that already planned from the HEU deal, because of the much smaller amount of material.
Such a deal would also remove a substantial quantity of potential weapons material from the former Soviet Union more rapidly than any plausible long-term disposition option could be accomplished, thereby reducing risks of theft or breakout. However, as in the case of the HEU deal, substantial risks would remain after a purchase limited to excess weapons plutonium because large numbers of nuclear weapons and large quantities of fissile materials not declared excess would remain in the former Soviet Union.
Such a plutonium purchase would also have important disadvantages. The cost, as noted, could not be justified on economic grounds. Once having acquired the plutonium, the purchasing country or group would have to deal with the tasks of storage and disposition, adding to the problems already being faced with U.S. excess weapons plutonium and civilian plutonium surpluses accumulating elsewhere. This could prompt domestic political difficulties in the country or countries that accepted the large plutonium stock. Transport would create some risks and substantial controversies. There would be political risks for the Yeltsin government, already under fire for selling HEU to the United States, and there would be political risks of a different kind in seeming to give plutonium a commercial value it does not currently merit.
Under certain conditions, the advantages of such a purchase might outweigh the disadvantages. First, a purchase commitment (or any other commitment to provide financial incentives) should not be open-ended and should not provide incentives for the production of additional plutonium. Thus, such an arrangement must either be linked to a monitored cutoff of further production of separated weapons plutonium or be limited by agreement to particular stocks of plutonium already in existence, with the trail between those stocks and the plutonium actually purchased adequately verified. Second, adequate secure and safeguarded storage arrangements would have to be available in the country to which the plutonium was to be shipped. In the case of a U.S. purchase (and probably in other cases as well), gaining political acceptance for such a purchase would probably require not only storage arrangements capable of sustaining general support, but at least the outlines of a plan for long-term disposition of the material.
In short, if Russia expresses interest in a plutonium sale, the United States should not reject the idea out of hand, but should explore the arrangements and conditions under which such a purchase might be carried out. But such purchase schemes should not be the primary focus of U.S. plutonium diplomacy: achieving secure, safeguarded storage is more urgent and more central to the security issues at stake.t commitments. The additionalI >iieeior General Hans Hlix has offered the agency's services in ..iii-vMi.u.htiy liv.ilf m.iU-1 tats liom dismantled weapons. The need to deal with such materials and with Hi.- '-'i.iw »n>- <-^ «•'•-. i>l «ivilian sep;ir;ileil (ilulonium has precipitated renewed interest in such concepts in .,,-!i! ,,-.«• tti l.itr I•>'».'. minimal discussions of a possible "international management regime" for