U.S. Deputy U.N. Ambassador James Cunningham (shown in a 2003 photo) yesterday praised the U.N. Security Council’s unanimous passage of a resolution pressed by the United States and United Kingdom intended to prevent WMD proliferation to nonstate actors (AFP photo/Don Emmert). U.N. Security Council Approves WMD Resolution By Jim Wurst Global Security Newswire UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council yesterday unanimously approved a resolution designed to close a loophole in international law by requiring states to ensure terrorists and other nonstate actors are denied access to weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, April 23). From comments made by the delegates after the vote, it was clear there were still concerns about the implications of the measure they had just approved, especially worries that the resolution would be applied unevenly among states and that the council was creating arms control law that should be properly done through treaty negotiations...Full Story

U.S. Might Intercept Target From Space in 2006 By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — More than two decades after President Ronald Reagan set a goal of developing a space-based missile defense, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency is planning for an early 2006 test that could produce the first intercept of a target using a kill vehicle launched from space, according to Defense Department officials (see GSN, April 15)...Full Story

Expert Challenges U.S. Bunker Buster Recommendations By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — An independent expert today challenged on technical grounds an influential panel’s case for developing of new low-yield U.S. nuclear weapons (see GSN, March 29)...Full Story

	Thursday, April 29, 2004

U.S. Domestic Preparedness Head Feels the Heat at Congressional Hearing By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Members of a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee yesterday launched a blistering bipartisan attack on Director Suzanne Mencer of the Homeland Security Department’s Office for Domestic Preparedness, which the lawmakers accused of meddling in local preparations for terrorist or WMD attacks. “We’re not going to take it anymore,” said Representative Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.). With no local-level officials present to testify, the House Emergency Preparedness and Response Subcommittee heard from Mencer and from Director Dennis Schrader of Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich’s homeland security office about federal grants for local terrorism- and WMD-response efforts. The topic has been a contentious one over the last year, with cities and states squaring off over what Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has called a state-level “logjam” preventing much post-9/11 federal funding from reaching first-response agencies on the ground. The House Select Committee on Homeland Security released a report Tuesday indicating that funds have been slow in moving through the pipeline and that Washington and the states often distribute the money without taking into account risks or needs (see GSN, April 28). The committee has approved legislation ― expected to reach the House floor for a vote by July, according to committee Chairman Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) ― that would implement more threat-based distribution of the grants, which are now doled out largely using population-based formulas and per-state minimum payments (see GSN, March 19). Schrader called yesterday for efforts to “provide substantive training and development of grants management” to local officials, who he said lack “skill sets” for securing and managing grants. He added that there is a need to “increase emergency-management [and] public-safety visibility with local government of their roles in the grants process” and to “increase and strengthen their participation in development and execution of state and federal homeland security processes, policy and strategies.” Mencer said her office should “accelerate the development of federal guidelines for first-responder preparedness, including capability levels, equipment, training and exercises, in order to enhance the ability of states and local jurisdictions to develop preparedness strategies and target resources.” The office, she said, has established new guidelines for reporting by and monitoring of grant recipients, and intends next year to set up a special team to audit local officials’ spending of the homeland security grants. As the hearing drew to a close, Representative Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Homeland Security and state governments should fund and train local emergency teams and provide better information about resources available in a crisis but should refrain from additional involvement in response planning. “They need to get out of the way,” Weldon said. Weldon and Pascrell animatedly objected to measures such as those mentioned by Mencer, calling on Washington instead to provide more direct funding to local emergency officials. “I resent the idea,” said Weldon, “that somehow, the federal government is going to come in and tell the people ― because for all these years, they have not known how to do their job? … Why don’t we … listen to the first responders who have been telling us for 20 years what they need?” Pascrell told Mencer, “You’re the messenger. I know that.  