U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration head Linton Brooks has said that U.S. low-yield nuclear weapons research and development will not harm nonproliferation efforts (NNSA photo). Bush Administration Says Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons Research Will Not Foster Proliferation By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The Bush administration says in a new report to Congress that a recently repealed ban on U.S. low-yield nuclear weapons research and development will not harm U.S. nonproliferation diplomacy or encourage proliferation, as critics have charged (see GSN, March 22). The White House sought and won a repeal of the 10-year-old law last year despite opposition from congressional Democrats and significant international disapproval, enabling the administration to pursue plans this year for basic research and development on low-yield nuclear weapons, defined as those with yields below five kilotons (see GSN, Nov. 6)...Full Story

U.S. Public Would Oppose Bush Nuke Policies If They Knew, Poll Suggests By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A strong majority of the U.S. public appears at odds with core elements of the Bush administration’s strategic weapons and nonproliferation policies, recent polling suggests...Full Story

Cheney Says U.S. Will Maintain North Korean Policy  U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney this week rejected calls by China for an “incremental” approach to North Korean nuclear disarmament and indicated that the Bush administration is in no mood to compromise on the issue, the Los Angeles Times reported today (see GSN, April 15)...Full Story

	Friday, April 16, 2004

White House Might Support Terrorism Czar The White House is considering whether to support a proposal to create a national director of intelligence to oversee the entire U.S. intelligence community, Bush administration officials said yesterday (see GSN, April 8). The proposal, which was initially drafted more than a year ago, is being reviewed now as a possible response to charges by the national commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the current intelligence system is too fragmented, officials said. There are concerns, though, that the U.S. Defense Department’s reluctance to give up its share of the $40 billion intelligence budget, as well as a common belief that competition among intelligence agencies is beneficial, may hinder efforts to modify the existing system, Bush administration officials said. In his appearance before the Sept. 11 commission Wednesday, CIA Director George Tenet seemingly acknowledged flaws in the current structure of the intelligence community but warned against separating the position of CIA director from the overall head of intelligence, according to the New York Times. “I believe that if you separate the DCI [director of central intelligence] from the troops, from operators and analysts, I have a concern about his or her effectiveness,” he said. “I wouldn’t separate the individual from the institution,” Tenet added (Douglas Jehl, New York Times, April 16). Back to top

