the next fiscal cycle to support those efforts.

“The Increase represents the start of one new Phase 6.X program, currently known as Phase 1 Nuclear Deterrent System-Air-delivered (NDS-A), as well as supporting production assessments for two new Rapid Capability Team (RCT) projects,” according to a public summary of what the Future Program funding would support.

The Department of Energy, in cooperation with the U.S. military, develops, produces, and sustains nuclear weapons, and uses a multi-phase rubric to categorize where they are in their respective life cycles. The Phase 6.X process is itself broken into several stages, spanning all the way from the definition of the basic concept of a weapon and its requirements through to full-scale production.

Where the NDS-A may already be in the process is unknown, but the mention of “Phase 1” here could point to Phase 6.1, which is the basic concept assessment stage. Beyond that it will be air-delivered, there are also no details currently available publicly about the weapon’s design, including whether it will be based on something already in the stockpile. It is also not known if it will be an unpowered bomb or a missile/rocket-assisted weapon of some kind. We will come back to this point later on.

“The Nuclear Deterrent System-Air-delivered will provide the President with additional nuclear options to defeat Hard and Deeply Buried Targets, ensuring that adversaries cannot place their most valued assets beyond the reach of America’s nuclear forces,” a spokesperson for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) told TWZ when asked for more information. “The program is moving aggressively, and further information will become publicly available when it is strategically beneficial to the United States.”

Within the Department of Energy, NNSA is specifically responsible for nuclear weapons-related activities.

As noted, at present, the B61-11 is the only air-delivered nuclear weapon in the U.S. stockpile today that is specifically designed to address this target set. The B61-11 is based on the earlier B61-7, but is substantially different in form and function. It has a heavily reinforced outer shell, possibly with a depleted uranium penetrating nose section, and a rocket booster at the rear to help it penetrate down into underground facilities. Sources differ on the maximum yield of the B61-11, but it is said to either be between 340 and 360 kilotons (identical to that of the B61-7) or to be closer to 400 kilotons. There are also reportedly fewer than 100 of these bombs in the stockpile.

You can learn more about the entire B61 family, the first versions of which entered service in the 1960s, here.

For a time, the newer B61-12 variant, which has a precision guidance package in a new tail kit, was considered as a potential successor to the B61-11. The B61-12 is also a dial-a-yield design with multiple yield settings, but the highest one is reportedly 50 kilotons. The logic was that improved accuracy would allow for more precise placement of the bomb, and, by extension, of its explosive force. This, in turn, would make up for its lack of deep-penetrating capability and more limited yield. The plan to supplant the B61-11 with the B61-12 was subsequently abandoned.

B61-12 Flight Test with F35-A Lightning II

More recently, a more powerful B61-13 variant, which features the same precision guidance tail kit as the B61-12, was developed explicitly to provide “the President with additional options against certain harder and large-area military targets.” This version is understood to have a maximum yield in line with the B61-7. However, the U.S. government has also previously said that the B61-13 is not intended as a direct replacement for the B61-11, according to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).

The U.S. military also has B83-1 nuclear gravity bombs in the stockpile, which are of a completely different design from the B61 series and have a far more powerful megaton-class maximum yield. By virtue of that high yield, the B83-1 is also intended to be used against certain deeply buried and otherwise hardened facilities, as well as large-area targets.

In the early 2000s, NNSA, in cooperation with the U.S. Air Force, did explore the possibility of developing a B61-11-like bomb on the basis of the B83-1, as well as a new deep-penetrating version of the B61 itself. In 2005, Congress brought a halt to work on what was dubbed the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP).

There have been hints since then, however, about possible revivals of the RNEP concept and/or other plans for a true successor to the B61-11.

What may be prompting the requirement for the NDS-A now is unknown. There are deeply-buried targets only a nuclear weapon can realistically destroy. The development of the B61-11 is understood to have been prompted heavily by one such facility in particular, Russia’s Kosvinsky Kamen bunker. Kosvinsky Kamen is a key node in the Russian nuclear command and control enterprise and was built under a mountain of the same name in the northern Urals. The nature of its location and design also means it could serve as a so-called “continuity of government” site for senior leadership to operate from before or after a nuclear strike or in response to some other major emergency.

However, the landscape of deeply-buried, hardened facilities that U.S. authorities would be interested in holding at risk has grown substantially in the past two decades since work, at least publicly, on RNEP came to an end.

The Russian and Chinese governments have been expanding on their already significant arrays of subterranean facilities. In China, this includes the construction of vast fields of new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos, as well as work on a new underground command center outside of the capital, Beijing, just in recent years.