But we’re not going to take it anymore. We’re not going to take fraud across the screen that we’re safer than we were before.” National Threat Assessment Called Crucial; State Plans Found Wanting Pascrell also criticized the lack of a national terrorism threat assessment, which Homeland Security is endeavoring to produce in order to better target funds and for other uses. Mencer and Cox stressed the importance of terrorism threat and vulnerability assessments that states and territories submitted to the Office for Domestic Preparedness in January and which the department will use in producing its national assessment (see GSN, Feb. 13). Mencer said Homeland Security has approved 51 of the 56 plans and that the last five “should be approved shortly.” Top committee Democrat Jim Turner (D-Texas), though, said he has reviewed several of the state plans and found them wanting. “Most of our states have very little capability to produce a threat and vulnerability analysis,” Turner said. Cox said the plans are important because “federal dollars are not necessarily going to those responders who need it the most.” Mencer also provided updated figures for several key projects being conducted by her office, which she said has distributed $6 billion in emergency response grants since the September 2001 attacks on the United States. According to Mencer, 46 of 56 U.S. states and territories have received fiscal 2004 homeland security grant money totaling more than $1.9 billion; 33 of 50 cities chosen to receive Urban Area Security Initiative Grants have received the funds, for a total of $467 million; and 30 of the busiest U.S. public transportation systems are slated to receive a total of $49 million for security improvements, with 21 having already received the funds for fiscal 2004. Mencer said she expects Ridge “any day now” to announce that the consolidation of her office with a related office is taking effect. Ridge told Congress in January about plans to merge Mencer’s office with the Office for State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. Back to top

U.N. Security Council Approves WMD Resolution By Jim Wurst Global Security Newswire UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council yesterday unanimously approved a resolution designed to close a loophole in international law by requiring states to ensure terrorists and other nonstate actors are denied access to weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, April 23). From comments made by the delegates after the vote, it was clear there were still concerns about the implications of the measure they had just approved, especially worries that the resolution would be applied unevenly among states and that the council was creating arms control law that should be properly done through treaty negotiations. Council members agreed with the premise of the text, that more needs to be done to prevent terrorists and other nonstate actors from acquiring nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, because it is an obvious security concern and existing treaties deal only with relationship among states. However, there were concerns about whether this resolution was the best way to accomplish that. Resolution 1540 requires states to “adopt and enforce appropriate effective laws” to deny weapons of mass destruction, their components and “means of delivery” (such as missiles and drones) to any “nonstate actors.” The United States proposed the resolution. U.S. Deputy Ambassador James Cunningham said, “In this resolution the council is responding appropriately to what all agree is a clear and present threat to global peace and security: the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery, especially to nonstate actors, including terrorists.” The draft was presented to the council in March on behalf of all five permanent members of the council, and was then altered to address some of the concerns of the elected members. Chief among those concerns were that the text ignored the importance of disarmament, that the council was acting as a global legislature and that the enforcement provisions of the resolution would be unevenly applied. German Ambassador Gunter Pleuger voted for the text but with the “regret that no explicit language” was included to deal with disarmament issues, including verification and security assurances for non-nuclear states. Changes in the text make it clear that “the resolution does not foresee any unilateral enforcement measures. If necessary, such measures must be” imposed by the council “as a whole.” Brazilian Ambassador Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg said that while dealing with an urgent threat, it was also important to “safeguard the legitimacy of existing nonproliferation treaties.” He said limiting the resolution to the question of nonproliferation as “the overriding threat was inadequate.” At the same time, disarmament must be pursued in good faith, he added. To address the concern that the emphasis was on nonproliferation at the expense of disarmament, the revisions make more references to the need for disarmament and say the resolution cannot “be interpreted so as to conflict with or alter” obligations in