Los Angeles County firefighters practice donning protective suits during a March domestic security drill (AFP/Getty). U.S. Congress Seeks Better System for Funding Terrorism Response By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Amid reports of haphazard federal funding of state and local preparations for a WMD or terrorist attack, the U.S. Congress is taking up the thorny matter of funding homeland security improvements across the nation...Full Story

U.S. to Fund Peaceful Research by Former Iraqi WMD Scientists By Greg Webb Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — To encourage former Iraqi WMD scientists to refrain from marketing their abilities to potential U.S. enemies, the U.S. State Department announced a plan yesterday to support those scientists in peaceful research projects dedicated to reconstructing the nation (see GSN, Nov. 17)...Full Story

Iran Receives Praise for Signing Additional Protocol International Atomic Energy Agency officials praised Iran for signing the Additional Protocol to its nuclear safeguards agreement yesterday. The protocol allows the IAEA to conduct more intrusive monitoring of Iran’s nuclear activities (see GSN, Dec. 18)...Full Story

	Friday, December 19, 2003

U.S. Congress Seeks Better System for Funding Terrorism Response By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Amid reports of haphazard federal funding of state and local preparations for a WMD or terrorist attack, the U.S. Congress is taking up the thorny matter of funding homeland security improvements across the nation. The events of Sept. 11, 2001, are still fresh in the minds of federal officials as they conduct a complex debate about how and when the new Homeland Security Department should fund local and state spending on everything from software training to radiation suits. President George W. Bush this week issued two directives on the matter, ordering the department to identify and protect “critical infrastructure” and to establish a national “all-hazards” preparedness goal (see GSN, Dec. 18). The debate has pitted states against cities, and advocates of nationwide readiness efforts against those who back a more targeted approach to divvying up more than $7 billion annually over the short term. No matter what solution is found, said PSComm President John Cohen, an adviser to state and local governments on homeland security, “We can’t continue doling out this money in the ad hoc manner that we have been, because it’s just not productive.” The current formula for distributing funds through the department’s main responder grant program has provoked outrage from governments including that of New York City, with officials complaining that money is being wasted in less populated, lower-profile locations while major potential terrorist targets remain vulnerable. Under the formula, every state receives .75 percent of the total program amount, and population determines how the rest of the funds are distributed. A measure now before the Senate would retain the .75 percent payments to states but would place more emphasis on assessing the varying risk of terrorism around the country in spending the remaining money. In a process that could lead to more drastic reform, however, the fledgling House Homeland Security Committee is expected early next year to take up a bill on the grants that emerged Nov. 20 from its Emergency Preparedness and Response Subcommittee. The House bill, expected to be a high priority for the committee and potentially the full House in the congressional session that begins next month, reflects both bipartisan compromise and continuing division over grants. In marking up a Republican bill highlighting national threat assessment as a key to smarter spending, the House subcommittee added much that was in a Democratic bill stressing universal baseline readiness. The compromise bill would create a First Responder Grant Program in the Homeland Security Department and require the department to define both “essential capabilities” that all first responders must have and standards for equipment and training. A task force representing various areas of emergency response would be created to assist the department’s Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate in defining the essential capabilities, “based upon the most current risk assessment by the [Homeland Security Department] Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection of the terrorist threat” ― language that is sure to spark further debate about the desirability and feasibility of such assessment. In another provision that ventures onto risky ground, the bill would allow for some direct federal funding of regions and municipalities. The committee’s Republican and Democratic leaders both have praised the subcommittee’s bipartisanship, but each also continued to stress his party’s priority, signaling a potential showdown ahead. Senior Democrat Jim Turner (D-Texas) said the bill would retain the “core concept” of his party’s bid to distribute grants “based on building essential capabilities,” while committee Chairman Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) said the measure “reflects agreement on the need to make federal grants risk-based.” Debate Continues on Role of Risk, Threat Assessments Cox’s new focus on risk, generally construed to mean a combination of threat and vulnerability, reflects a key compromise in the bill. The initial Democratic legislation focused on national standards and contained virtually no language on threat-based spending, while the original Republican measure focused on threat alone, not the more complex idea of risk. The Homeland Security Department so far has little capability to conduct threat or risk assessment, a situation that appears likely to fuel continuing disagreement over the legislation. The department’s Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate is required under last year’s Homeland Security Act, which created the department, to assess vulnerabilities to and risks of terrorist attack, but the department has indicated such a capability will not be fully in place for three to five years ― numbers that “should just be considered unacceptable,” said Cohen. Democrats on the House committee have continually criticized the Republicans for focusing on threat despite the department’s inability to conduct the assessment. “I mean, you’re crazy to think you’re going to be able to do that,” said one source close to the subcommittee. Committee Republicans have acknowledged that assessment capacity is now lacking at the department but have stressed that its absence should not affect the goals of legislation that is meant to protect the country at the grass roots. “The fact that the capability may not yet be what everyone desires does not negate the fact that it is still the right approach to take,” committee majority spokesman Vince Sollitto said recently, before leaving for a similar post with new California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. In one process that could help to improve the department’s analytical capacity, state homeland security agencies are required by year’s end to provide the department’s Office for Domestic Preparedness with statewide terrorism and WMD threat assessment, as well as prevention and response plans (see GSN, Aug. 8).  