U.S. Public Would Oppose Bush Nuke Policies If They Knew, Poll Suggests By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A strong majority of the U.S. public appears at odds with core elements of the Bush administration’s strategic weapons and nonproliferation policies, recent polling suggests. The polling also suggests, though, that Americans are largely unaware that some of those policies are in play, and are generally ill-informed about other basic details of such policies. The nationwide poll of 1,311 randomly selected respondents was conducted last month by the social science and market research firm Knowledge Networks. The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) of the University of Maryland presented an analysis in a report yesterday titled “Americans on WMD Proliferation.” The data suggests that there is a significant disparity between the administration’s policies and the public will that is to some degree not recognized by the public, said John Steinbruner, director of the university’s Center for International and Security Studies, which jointly runs the PIPA program. That suggests an opportunity for the likely Democratic nominee for president, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), to appeal to voters with criticism of incumbent President George W. Bush’s strategic and nonproliferation policies, he said. Steinbruner conceded that the Bush administration might conclude from the data that it can pursue such policies without significant damage to Bush’s political standing. He said, though, “it would be foolhardy” to assume that would remain the case. Bush at a press conference earlier this week, said, “As to whether or not I make decisions based upon polls, I don’t. I just don’t make decisions that way.” With reference to public concern about instability in Iraq, he said, “If I tried to fine tune my messages based upon polls, I think I’d be pretty ineffective.” PIPA Director Steve Kull said in an interview today, though, that there is evidence the administration has sought to portray itself as more multilateral-oriented in the interest of political expediency, for instance, by seeking foreign contributions to operations in Iraq and efforts to engage the United Nations. “I don’t know that the administration is feeling all that confident about the electoral outcome, so they can’t just brush this off,” he said. Multilateral Arms Control Approaches Emphasized The report says an overwhelming percentage of the public prefers using multilateral arms control rather than military force to deal with proliferation. It says 83 percent of respondents favored coordinating with other countries, rather than using force, as an “important principle for U.S. foreign policy” for pursuing U.S. interests. In line with that general conclusion, the data shows that very large majorities of Americans disagree with the administration stances of opposing an inspections mechanism for the Biological Weapons Convention (92 percent), ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (87 percent), and negotiation of a treaty to ban weapon in space (74 percent). Bush administration officials have said they are pursuing a mix of approaches for addressing proliferation, which includes selective support of some arms control regimes, multilateral diplomacy and the threat of force. The administration, however, has been criticized for selective support of arms control measures, and for arguing that force should be allowable against states seeking unconventional weapons if they are deemed a future threat — the primary justification for invading Iraq last year. Restrained Capabilities The administration also has been criticized for avoiding arms control approaches that might constrain U.S. power.  For instance, a majority would prefer deep cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and opposes the idea of dismantling rather than destroying U.S. and Russian nuclear arms, according to the survey. Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, with the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, agreed to take out of service but not destroy all but 2,200 strategic nuclear warheads by 2012. A majority supported reaffirmation of the U.S. commitment against using nuclear weapons on non-nuclear states (84 percent), even in response to a chemical or biological weapons attack. U.S. officials for more than 10 years have implied nuclear weapons might be used in such a case, while also stating an intention to abide by the commitment. A majority (59 percent) also said the United States does not need to develop new types of nuclear weapons, including low-yield ones, while 38 percent said it does. Basic research and development is being pursued by the administration, after it pressed Congress last year to lift a ban (see related GSN story today). A large majority (68 percent) also favored continued research on missile defense until it is proven effective, while only small percentages favor building a system right away (21 percent) or not building one at all (8 percent), the report said. A sizable percentage (41 percent), a level not seen for 10 years, also said the United States spends too much on defense, it said. The same percentage, though, said the amount spent is about right. Poorly Informed The report says that majorities of Americans appear unaware that the United States is currently pursuing some nonproliferation policies they largely oppose. Three-quarters who responded believe that the United States supports a BWC inspection regime and a majority assumes that the United States is a member of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the data showed. The United States is a signatory but has not ratified. Most polled also appeared ill-informed about other basic details that are not particular to Bush administration, according to the report.  For instance, they appeared largely unaware that the United States made a commitment by ratifying the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to move toward nuclear weapons disarmament and greatly underestimated the number of operationally available strategic nuclear warheads, guessing a median of 200 weapons, as opposed to 6,000. “The U.S. public does not appear to understand major features of the U.S. [nuclear weapons] deployment … the numbers or the operational practices [regarding those weapons], or major features of policy central to the issue of nonproliferation control,” Steinbruner said. It “raises broader questions about the functioning of democracy and how the media is reporting these things,” said Kull. Back to top       FCC Approves Ship Cargo Security Changes In an effort to prevent terrorists from smuggling weapons, including chemical weapons, into the United States, the Federal Communications Commission has approved technological improvements that will allow more thorough and efficient inspection of sealed shipping containers, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, April 13). The changes provide for modifying electronic tags on containers and the equipment that reads their radio signal to broadcast at a greater range and for a longer duration, allowing more thorough electronic checks (Washington Post, April 16). In a statement released yesterday, commission Chairman Michael Powell said the changes “allow for the introduction of smart shipping containers that can detect intrusions and streamline the inventory process.” Powell added that the new process would have economic significance. “When you consider that a trillion dollars worth of goods pass through our ports annually, the potential economic benefits of this technology become clear,” Powell said (FCC release, April 15). Back to top