disarmament treaties. “The resolution clearly states that it will not alter or amend the existing nonproliferation treaty regimes,” said Cunningham. Another issue was concern that the council was attempting to act as a global legislature, writing law that should be left to universal bodies such as the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. The council “cannot assume the stewardship of global nonproliferation and disarmament issues,” said Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram. The fear was that the council was assuming powers not given to it by the U.N. Charter and that council enforcement would be discriminatory —because the five permanent members of the council are also nuclear weapon states, they would never be subjected to any council action since they could veto any resolution concerning them. Akram said the final text makes clear that the council is not attempting to legislate for the entire U.N. membership and it does not “seek to prescribe specific legislation, which is left to national action by states.” In addition, the text more clearly defines that the resolution deals only with nonstate actors and has “no intention to oblige states to join treaties.” These points are particularly sensitive to Pakistan since it is a nuclear-armed state but not a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and it was revealed earlier this year that the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, was involved with an illicit network supplying nuclear technology to other governments. Another change was extending the life of the committee that will monitor compliance with the resolution from six months to two years. States were concerned that six months was not enough time for states to comply with demands to enact national legislation on multiple fronts to combat proliferation. British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said the obligations in the resolution would be “applied without favor” to all states. In addition, he said the new committee should serve as “the heart of a collaborative and cooperative approach” to nonproliferation. Back to top       U.S. Lawmakers Call on Bush Administration to Implement Syria Sanctions By Mike Nartker Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Four months after legislation was enacted to create sanctions against Syria for failing to end its suspected WMD activities and support for terrorism, two U.S. lawmakers publicly called on the Bush administration yesterday to implement the penalties (see GSN, March 26). “Here we are, over four months since the president signed the bill, we’re still waiting on the administration to hold Syria accountable. It’s really unacceptable,” U.S. Representative Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) said during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol with Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.). Engel and Ros-Lehtinen were the chief sponsors in the House of Representatives of the Syria Accountability Act, which was signed late last year by President George W. Bush. The law bans U.S. exports of military and dual-use items to Syria and requires the president to impose at least two additional sanctions from a list of six diplomatic and economic measures.  The act also allows the president to waive the penalties if they would interfere with U.S. national security interests.  While the dual-use ban has been in effect since the bill was signed, the Bush administration has yet to decide which of the additional sanctions to implement against Damascus. In the past two months, public statements by senior Bush administration officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as a number of media reports citing unnamed officials, all indicated that the White House was close to making a decision. However, no formal announcement on the sanctions has yet been made. Engel charged that Syria is continuing to seek weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, and still supports various terrorist groups. As an example, he cited media reports that recently captured suspects acquired materials in Syria for a foiled plot to conduct chemical attacks in Jordan (see GSN, April 27). “While Syrian behavior has gotten worse, the law has not been implemented. I don’t understand it,” Engel said. He also stressed that he and other supporters of the sanctions had been “patient” in waiting for the Bush administration to implement the measures included in the law. “We’ve tried to cajole in private and urge implementation in public hearings. But my patience has run out.  