Among other uses, the data will be provided to the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate as it develops its national threat assessment. “When those are completed, that should provide a baseline of information that can then be used by the feds,” Cohen said. Committee majority spokeswoman Elizabeth Tobias added that the current bill could prod the Homeland Security Department to speed its effort to assess the terrorist threat. “We’re encouraging them to get that piece of the puzzle in place as quickly as possible. … There has to be a strong intelligence capacity,” Tobias said. “Everyone wants to see a threat and vulnerability assessment process included in the process,” agreed committee minority spokeswoman Moira Whelan, “but we need something in the meantime.” How long the “meantime” will last, however, is a matter of some debate. Cohen said the current funding “full-court press” can last “a year or maybe two years, but you can’t do that forever.” Said Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney at a recent Heritage Foundation discussion on the subject, “You can’t protect all of the critical assets of our nation. It’s impossible.” Others are concerned, meanwhile, that the movement toward basing funding on risk will go too far. One advocate of baseline readiness said states are concerned that even the subcommittee’s compromise language reflects “a movement toward a pure threat basis when you’re talking about funding formulas.” International Association of Chiefs of Police legal counsel Gene Voegtlin said committing too many resources to protecting locations assessed to be at high risk plays into the hands of terrorists. “The problem with target-hardening is that it’s just going to move to different targets. I’m not saying it’s not valid, but it’s not a panacea either. … You can’t have a funding program that’s designed in that fashion to the exclusion of everything else,” Voegtlin said. Voegtlin praised the House subcommittee, though, for not “trying to get into the minutiae of how risk assessments are done.” The compromise bill, he said, “provides the Department of Homeland Security with the ability to kind of flesh out how they do their risk assessments.” Localities, Regions Could Receive Direct Grants Although the House bill envisions most federal grant money for response going to state governments for subsequent distribution to localities, it also provides for direct grants to “regions” ― primarily, areas containing parts of at least two states or localities and having either a combined population of at least 1.65 million or an area of at least 20,000 square miles ― and, in case of failure by states to promptly “pass through” enough funds, to individual localities. The provision does not appear to be a major source of interparty disagreement, but it could lead to controversy among state and local governments. Majority spokeswoman Tobias said she doesn’t “think there’s going to be instances where [states and localities are] going to be fighting each other for who gets what when,” but other sources disagreed. “The chairman felt very strongly,” said one staffer familiar with the negotiations, “about the fact that he was hearing from way too many localities that the money was not reaching the local level. … He was pretty wound up about this, and … Mr. Turner was also interested in seeing that the money got to the localities more quickly.” The National Governors Association, among other groups, has expressed opposition to direct grants for regions and localities, a position that could be bolstered by Bush’s order in his directives this week that the “primary mechanism for delivery of federal preparedness assistance … be awards to the states.” Nolan Jones, deputy director of the association’s Office of State-Federal Relations, said the implications of the compromise bill for such payments are still “basically unclear” but that the association will lobby against any grants that do not go through state capitals. “We don’t accept direct grants to regions and localities ― under no circumstances. That goes divergent to what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to build up a national strategy,” said Jones. The police association’s Voegtlin, however, called for striking a “balance when it comes to direct funding.” He said response to the diffuse terrorist threat requires state and federal coordination of “massive response capabilities” but that local officials must be consulted as to what is needed on the ground. “The folks that are on the scene in the localities are going to have the best idea of what their specific needs are,” he said. Looking ahead to the future of homeland security grants, Voegtlin added, “The key to everything, when it comes to funding out to the states and localities, is going to be flexibility.” Back to top       9/11 Commission Chairman Says Attacks Were Preventable The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States could have been prevented and people should be held accountable for the security failures that preceded the suicide hijackings, the chairman of a commission investigating the attacks said in an television interview broadcast Wednesday. “I do not believe it had to happen,” said Tom Kean, who is also the former Republican governor of New Jersey. “There were people certainly, if I was doing the job, who would certainly not be in the position that they were in at that time, because they failed. They simply failed,” he added. White House spokesman Scott McClellan rejected Kean’s comments. “There is nothing that we have seen that leads us to believe that September 11th could have been prevented,” he said (Dana Milbank, Washington Post, Dec. 19). Kean said, however, that the current or previous presidents should not be blamed for the attacks. “We have no evidence that anybody high in the Clinton administration or the Bush administration did anything wrong,” Kean said Thursday in an interview on ABC’s Nightline (Associated Press/USA Today, Dec. 19). Back to top       White House Says TOPOFF Exercise Showed Preparedness Lapses A secret White House report on a federal terrorism preparedness exercise held last May found that the effort was plagued by communications failures, medical supply shortages and confusion, Bush administration officials said yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 31). TOPOFF 2, a five-day exercise held in Chicago and Seattle, tested the response of federal officials to simultaneous biological and radiological attacks. The Homeland Security Department said that many of the problems identified in the report have been addressed. “This was conducted in the first months of the department, before many of the response systems that we now have were in place,” said Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse. After studying the results of the exercise, he said, “we have created new systems by which to communicate with federal, state and local officials.” Administration officials, however, said they were disturbed by the report on the exercise (Philip Shenon, New York Times, Dec. 19).  Back to top