Other, smaller countries, like North Korea and Iran, have been investing in new underground and other hardened facilities, as well. This has been driven in many cases by concerns about the prospect of conventional strikes carried out by the U.S. military and others.

In the past year, the matter of Iran’s deeply buried nuclear facilities, and the limits of U.S. conventional options for prosecuting those targets, has been an especially hot-button issue. During Operation Midnight Hammer in June 2025, U.S. B-2 bombers struck Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow and Natanz with 30,000-pound-class GBU-57/B conventional bunker buster bombs. The outcome of that operation remains a subject of heated debate and is deeply intertwined with the justifications for U.S. and Israeli forces launching the latest campaign against Iran in February. U.S. officials are now at a crossroads with how to proceed with operations targeting Iran, which has now turned to a maritime blockade, at least for the time being, following the announcement of a ceasefire in April.

The video below is a montage of imagery from GBU-57/B MOP tests over the years.

GBU-57 MOP test

Broader concerns about just getting the B61-11 to its intended target in the future may also be a factor driving plans now for the new NDS-A nuclear bunker buster. Unpowered bunker buster bombs, nuclear or conventional, need to be released relatively close to their targets. The kinds of facilities that the B61-11 is intended to be employed against are deep inside hostile territory, behind layers of integrated air defenses. Major potential adversaries, as well as smaller nation states and even non-state actors, are only expected to expand the scale and scope of their defensive architectures in the coming years. With all this in mind, it is not surprising that the more survivable B-2 is currently the only platform certified to employ the B61-11, as well as the conventional MOP. It is more or less a given that both of those weapons will be integrated onto the forthcoming B-21 Raider for the same general reasons.

That being said, as TWZ regularly highlights, stealth aircraft are not invisible or invulnerable. This reality is part of the argument for the planned integration of the new nuclear-tipped AGM-181 Long Range Stand Off (LRSO) air-launched cruise missile onto the B-21, as well as the venerable and non-stealthy B-52. LRSO will also just extend the B-21’s reach, with that aircraft already expected to be an extremely long-range platform. This all raises the possibility of the NDS-A being a powered design offering some degree of standoff capability.

As an aside here, powered designs have also been part of the discussions about potential conventional successors to the MOP. A follow-on to the GBU-57/B, the Next Generation Penetrator (NGP), is now in development, but it is unclear whether or not that will be a powered weapon. Still, when it comes to the NDS-A, it seems more likely that it will be a traditional bomb that adapts elements of existing designs, including the B61-11, -12, and -13.

Whether or not the NDS-A effort reaches fruition also remains to be seen. The previous RNEP effort prompted significant criticism, including from members of Congress, in part because of concerns about what steps it might prompt other countries to take in response. At the same time, there has been a change in tenor in U.S. nuclear policy in recent years, driven by other global developments, especially efforts by the Chinese to rapidly and substantially expand their stockpile.

There is also a question of affordability. The U.S. military is already in the midst of a major modernization push across all three legs of America’s nuclear deterrence triad that is set to cost hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming decades. This could impact support for funding another ‘new’ nuclear weapon, even if it is derived from an existing design.

More definitely remains to be learned about the NDS-A program and the design of that weapon. What is clear is that the Department of Energy is requesting funding to kick off at least the initial development of a new air-delivered nuclear bunker buster that could succeed the B61-11.

UPDATE: 5:27 PM EST –

It has been brought to our attention that some additional details about the NDS-A effort have been tucked away in U.S. budget requests in recent years.

In its Fiscal Year 2025 budget, the Air Force asked for, and ultimately received just over $39 million for work on NDS-A, but under a budget line titled “Hard and Deeply Buried Target Defeat System (HDBTDS) Prototyping.”

“The Air-delivered Nuclear Delivery System (NDS-A) is a new start project to address a capability gap identified in the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). A congressionally directed study based on the NPR led to endorsement of the Deputy’s Management Action Group (DMAG) and initiation of this project,” according to the 2025 Fiscal Year budget documents. “The Air Force will work with the Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and its National Laboratories to develop a prototype NDS-A system to demonstrate the capability to close this gap in the near term.”

“Early development will include Model and Simulation (M&S) analysis of several nuclear explosive package (NEP) options to refine the proposed NEP,” the budget documents add. “Ground tests may include wind tunnel, static ejection, vibration and thermal, cable pull-down, and sled tests. Flight tests will be performed by USAF F-15E developmental flight test aircraft, with final prototype demonstrations flown on B-2 aircraft.”