The time is long since past for the president to implement this legislation. I demand that the law be implemented now,” Engel said. While also calling for the new sanctions, Ros-Lehtinen said she attributed the delay to the Bush administration’s efforts to craft an even stronger response to Damascus. “We look forward to working with the president to bring justice to our enemy, and I sincerely hope that the reason for the delay has been that the administration wants to go beyond our bill and seek even more punitive measures against Damascus,” she said. The U.S. State Department said yesterday that implementation of the Syria Accountability Act was still being considered. “I think we’ve made clear that the Syrian Accountability Act requires us to take certain actions in the absence of Syrian actions. … We are taking our responsibilities under that legislation seriously and will make an announcement at the appropriate time,” State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said. The Syrian Embassy in Washington did not return calls for comment. Next Steps Engel suggested yesterday that if the White House did not move quickly to impose sanctions, then Congress might have to step in to force the issue. “We will develop new legislation which will implement the law, and this time no discretion will be provided to the White House while sanctions are toughened. I would rather not go that route, but the inaction may leave us with no choice,” he said. In a less challenging tone, Ros-Lehtinen said that she is drafting new legislation, the Syria and Lebanon Liberation Act, which would provide the “next phase of punitive measures” against Syria. According to Ros-Lehtinen, the bill would codify previous sanctions imposed against Syria, call for penalties against individuals and countries providing aid to Damascus and establish an assistance program for human rights and pro-democracy groups working in Syria and Lebanon. The bill would also call for the United States to conduct a set of diplomatic efforts with several international organizations to achieve the legislation’s aims, with a “special emphasis” placed on the U.N. Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency, she said. Some independent experts have said, however, that the United States would be better served by using incentives, instead of “punitive measures,” in its relations with Syria. In a report released last month, Claude Salhani of the CATO Institute in Washington warned that the Syria Accountability Act would do little to encourage Damascus to cooperate with Washington on issues such as counterterrorism, and may instead backfire against U.S. interests. “Alienating Damascus and consigning Syria to the diplomatic doghouse — as the Syria Accountability Act does — will result in Washington having less leverage to apply on Syria and, by extension, less leverage over terrorist groups,” Salhani wrote. Salhani wrote that the economic impact on Syria of the sanctions included in the act would be minor because of the relatively low value of trade Damascus conducts with the United States — less than $275 million worth of exports to the United States in 2002. The act could have, though, a greater negative symbolic impact, he wrote.  “The loss of face for the Syrian government may provoke a hostile response, or may further weaken [Syrian President Bashar] Assad to the benefit of more radical elements of the Baath Party,” Salhani wrote. In his press conference yesterday, however, Representative Engel had little positive to say regarding Assad. “We had hoped that when young Mr. Assad took over, he would change the ways of his father. If you want my opinion, I think it’s gotten worse, because I think his father at least had the strength to make a decision when he wanted to make a decision. I don’t know that Mr. Assad has the strength, and I believe that he’s relying on the most reactionary elements within Damascus and therefore never makes a move against terrorism,” Engel said. Back to top

Expert Challenges U.S. Bunker Buster Recommendations By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — An independent expert today challenged on technical grounds an influential panel’s case for developing of new low-yield U.S. nuclear weapons (see GSN, March 29). A Defense Science Board report titled Future Strategic Strike Forces drew national headlines last month for backing the pursuit of nuclear weapons with yields much smaller than those currently in the U.S. arsenal as a potential way for striking deeply buried and hardened bunkers and destroying chemical and biological agent stores. It concluded that low-yield warheads could be used effectively for those purposes while also minimizing collateral damage. Analysts and foreign governments have criticized such work, begun this fiscal year by the Bush administration with tentative support from Congress. They have said that U.S. research and development of new nuclear weapons capabilities could undermine international nonproliferation norms and disarmament efforts, and encourage nuclear weapons development by other states (see GSN, April 16).  Scientists have further argued that the nuclear blasts of low-yield weapons capable of destroying deep bunkers would most probably produce massive, destructive fallout. At the heart of the matter is the science of whether a nuclear weapon powerful enough to destroy an underground bunker can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain its explosion A peer-reviewed article by Brookings Institution scholar Michael Levi, appearing today in the journal Nature, challenges the Defense Department board’s analyses on technical grounds. “Policy-makers should be wary of [the board’s] recommendations … as the claims are flimsier than they first appear,” Levi wrote in his article, “Dreaming of Clean Nukes.” The article challenges the report’s assumptions of about the depths needed to contain nuclear explosions of a range of yields. Those assumptions were based on results from U.S. testing in Nevada for which the ground above “was carefully sealed to prevent fallout,” it says. “In