U.S. to Fund Peaceful Research by Former Iraqi WMD Scientists By Greg Webb Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — To encourage former Iraqi WMD scientists to refrain from marketing their abilities to potential U.S. enemies, the U.S. State Department announced a plan yesterday to support those scientists in peaceful research projects dedicated to reconstructing the nation (see GSN, Nov. 17). The department will fund a new Baghdad facility, the Iraqi International Center for Science and Industry, in an effort give former weapons scientists “a preferable alternative to leaving the country in search of suitable employment,” according to a State Department fact sheet. The announcement drew praise from U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), an original cosponsor of similar programs established in the former Soviet Union. “I commend the administration for the start of efforts in Iraq to redirect personnel formerly engaged in the planning, research and production of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. The need to contain this knowledge and to provide opportunities for the peaceful employment of such individuals is a critical priority in stabilizing Iraq and in winning the global war on terrorism,” he said in a statement. The program will begin with $2 million for initial efforts and could entail an additional $20 million in the future, department spokesman Richard Boucher said yesterday in his daily press briefing. The initial funds are to come from the department’s Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund. The center “will work closely with the Iraqi government to identify, develop and fund activities in support of Iraqi reconstruction,” Boucher said, estimating that the first projects would be “up and running by February.” Boucher said that “hundreds of scientists” would probably be eligible to participate, and while specific rules have not yet been determined, the primary eligibility requirement would be past employment in one of Iraq’s WMD research and development programs. The program follows criticism in past months from some nonproliferation experts who have urged the United States to offer more incentives to Iraqi scientists to cooperate with the U.S. investigation into Baghdad’s WMD efforts (see GSN, Sept. 8). Yesterday, Boucher said the United States would not seek to punish WMD research scientists, and news reports indicated last week that only eight Iraqi scientists are in U.S. custody (see GSN, Dec. 9). “The United States would be interested in pursuing for prosecution people who might have used weapons of mass destruction. But the people who might have been associated with the programs to develop them, we would not be interested in prosecuting,” he said (see GSN, Sept. 18). Lugar said the approach has proven successful in the former Soviet Union with the programs he launched with former Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.). “I know from my own experience with similar efforts, under Nunn-Lugar’s International Science and Technology Center in Moscow, how this engagement contributed to successful nonproliferation of WMD knowledge. To date, ISTC Moscow has engaged with almost 700 institutions and more than 50,000 individuals. I hope that the new IICSI in Baghdad will meet with similar success,” he said. Former Clinton administration nonproliferation official Gary Samore, now with London’s International Institute of Strategic Studies, also praised the announcement. “It’s a good idea for two reasons. First, it will help to facilitate efforts to encourage Iraqi scientists to provide information about Iraq’s past programs. Second, some of these scientists obviously know dangerous things and it’s better for us to give them benign employment,” he said. [EDITOR’S NOTE: Sam Nunn is chief executive officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative and Richard Lugar serves on the NTI board.  NTI is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group.] Back to top       Iraqi Weapons Hunt Slows as U.S. Search Team Loses Resources and Faces Uncertainty The pace of U.S. efforts to hunt for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has slowed recently as U.S. resources and personnel have been diverted to counterinsurgency activities and the leader of the U.S. search team has returned to the United States to discuss his future participation, according to reports. The Iraq Survey Group once entailed 1,400 personnel to search for weapons of mass destruction that Iraq was believed to possess prior to the U.S.-led invasion this year, but intelligence experts have been reassigned to combat the Iraqi resistance movement and a large staff turnover recently sent other team members home from their Baghdad headquarters. “For a while this place was really active, but that’s changed in the last month,” said Charles McKay of the U.S. Defense Department’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency. “Now we’re lucky if there’s a mission once a week,” he added (Dafna Linzer, Associated Press/Boston Globe, Dec. 19). Meanwhile group leader David Kay has returned to the United States and is reportedly considering leaving his post early next year, even before the group issues its next report (see GSN, Dec. 18). At meetings this week at the CIA, Kay said he might leave because the mission was taking longer than expected and was straining his family, the New York Times reported today (Richard Stevenson, New York Times, Dec. 19). One of his colleagues said that Kay was also frustrated by the diversion of resources from his team. In addition to losing intelligence experts, a significant number of the team’s Arabic translators have been reassigned, making it more difficult to interview Iraqi officials and scientists, according to the London Guardian. “This is a big blow to the [Bush] administration and it will signal the effective end of the search for weapons of mass destruction,” said Joseph Cirincione, head of the Nonproliferation Project at the Washington’s Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Some [WMD searchers] will continue looking but very, very few expect there to be any significant finds at this point,” he added (Julian Borger, London Guardian, Dec. 19). “It’s probably time to call it quits,” said former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix. “The U.S. and the U.K. are so wedded to the idea that the Iraqis were hiding things that they are not willing to explore the possibility that they’re wrong,” he added (Linzer, Associated Press/Boston Globe). Administration officials have said, however, that they still expect to uncover illicit weapons in Iraq. On Tuesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the small hole in which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was found hiding could hold enough biological weapons to kill tens of thousands of people and more time was needed to search (Stevenson, New York Times). Back to top