Bush Administration Says Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons Research Will Not Foster Proliferation By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The Bush administration says in a new report to Congress that a recently repealed ban on U.S. low-yield nuclear weapons research and development will not harm U.S. nonproliferation diplomacy or encourage proliferation, as critics have charged (see GSN, March 22). The White House sought and won a repeal of the 10-year-old law last year despite opposition from congressional Democrats and significant international disapproval, enabling the administration to pursue plans this year for basic research and development on low-yield nuclear weapons, defined as those with yields below five kilotons (see GSN, Nov. 6). “There is no reason to believe that [the] repeal has had or will have any practical impact on the pursuit of nuclear weapons by proliferating states, on the comprehensive diplomatic efforts ongoing to address these threats, or on the possible modernization of nuclear weapons by China or Russia,” said Linton Brooks, administrator of the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration, in a letter accompanying the report on March 31. The report argues that the pursuit of nuclear weapons capabilities — by rogue states, terrorists and Russia — would occur regardless of what the United States does with its own nuclear weapons. Rogue state proliferation “marches forward independently of the U.S. nuclear programs,” it says. Other states, it says, “typically base their nuclear R&D programs on their own perceived security needs not on the specifics of U.S. R&D.” International Reaction Detected A range of prominent critics, though, including officials from several friendly governments and the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), have argued the opposite of the report’s claims.  They have said that by pursuing such work the United States is stepping back from its Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty commitment to move towards eventual nuclear disarmament, making other countries feel less secure and undermining U.S. credibility when it urges restraint by other nations (see GSN, March 30). “I have strong reservations, to say the least, when I read that there are plans to research small nukes,” IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reportedly told National Public Radio last September. “It really sends absolutely the wrong message, that we are not moving towards disarmament, but that we are reversing course,” he said. A senior Russian official said earlier this month that the emergence of such “battlefield weapons” would be “super scary” and could prompt Russia to pursue its own low-yield warheads. “We will be compelled to modify the development of our own strategic nuclear forces depending on Washington’s plans for the use of these weapons,” Deputy Chief of the Russian General Staff, Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky was quoted this month in the Russian journal Izvestia. “This research could let the genie out of the bottle. These weapons could disrupt the existing parity of nuclear deterrence and drastically alter the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons,” Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov also said in the Izvestia story. “That’s typical of the comments that the Russians have been making for 10 years,” said David Culp, legislative representative of the Friends Committee on National Legislation. “The repeal “undercuts our political and moral stance when we’re saying we’re going to develop weapons ourselves,” he added. The U.S. secretaries of state, defense, and energy prepared the report as required by law, and recently sent it to Congress. It was obtained by the Friends Committee and distributed to reporters by e-mail Wednesday. The report says, “Although Russia states that U.S. nuclear capabilities are still a factor in its decisions about nuclear forces, we believe there is a relatively weak coupling between Russian and U.S. nuclear weapons R&D efforts.” Nuclear Credibility While the repeal “will slightly complicate U.S. nonproliferation diplomacy, we anticipate no significant impact on U.S. ability to achieve our objectives at the 2005 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference,” the agencies also wrote. They note that the treaty permits the United States to possess nuclear weapons and does not expressly restrict U.S. work on developing and fielding new types. “Nothing in the NPT … or any other treaty … prohibits the United States from carrying out nuclear weapons exploratory research, or for that matter, from developing and fielding new or modified nuclear warheads,” the report says. U.S. representatives will seek to counter negative reactions by emphasizing a “strong record of actions and policies” that demonstrate compliance with the NPT’s eventual arms reduction requirement, the report adds, citing arms cuts made mostly in the early 1990s. The report says further that fielding lower-yield warheads could actually discourage proliferation, by reassuring allies that the United States has nuclear weapons it would be more willing to use because they would cause fewer casualties. “It is important to note that the credibility of the U.S. extended nuclear umbrella is extremely significant to the restraint of proliferation,” it says. It says, though, that having such weapons would not necessarily mean the United States would be more ready to resort to nuclear weapons in a conflict.  The benefit would be gained from potential adversaries thinking the threshold for use would be lower, the report says, but assures that “the nuclear threshold for the United States has been, is, and always will be very high.” Concern for U.S. Capabilities Critics charge the administration with undervaluing the effect of U.S. nuclear weapons policies on other countries security considerations. “Unless it discussed and acknowledged [that] there is a potential impact, the study itself is incomplete because it’s already clear from the words that we’re hearing [from foreign officials] that this is making the U.S. goal of stemming proliferation more difficult,” said Jon Wolfsthal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He added, “Countries are constantly re-evaluating their nonproliferation commitments, and in a world where the United States appears to be considering improvements to its nuclear weapons capabilities, not just potential adversaries, but friends such as Japan, South Korea, and Brazil, may say, ‘If it’s good for the U.S. to look at these options, it’s good for us to look at them too.’” “They are not being honest in their analysis,” said Culp, who said that low-yield weapons work could undermine U.S. efforts to persuade North Korea and Iran through international pressure to give up their nuclear weapons programs. “If we’re not going to show nuclear restraint in our program, it becomes very difficult to gain international support … for getting countries like Iran and North Korea to show restraint, which is what we’re trying to accomplish,” he said. While the report says that so-called “rogue” regimes in North Korea and Iran seek nuclear weapons in part to pursue aggressive policies in their respective regions with impunity, others have argued such countries seek nuclear weapons largely to counter a perceived U.S. threat. “Pyongyang considers its nuclear weapons program critical to regime survival,” Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lowell Jacoby said in congressional testimony in February. “North Korean media reports suggest [leader] Kim Jong Il believes the speed and success of Operation Iraqi Freedom underscores the ineffectiveness of the North’s conventional forces and the value of nuclear weapons,” he said. The administration’s report says such countries are likely more concerned with U.S. conventional capabilities than nuclear ones.  