contrast, an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon would leave a large hole behind it, making containment difficult or impossible,” the article states. Levi also charged that the board was not explicit about the geologic conditions under which its claims of containment would apply — which is important considering that rock with low water content such as that at the Nevada test site would contain fallout better than rock with higher water content. “For explosions in more hydrous rocks the weapon would have to be buried deeper to contain the fallout,” he wrote. He said the board appeared to use the Nevada conditions for its calculations without saying so. Levi also challenged the standard for success the Defense Science Board assigned for nuclear earth penetrators, arguing it was less stringent than that used for conventional warhead penetrators. “The DSB requires that the explosion disable, not destroy, the contents of a ‘hardened’ underground facility,” by delivering a 500 bars shock pressure, Levi’s article says. “But this might not harm enemy leaders or stored weapons stockpiles. There is a contradiction here.  The study claims that the inability of conventional weapons to deliver destruction is the main reason for needing nuclear arms,” it says.  Levi’s analysis found that to achieve destruction, rather than disablement, at the depths cited in the board’s report, “the bomb’s power would have to increase five- to 15-fold, making containment impossible.” Levi also questioned the board’s assumptions for nuclear weapons penetration depths, noting that the board used an assumption based on penetration into limestone, rather than harder granite. Furthermore, the board did not address the fallout implications of dropping a nuclear penetrator after a series of conventional bombs to achieve a greater depth for a more effective blast, nor the consideration that that approach could be a way to achieve a deeper, more effective blast using only conventional weapons, he wrote. “Indeed, in its zeal to concoct penetration strategies that might contain kiloton-size bombs, the study strengthens the case for using conventional weapons instead,” according to Levi. “The new proposals promise more effective weapons with reduced fallout. But the DSB overstates the extent to which that is possible, and gives the comparative potential of conventional weapons short shrift,” he wrote. Back to top       U.S. Denies Reassessing North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons; Six-Nation Working Group Set for May 12 The United States said has not revised its official estimate on the number of nuclear weapons North Korea may have in its arsenal, a U.S. spokesman said yesterday, responding to reports that the U.S. officials now believe North Korea might have up to eight nuclear weapons (see GSN, April 28). “We have not come to any definitive conclusions (on North Korea’s nuclear arms program), and therefore, I think reports about what they may or may not have at this point are speculative,” said Adam Ereli, deputy spokesman for the State Department (Yonhap, April 29). Meanwhile, North Korea has agreed to attend a working group meeting in Beijing on May 12, at which a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Pyongyang wants to discuss receiving compensation for halting its nuclear work, according to Agence France-Presse. “The D.P.R.K. side will attend this meeting to discuss the proposal ‘reward for freeze’ under any circumstances,” the spokesman said. The spokesman added that the U.S. demand for “complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantling” (CVID) of all of North Korea’s nuclear programs could stand in the way of an agreement. “The U.S. seems to stick to its stand to demand Pyongyang’s CVID of its nuclear program,” he said. “But that will only throw a higher hurdle in the way to the talks,” he added. Earlier in the day, China and South Korea confirmed the intended meeting of lower-level officials on May 12 (Agence France-Presse/Channel NewsAsia, April 29). South Korean Vice Foreign Minister Lee Soo-hyuck said today that no topics have been scheduled for the May 12 meeting, which is expected to last about five days and likely to be the only working group meeting ahead of the next full round of six-country talks, Reuters reported. “As far as I know if North Korea wanted to have talks just once then there will be talks only once,” Lee said (Reuters, May 12). Back to top       International Inspectors Cannot Confirm U.S. Allegations of Iranian Weapons Program, ElBaradei Says International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has said his inspectors have not confirmed U.S. allegations that Iran is developing a covert nuclear weapons program, Asia Africa Intelligence Wire reported today (see GSN, April 28). “The problem concerning Iran is that the United States has concluded, after conducting their investigations, that Iran possesses a military nuclear program. However, the agency did not find any specific proof that the program is designed for nonpeaceful purposes and we cannot rely on mere speculation in a case like this,” said ElBaradei. “We can only base our conclusions on the agency’s specific mechanisms for monitoring, inspection and investigation,” he added (Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, April 29). Meanwhile, an