The video below shows flight testing of the B61-12 using a U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle.

B61-12 full-weapon system demonstration at Tonopah Test Range

In the Air Force’s proposed 2026 Fiscal Year budget, the line item was renamed “Nuclear Delivery Systems Prototyping,” but references to NDS-A by name were also omitted. A nearly $18 million year-over-year increase in requested funding (from roughly $39 million to almost $57 million) was attributed “to greater emphasis on prototype design after completion of Modeling and Simulation of mission effectiveness of design space options; increased procurement and development of components; the initiation of subsystem and test unit assembly; and the initiation of ground tests of the Prototype Weapon Assemblies.”

The Fiscal Year 2025 and 2026 budget documents do not provide any details about the design of the weapon or say what aircraft it will be integrated onto operationally.

More details about the current state of the Air Force side of this program are likely contained in the service’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget request documents. However, at the time of writing this update, they are inaccessible online.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

May 1 (Asia Today) — Former U.S. Six-Party Talks envoy Joseph DeTrani said North Korean leader Kim Jong Un still wants to normalize relations with the United States but is demanding that Washington recognize North Korea as a nuclear weapons state.

DeTrani said U.S. leverage in negotiations with North Korea has weakened sharply compared with the period around the 2005 Six-Party Talks joint statement, as Pyongyang has significantly expanded its nuclear and missile capabilities and China and Russia have effectively shielded the North.

He opposed calls by some Korea specialists in the United States for arms control negotiations with North Korea, saying Washington should maintain complete, verifiable denuclearization as its ultimate goal. At the same time, he said the United States should pursue interim freeze measures, including a halt to nuclear testing and production of fissile material.

DeTrani made the remarks Wednesday during a presentation and discussion with Greg Scarlatoiu, president of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, at the annual International Council on Korean Studies conference, “Challenges of the U.S.-South Korea Alliance 2026,” held at the Hudson Institute in Washington.

DeTrani previously served as director of the National Counterproliferation Center under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and as U.S. representative to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization. He spent 13 years handling negotiations with North Korea and participated in intelligence work that first confirmed the North’s highly enriched uranium program.

DeTrani said the Sept. 19, 2005, joint statement from the fourth round of the Six-Party Talks was meaningful because it explicitly confirmed North Korea’s commitment to abandon “all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs.”

The statement also committed North Korea to returning at an early date to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. The United States affirmed that it had no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and no intention to attack or invade North Korea with nuclear or conventional weapons.

But DeTrani said North Korea refused U.S. demands during both plenary and bilateral talks to explicitly include its highly enriched uranium program in the agreement, explaining why the final text did not directly mention the program.

He said North Korea would not have agreed to the 1994 Agreed Framework if Washington had tried to explicitly include highly enriched uranium, adding that Pyongyang has consistently shown since around 2000 that it wanted to pursue such a program for nuclear weapons development.

DeTrani said the U.S. negotiating “tool kit” was relatively strong in 2005 but has lost much of its effectiveness by 2026.

He said Wang Yi, now China’s foreign minister, played an active and constructive role as chair of the Six-Party Talks at the time. Today, however, China and Russia are effectively accepting North Korea as a nuclear weapons state and blocking additional U.N. Security Council sanctions, he said.

DeTrani said China still controls about 90% of North Korea’s foreign trade and oil supply, but added that it is difficult to expect Beijing to use that leverage to move Pyongyang in the direction Washington wants.

On Russia, DeTrani said North Korea is likely receiving assistance for its satellite, nuclear and missile programs in exchange for sending more than 12,000 troops, artillery shells and ballistic missiles to support Russia’s war in Ukraine, following the June 2024 comprehensive strategic partnership treaty between Kim and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Still, DeTrani warned against assuming that the alignment among North Korea, China and Russia is permanent. He said historical distrust between Pyongyang and Beijing, along with geopolitical competition between Moscow and Beijing, remains a source of internal friction.

DeTrani estimated North Korea now has 50 to 60 nuclear weapons based on fissile materials such as highly enriched uranium and plutonium and could expand that arsenal to 100 weapons within several years.

International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi warned during a visit to South Korea on April 15 that North Korea is expanding uranium enrichment capabilities at Yongbyon and at a new facility resembling the Kangson enrichment site in satellite imagery, describing the program as having advanced to a “very serious” level.

DeTrani said North Korea recently displayed the Hwasong-20, a solid-fuel, road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle capability and an estimated range of 15,000 kilometers, demonstrating a potential ability to reach the entire United States.