Administration officials, though, have said low-yield weapons offer a potential for credibly threatening rogue leaders such as Kim, who are suspected of constructing very deep and hardened bunkers, and for potential use in quickly destroying chemical and biological agents (see GSN, Jan. 23). “In every one of these capitals you’ve got nuclear hawks and nuclear doves,” Culp said. “Their case is strengthened when you’ve got the Bush administration talking about first use of nuclear weapons and developing nuclear weapons specifically to be used against North Korea,” he said. Back to top       Cheney Says U.S. Will Maintain North Korean Policy U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney this week rejected calls by China for an “incremental” approach to North Korean nuclear disarmament and indicated that the Bush administration is in no mood to compromise on the issue, the Los Angeles Times reported today (see GSN, April 15). Traveling in Asia this week, Cheney made progress in convincing Chinese leaders that Washington would not soften its demands that North Korea completely dismantle its nuclear programs, U.S. officials said. Chinese officials had no public statements on the issue, and could now be faced with the decision of how much leverage they are willing to use in pushing North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in response to Cheney’s statements, according to the Times. Contrasting China’s calls for U.S. “flexibility” in negotiations with Pyongyang, Cheney said in a speech broadcast on Chinese television Wednesday that the United States opposes an incremental approach because North Korea has shown a lack of good faith by violating the 1994 Agreed Framework, in which it pledged to freeze its nuclear programs in exchange for economic and energy aid. “Our concern is that North Korea has, in the past, entered into agreements to give up its aspirations to acquire nuclear weapons, in 1994, and then subsequently violated that agreement,” said Cheney. “Because of the Pyongyang regime’s past history of irresponsibility and deceit, the removal of all its nuclear capabilities is absolutely essential to the peace and stability of Northeast Asia and the world,” he added (Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times, April 16). Back to top       U.S. Air Force Plans Next Generation ICBMs U.S. Air Force officials have said that the next generation of nuclear-capable ICBMs could be a mobile missile force of varying accuracies, ranges and payloads, Inside the Pentagon reported yesterday (see GSN, March 26). Air Force Space Command is set to begin an analysis soon to determine the best way to replace the U.S. arsenal of 500 Minuteman 3 ICBMs, which are expected to begin losing operational effectiveness in 2018, according to Inside the Pentagon. The Air Force has anticipated that it will begin an acquisition program for the new land-based strategic deterrent as early as next year, Inside the Pentagon reported. Col. Rick Patenaude, head of the Air Force Space Command’s deterrence and strike requirements directorate, said the new ICBMs might have varied capabilities, instead of the uniformity of the Minuteman 3s. “We certainly see the possibility where you don’t have the same thing in every silo,” he said, adding that the replacement missiles might not be silo-based (David Perera, Inside the Pentagon, April 15). Back to top       Changing Management at U.S. Nuclear Laboratories Could Damage Research, Berkeley Scientists Say Scientists at the University of California at Berkeley are concerned that their research at U.S. national laboratories could be jeopardized by the Energy Department’s decision to consider contracting other institutions to operate three laboratories (see GSN, Jan. 28). The university has overseen operations at Lawrence Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories since their inception more than 50 years ago, but the Energy Department has solicited bids for contracts to run the laboratories.  While the university is preparing to bid on the three contracts, a final decision on whether to do so will not be made until the Energy Department announces the terms of the competition, expected this summer, according to the Berkeleyan. Potential competitors for parts or all of the contract include the University of Texas, Battelle Corp. and Lockheed Martin, according to the University of California’s Special Committee on the National Laboratories. Some university scientists are concerned that management changes at the national laboratories could hurt collaborative research projects, the Berkeleyan reported. “Current laboratory management values academic interactions,” said Per Peterson, chair of Berkeley’s Department of Nuclear Engineering and a long-time collaborator with researchers at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos national laboratories. “It provides mechanisms and incentives that make it much easier for researchers from the labs to interact with the campuses, and especially with students,” Peterson said. “It’s hard to see that persisting, particularly under corporate management,” Peterson added. “And that would damage our ability to collaborate and perform research,” Peterson said (Charles Osolin, Berkeleyan, April 15). Back to top       U.S. Accelerates Development of New Bomber The U.S. Air Force has decided to speed up the development of a new long-distance bomber, Defense Daily reported today (see GSN, March 4). While the Air Force had originally estimated that the new bomber would be fielded in 2030, the service is now working to field the new system by 2020, according to Defense Daily.  Air Force Director of Operational Requirements Brig. Gen. Stephen Goldfein said the new bomber would need the ability to respond in hours, to penetrate well-defended air space and to loiter near targets if necessary. Officials now expect the new bomber’s development to begin by the end of this decade (Amy Butler, Defense Daily, April 16). Back to top