exiled Iranian opposition group claimed yesterday that Tehran is running a covert military nuclear program parallel to the energy program it has disclosed to international inspectors, the Associated Press reported. “The clerical regime has no intention of giving up their secret nuclear program and is only trying to buy time with deception and political maneuvering in order to obtain the nuclear weapon,” said Mohammad Mohaddessin, chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran. Mohaddessin added that his organization has provided ElBaradei’s agency with a list of military sites in Tehran and elsewhere in the country where nuclear weapons research is ongoing. He also quoted documents that he claimed detailed meetings of senior Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, indicating the leadership’s determination that “the regime should act as expeditiously as possible to obtain nuclear weapons … if some risks and tensions are accepted, Iran would be able to finalize the project between one to two years” (Associated Press, April 28). Pirooz Hosseini, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations in Vienna said yesterday that Iran has no further disclosures to make as a mid-May deadline approaches for presenting a full declaration of its nuclear programs to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Reuters reported. “We have told the IAEA that we are committed to our commitments,” Hosseini said. “We will hand in the declaration as agreed.… We are doing our utmost to cooperate with the IAEA,” he added (Louis Charbonneau, Reuters, April 28). Back to top

Experts Call for Better Security in the Life Sciences Nongovernmental experts today announced plans to establish a council that would advise governments on policies related to the life sciences, in light of fears that such work could be used by terrorists, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, March 5). Security features for the life sciences lag behind those for nuclear and chemical research, said Michael Moodie, president of the Washington-based Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute, and Terence Taylor, president of the U.S. office of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Hoping to advance ethical thinking in their field, the two plan in 2005 to establish a body to be called the International Council for the Life Sciences. “What we’re trying to do is raise that awareness, strengthen that sense of responsibility, that culture of responsibility so that together we can help keep these risks at a manageable level,” Moodie said in Singapore, where he and Taylor were attending an international biosafety conference. Moodie and Taylor said the organization would establish a global life sciences code of conduct for governments and related industries, such as pharmaceutical companies, research institutes and nongovernmental organizations, adherence to which would be a prerequisite if they wanted to join the new body. The council would also organize annual seminars on industry issues and help governments develop policies related to the life sciences (Agence France-Presse, April 29). Back to top       U.S. Researchers Begin Tests of New Anthrax Vaccine U.S. researchers have begun a nationwide study to evaluate a new, experimental anthrax vaccine, the University of Rochester Medical Center announced yesterday (see GSN, April 28). Researchers hope to enroll a total of 480 people at 11 sites by the end of next month to take part in the study, funded by the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Participants would be administered a new anthrax vaccine being developed by the U.S. company VaxGen that requires fewer injections than the current vaccine. The study also seeks to determine whether the new vaccine results in fewer side effects because it is based on technology that results in a more purified product (University of Rochester Medical Center release, April 28). Back to top       Critics Say U.S. Research Could Spark Biological Arms Race Arms control advocates argued yesterday that plans for a Homeland Security Department research laboratory at Fort Detrick would violate the Biological Weapons Convention and could spark a biological arms race, the Baltimore Sun reported (see GSN, June 25, 2003). Work at the $200 million National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center is planned to include studies of genetically engineered germs and dispersal methods, the Sun reported. “If any other country presented this list of tasks, the U.S. intelligence community would say it’s an offensive program,” said Milton Leitenberg, a University of Maryland scholar. Homeland Security spokeswoman Michelle Petrovich said the center would study bioforensics — tracking a bioweapon to its source — and would build a comprehensive database of potential biological weapons threats (see GSN, April 28). “The mission is actually to identify threats so we can defend against them and protect the American people,” Petrovich said. She said all the research proposed for the center would be strictly defensive in purpose (Scott Shane, Baltimore Sun, April 29). Back to top