He said North Korea has more than 400 ballistic missiles, ranging from short-range systems to long-range intercontinental missiles, and is focusing on solid-fuel, road-mobile short-range systems such as the KN-23, KN-24 and KN-25.

DeTrani also said Kim recently visited the second 5,000-ton destroyer, Choe Hyon, and that North Korea aims to build a third and fourth destroyer while securing 12 nuclear-capable destroyers by 2030.

He said North Korea is constructing an 8,700-ton nuclear-powered submarine, a move he described as strengthening the second leg of a nuclear triad intended to preserve retaliatory nuclear capability even after a first strike.

DeTrani said another major change is North Korea’s nuclear doctrine, which now allows for automatic preemptive nuclear use if there is an imminent or perceived imminent threat to the leadership or command and control system.

“With satellite and imagery intelligence, I think we have verification capabilities and will not be deceived,” DeTrani said. “But North Korea remains a black hole, and there is still a great deal of information we cannot access.”

DeTrani said Kim, like his father Kim Jong Il and grandfather Kim Il Sung, understands that normalization with the United States could restore international confidence and open the door to institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

He said Kim’s request at the February 2019 Hanoi summit for relief from U.N. Security Council sanctions imposed since 2016, in exchange for steps related to the Yongbyon nuclear facility, reflected that calculation.

DeTrani said President Donald Trump had built a degree of trust with Kim, and that Kim has conditionally signaled a willingness to meet Trump again.

But DeTrani said in his presentation that it would not be surprising if North Korea had given up on the United States and South Korea, given the Iran conflict, tensions between the United States and NATO, and China and Russia’s de facto acceptance of North Korea’s nuclear status.

He said if Washington recognizes North Korea as a nuclear weapons state, Pyongyang would claim victory and use that recognition to extract more concessions from China and Russia.

Asked about proposals for nuclear nonproliferation or arms control talks with North Korea, DeTrani said, “I absolutely disagree.”

Such an approach, he said, would reinforce the North Korean regime’s belief that the United States will eventually accept it as a nuclear weapons state and would damage the broader nuclear nonproliferation system.

DeTrani identified North Korea’s nuclear program as the biggest challenge facing the U.S.-South Korea alliance in 2026. He also cited additional alliance issues, including debate over the possible use of about 28,500 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea in a Taiwan Strait or South China Sea contingency and support for keeping the Strait of Hormuz open.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260501010000029

A Ukrainian attack on the captured Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant kills a worker, according to the site’s Russia-installed authorities.

Ukrainian officials say Russian drones have again attacked the southern port city of Odesa, injuring at least 11 people, including two children, and damaging homes and important infrastructure.

Odesa Governor Oleh Kiper said the attack affected three districts, hitting residential buildings, vehicles and civilian facilities, including a hotel, warehouses and funicular railway. Windows shattered in many buildings and the port area sustained damage.

“All specialised and municipal services are working to mitigate the consequences. Law enforcement agencies are documenting the latest war crimes committed by Russia against the peaceful population of [the] Odesa region,” Kiper said.

Russian attacks killed one person in the southeastern Zaporizhzhia region, according to Governor Ivan Fedorov.

“A 59-year-old man died as a result of an enemy attack on the Zaporizhzhia region,” Fedorov wrote on Telegram.

A Ukrainian drone attack killed an employee at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which was captured by Russian forces and is shut down.

“A driver was killed today when a Ukrainian Armed Forces drone struck the transport department at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant,” said a statement from plant managers who were installed by Russia.

Regional governor Fedorov said Russian forces launched 629 strikes across 45 settlements in the region in a single day, with at least 50 reports of damage to homes and infrastructure.

Russian officials reported Ukrainian drone attacks in the Belgorod border region, where at least one person was killed and four women injured, alongside damage to buildings and vehicles.

Stalled diplomatic efforts

The attacks come as diplomatic efforts to end the war remain stalled. Donald Trump said on Sunday that he has had “good conversations” with Presidents Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

“We’re working on the Russia situation, Russia and Ukraine, and hopefully we’re going to get it,” Trump said on Fox News.

“I do have conversations with him, and I do have conversations with President Zelenskyy, and good conversations,” he said.

“The hatred between President Putin and President Zelenskyy is ridiculous. It’s crazy. And hate is a bad thing. Hate is a bad thing when you’re trying to settle something, but it’ll happen.”

Zelenskyy said he signed agreements on security and energy cooperation with Azerbaijan during a visit to Baku, adding that Kyiv had discussed the possibility of future talks with Russia there.