Iran Receives Praise for Signing Additional Protocol International Atomic Energy Agency officials praised Iran for signing the Additional Protocol to its nuclear safeguards agreement yesterday. The protocol allows the IAEA to conduct more intrusive monitoring of Iran’s nuclear activities (see GSN, Dec. 18). “We think that it’s a big step forward. We’ll never be able to detect small activities that might take place in a laboratory, but to mount a full nuclear weapons program is a much different thing, and the protocol gives us a much higher probability of detecting such a thing,” said IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky. “It gives the IAEA additional authority, additional rights and additional information on the entirety of Iran’s nuclear activities, and gives the inspectors broader inspection rights,” he added (Golnaz Esfandiari, RFE/RL, Dec. 19). IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, who also signed the agreement yesterday, said it is “an important building block toward establishing confidence that Iran’s program is exclusively for peaceful purposes” (Vanessa Gera, Associated Press/Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec. 19). Although the agreement still faces several legal checkpoints in the Iranian government, ElBaradei said it will effectively come into force immediately. “I was assured that Iran, until the protocol is ratified, will act as if the protocol is in force,” he said. Iran’s outgoing representative to the IAEA, Ali Akbar Salehi, said Iran would strive “to reveal its full transparency and establish the confidence that is needed.” “I ardently hope the new age is set and my country shall no more be subject to unfair and politically motivated accusations and allegations,” he added, in a reference to U.S. pressure on Tehran (Pakistan Dawn, Dec. 19). Moscow is helping Tehran build a nuclear power plant and Russian officials applauded the signing. “We welcome this crucial step taken by the Iranian leadership, which points to Tehran’s commitment to consistently moving along the road toward complete transparency of its nuclear program,” said Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, whose negotiations helped arrange the protocol signing, also praised the “access already being granted to IAEA inspectors” (Xinhua News Agency, Dec. 19). Back to top       United States Will Not Offer Concessions at Next North Korea Meeting The United States will not offer economic or energy aid to North Korea if another round of six-nation negotiations take place, a senior Bush administration official said yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 18). Earlier this year, China hosted a meeting of diplomats from North and South Korea, Japan, Russia and the United States in an attempt to defuse tensions over Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons development. Another round of talks were tentatively scheduled for this month but has been delayed. The “six-party process is alive and well,” although it is “inherently difficult to get on the same page,” the official said. North Korea has said that it will not abandon its nuclear weapons programs unless the United States provides aid and a nonaggression pact. Instead of offering such concessions, however, the White House will seek information on how North Korea would dismantle its nuclear development, the official said (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, Dec. 19). Back to top       Contract Awarded for Nuclear Submarine Conversion The U.S. Defense Department yesterday awarded a $222 million contract to General Dynamics Electric Boat for the conversion of nuclear weapons submarines to Tomahawk missile and special operations platforms (see GSN, Jan. 27). The contract covers the conversion of the first Trident ballistic missile submarine, the USS Ohio. The converted submarines will be known as SSGN submarines. After the conversion, a submarine will be able to carry up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 66 special operations personnel, according to the Defense Department. General Dynamics will also prepare the conversion of two other Trident submarines, the USS Michigan and USS Georgia. In 2004 the Pentagon has the option of adding the Ohio-class USS Florida to the project. “The SSGN is an example of the Navy’s innovative transformation that supports our joint warfighters,” Navy Secretary Gordon England said. “With well over 20 years life remaining, the SSGN conversion will significantly increase the strike capability and the flexibility of our special forces,” he added (U.S. Defense Department release, Dec. 18). Back to top