Italy Acquits Moroccans in U.S. Embassy Poison Plot An Italian court yesterday acquitted nine Moroccans arrested in February 2002 after police found a chemical compound, false documents and a map detailing the perimeter of the U.S. Embassy in Rome in their apartment, Reuters reported (see GSN, Feb. 25, 2002). The men were accused of plotting to poison the embassy’s water supply, but they denied any such activity, explaining that many people had access to their apartment where the evidence was found. The acquittals represent a serious blow for Italy’s antiterrorism prosecutors, who said they plan to appeal the verdict, according to Reuters (Crispian Balmer, Reuters/Boston Globe, April 29). Back to top

U.S. Might Intercept Target From Space in 2006 By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — More than two decades after President Ronald Reagan set a goal of developing a space-based missile defense, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency is planning for an early 2006 test that could produce the first intercept of a target using a kill vehicle launched from space, according to Defense Department officials (see GSN, April 15). Critics said the test would set an unwanted precedent for using space-based weapons. The officials, conversing by e-mail, said the objective of the test would not be an interception, but instead would be to gather sensor data from the normally sea-launched kill vehicle. They said the interceptor would not be capable of “weapon-like” movement and seemed to suggest an interception would be an accidental byproduct that results from aiming the target at the interceptor. “The ability of the target to accurately fly a preprogrammed trajectory will determine how close the KV [kill vehicle] can get to the target. There is a significant chance the KV will impact the target, but that is not our objective,” they said. Some independent analysts said the Near Field Infrared Experiment (NFIRE) test would set a precedent for basing a weapon in space, a controversial idea among U.S. arms control advocates and internationally. “You will have just busted the taboo against shooters in space,” said Center for Defense Information Vice President Theresa Hitchens. Hitchens also expressed concerned that officials might cite the highly controlled test as proof that a space-based missile defense system — under consideration by the Bush administration — has a potential to work.  “It could potentially be touted as a proof-of-concept for space-based interceptors,” she said. Collecting Data The Bush administration has requested $68 million for the experiment for fiscal 2005. The NFIRE spacecraft is under construction and is planned for launch in late 2005.  The officials said the “primary objective” of the test — the second of two planned using the single NFIRE spacecraft — would be to collect sensor-gathered data to improve algorithms used by the kill vehicle to move toward a target. The craft would contain two major components: a tracking sensor and a releasable kill vehicle designed for sea-launched space interception that contains its own sensor. The kill vehicle would be launched from the spacecraft only during the second test to move toward the path of the target. The collected data are intended to help the Missile Defense Agency improve the kill vehicle’s algorithms for interpreting the infrared appearance of the boosting missile’s exhaust plume, according to the officials and the budget document.  The data also would be used to improve algorithms for the interceptor’s navigation, guidance and control and very close “end-game homing” algorithms for striking enemy warheads, the budget document says. Philip Coyle, a former defense official also with the Center for Defense Information, said those test objectives appear legitimate, and that such data would be important for improving the effectiveness of the system. “In order to be successful, they have to get this kind of information, otherwise they don’t know what they’re looking for” when attempting to intercept a target, he said. Other Means Available However, both he and Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist Theodore Postol said such information could be gathered by other, less controversial means. “That’s what they did with IFT-1a and -2, where they launched a set of sensors up into the air,” Coyle said, referring to early tests of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, which the Pentagon plans to begin fielding this year. “A sounding rocket launched from the same location as the rocket being observed could easily do a better job of providing data,” and for much less money, Postol said. The availability of lower-cost alternatives, he said, suggests that NFIRE is intended to politically boost the space-based defense concept. “You could do it better and a lot cheaper. … Quite frankly, it looks like an experiment designed to waste money and for giving them a precedent to put weapons in space,” he said. In apparent disagreement with Hitchens and Postol, Coyle said that he would not oppose the test if senior defense or administration officials gave public assurances it was not intended to help further space-based missile defense. “I think this is a legitimate test objective. I think the question is, where are they going with this?” he said. “If the commander-in-chief [President George W. Bush] is trying to put weapons in space, that’s crossing a line that’s never been crossed before, which raises important arms control issues,” Coyle said. “If the