Ricin Convict Plans Appeal Attorneys for a Washington state man convicted of possessing the toxin ricin plan to file an appeal to his conviction this month, the Los Angeles Times reported (see GSN, Oct. 29, 2003). Kenneth Olsen, convicted in July 2003 and now serving a 13-year sentence at the federal prison in Lompoc Calif., was convicted under the 1989 U.S. Biological Weapons Antiterrorism Act, but some legal scholars have questioned the use of federal terrorism statutes in the prosecution of nonterrorism cases. Olsen’s conviction under the act required lower standards of proof and carried harsher sentencing guidelines than a conviction for attempted murder would have carried, according to his attorneys (Tomas Alex Tizon, Los Angeles Times, April 16). Back to top

Jordan Foils Chemical Attack Plan Jordanian security forces captured three car bombs last week from a terrorist cell planning a large-scale chemical attack on a military installation, according to the London-based al-Hayat (see GSN, April 13). Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is affiliated with al-Qaeda, is believed responsible for planning the attack, according to officials. The cell entered Jordan through Syria in late March. Jordanian King Abdullah said Wednesday that the cell also planned to carry out attacks in large public areas throughout the country (Haaretz, April 16). Back to top

Taiwanese Missile Radar Expected to Become Operational in Five Years An early warning radar system that Taiwan plans to purchase from the United States to help defend against Chinese ballistic missiles is expected to become operational in five years, Taiwanese defense sources said yesterday (see GSN, April 6). The Taiwanese air force is considering purchasing one of two types of radar systems from the United States — the PAVEPAW system or a modified version of the SPY-1 radar currently under development, according to the Taipei Times. While the PAVEPAW system has a longer range, the modified SPY-1 system has better accuracy, according to a defense official. The Taiwanese air force had originally planned to purchase two early warning radar systems, but it will now buy only one because of budget concerns, the Times reported (Brian Hsu, Taipei Times, April 16).   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.