Senior Pentagon Official Calls for Spending Boost to Chemical and Biological Defenses The U.S. Defense Department should double the amount of money it spends on its Chemical and Biological Defense Program, a senior Pentagon official said yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 15). The program currently has a $1.2 billion budget, InsideDefense.com reported . “We have to get serious,” said Lisa Bronson, deputy undersecretary of defense for technology security policy and counterproliferation. Bronson also called for funding on “parallel” projects, knowing that some will not work. “It’s not the way we do it in the chem-bio defense community because we just can’t afford it,” she said. The Defense Department needs to “let some basic science run as far as it can to prove some ideas out,” she added (Jeremy Feiler, InsideDefense.com, Dec. 18). Back to top

Army Modifies VX Neutralization Method By David McGlinchey Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The Newport Chemical Depot in Indiana is revising its approach to neutralizing VX nerve agent even though the new method will dramatically increase the amount of byproduct that is produced, a Newport official said yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 12). The disposal of the Newport VX stockpile has been delayed by controversy over hydrolysate — the byproduct of the neutralization process. The Army originally intended to treat the hydrolysate then dump it in an Ohio sewage system, but local officials blocked the move earlier this year. The VX level in the hydrolysate has also failed to meet some environmental standards. Army officials are hopeful to begin the neutralization process in the spring of 2004. The Army intends to neutralize the VX stockpile by mixing it with water and sodium hydroxide. Newport officials originally planned to use a neutralization mixture with 33 percent VX agent and 67 percent sodium hydroxide and water, but the level of VX in the resulting hydrolysate exceeded environmental regulations. To meet those regulations, the Army is now considering “reducing the amount of VX in each batch to 8, 12 or 16 percent,” according to Jeff Brubaker, the site manager for the Newport Chemical Agent Destruction Facility. “As a result, we would achieve reliable clearance of the hydrolysate for shipment to a commercial treatment/disposal facility,” Brubaker wrote in a written response to questions from Global Security Newswire. The new ratio in the neutralization process, however, would create increased volumes of the controversial hydrolysate. “With the 33 percent recipe, it means about one million gallons. Reducing the load could mean double, triple or even quadruple the amount of waste product to be disposed of. … It could mean several hundred tanker loads,” Brubaker wrote. Because the plant has no plans to add processing capacity, the time needed neutralize the VX stockpile will be extended, but by how long remains uncertain. According to Brubaker, the hydrolysate would not be moved from the Newport facility until the VX levels are lower than 20 parts per billion. That, he said, is “our commitment to the public.” Back to top

Japan Announces Missile Defense Plan The top Japanese defense policy panel and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s cabinet today approved a plan to develop a national missile defense system (see GSN, Dec. 17). Yasuo Fukuda, the chief cabinet secretary, said that the system does not violate Japan’s Constitution and “will not contradict the country’s defense policy of dedicating its military capabilities solely to defensive purposes” (David Pilling, Financial Times, Dec. 19). The new system is necessary because of “a spread of missiles and a rise in weapons of mass destruction,” Fukuda said. “Ballistic missile defense is … the sole means of protecting the lives of our country’s people and their property against a ballistic missile attack,” he added (Audrey McAvoy, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Dec. 19). Japan might also repeal a quarter-century old ban on arms exports so that it can jointly develop missile defense components with the United States. “It’s an issue to consider in the future,” Fukuda said. “There is a debate over whether we can simply say we cannot offer our knowhow, products or parts (to the United States) after (jointly) conducting research and development,” he added (Junko Takahashi, Japan Times, Dec. 19). Back to top       THAAD Program Passes Critical Design Review The Missile Defense Agency’s Theater High-Altitude Area Defense system has completed a successful design review that was necessary to resume flight testing, Aerospace Daily reported today. The system is designed to intercept short- and medium-range ballistic missiles as they enter their final descent, but the program was restructured after a set of failed tests a few years ago (see GSN, Sept. 3). The Dec. 16-17 critical design review, was “very successful,” according to a source at THAAD prime contractor Lockheed Martin. MDA officials plan to conduct the THAAD interceptor’s first flight test in the fourth quarter of 2004. The first flight test with a moving target is scheduled for the third quarter of 2005, according to Aerospace Daily. The interceptor will track the target in that exercise and could attempt an intercept. The first official intercept test will be held three months later. The agency is planning to hold a total of 16 flight tests for the THAAD system (Marc Selinger, Aerospace Daily, Dec. 19). Back to top       Navy Awards Raytheon With Contract for Missile Tracking Ship The U.S. Navy yesterday awarded defense contractor Raytheon with a $1 billion contract to develop a new radar ship to monitor foreign missile launches and track domestic missile tests (see GSN, Aug. 9, 2002). The contract is designed to replace the aging Cobra Judy ship. The new Cobra Judy will carry the S-band and the X-band radars, which will give the ship added capability to monitor launches and tests, Defense Daily reported today. Defense contractor Northrop Grumman will provide the S-band radar for Raytheon. Northrop officials reportedly threatened to drop their S-band work earlier this year, and the Pentagon awarded this contract to keep them active in the field, according to Defense Daily (Amy Butler, Defense Daily, Dec. 19). Back to top

Russia Records Four Radiological Thefts in 2003 Russian authorities this year recorded four thefts of radiological material nationwide, Interfax reported yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 1). “The Russian state nuclear inspectorate registered four thefts of radioactive sources in the first 10 months of the year,” said Andrei Malyshev, the agency’s chief (see GSN, Feb. 28). Six thefts were reported in 2000 and 2001. Four were recorded last year. None of the radiological material was taken from Atomic Energy Ministry sites but at least one source was owned by the Russian military, Interfax reported. That material was recovered nearby (Interfax, Dec. 18). Back to top       United States Accuses British Man of Offering Dirty Bomb U.S. prosecutors said that a British man accused of smuggling shoulder-fired missiles also offered to procure a radiological weapon, or “dirty bomb,” the Associated Press reported today. Hemant Lakhani was arrested for attempting to smuggle antiaircraft missiles into the United States but he also offered to sell undercover agents antiaircraft guns, tanks, armored personnel carriers, radar systems and a dirty bomb, according to U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie. Lakhani’s lawyer, Henry Klingeman, said that U.S. officials arranged all the details of the alleged arms deal and that his client had no ability to procure any of the illicit arms. “The plot constituting the government’s case was conceived, planned and executed by government agents,” Klingeman said. Lakhani “has no history of illegal arms trafficking,” he added (Jeffrey Gold, Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec. 19).   Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

© Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.