Pentagon will say, that’s not our purpose. We’re not doing it for that reason, we’re doing it to get better data for missile defense … that would clear the air I think with a lot of arms control advocates,” he said. KV Maneuverability Constrained The Pentagon officials, who asked to remain anonymous, appeared to argue that the planned test would only be intended to gather information. They said that because of a technological limitation — the absence of a rocket motor for forward movement — the NFIRE kill vehicle would not act as a true weapon. “Without an axial stage, the KV’s maneuvering capability is highly constrained and not weapon-like,” they said. In addition, because of that limited maneuverability, they said, the agency has created “a very scripted scenario to gather this data” that involves launching the target missile near the NFIRE satellite. “We will maneuver the satellite out of its parking orbit down to the intercept altitude several hours before the launch of the target. After we know precisely where the spacecraft will be in time and space, we will launch a target almost directly at the NFIRE satellite. As the target approaches, the satellite will deploy the KV. The KV sensor will acquire the target and maneuver laterally toward the rising target,” they said. Coyle argued that the fact the kill vehicle will have “divert” rockets for lateral movement, and will target the interceptor, makes it effectively a weapon. “The bigger issue is whether it has divert rockets to be able to achieve an intercept. Whether or not it has an axial rocket is certainly a factor but if they divert in order to come close on a fly-by they’re demonstrating an attack capability in space,” he said. Purpose Questioned NFIRE critics appear to agree the kill vehicle is effectively a weapon and that the test would set a precedent for “weaponizing” space. Space weaponization is widely opposed internationally, including by countries the United States is pursuing as missile defense partners such as Canada (see related GSN story, today). “I see it as a first space-based test of a space weapon,” Hitchens said, adding that future space-based kill vehicles deployed for missile defense would offer a simultaneous capability for offensive antisatellite warfare. The Bush administration is separately planning future tests of the feasibility of developing space-based missile defenses and is funding that space-based program this fiscal year. That plan involves early development of a new kill vehicle this fiscal year, followed by years of “risk reduction” efforts including components testing, and eventually in-orbit testing beginning in 2010 or 2011.  The defense officials, though, disputed that the NFIRE tests specifically would weaponize space. “We do not view this experiment as weaponizing space. Also, several years of ground-based risk reduction efforts will be necessary before we will consider launching even a small experimental space-based interceptor satellite constellation,” they said. Back to top       Ballistic Missile Defense “Obsession” Harms U.S. Defense Against Cruise Missiles and UAVs, Expert Says By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — An “obsession” with ballistic missile defense is partially responsible for insufficient U.S. attention and funding for defense against cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, an analyst said here yesterday (see GSN, March 16). Less-expensive cruise missiles and unmanned vehicles pose an increasing threat to the U.S. military and civilians, one that has not been sufficiently addressed by the military, Dennis Gormley, a cruise missile authority and senior fellow at the Monterey Institute’s Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Washington, said at Georgetown University. More than 75,000 cruise missiles, including prevalent antiship missiles, are in the world’s arsenals today, he said. Unmanned aerial vehicles, meanwhile, can be purchased, or developed by converting light manned aircraft, and configured by countries for delivering chemical or biological agents. Because they move slower than ballistic missiles, such aircraft could be more effective at disseminating an agent across an area, he said. International export agreements contain loopholes allowing state-to-state transfers of far-flying systems capable of delivering significant payloads, although they are supposed to be restricted, Gormley said. Of particular concern, he said, is the growing number of companies selling complete kits for converting light manned aircraft into a GPS-guided unmanned systems — “variable autonomy flight management systems” that he said are not restricted by the Missile Technology Control Regime, an informal set of export control guidelines. His comments echoed the conclusions of a report by Congress’s General Accounting Office in February, which called for increased efforts to control the spread of such technologies (see GSN, Feb. 26). Insufficient Response Gormley said the military has not responded to the threat in a coordinated, sufficiently aggressive way in part because the different armed services operate independent programs for cruise missile defenses, unlike the Missile Defense Agency, which runs nearly all ballistic missile defense programs. “Each service has different solutions to the problem” and their air-defense systems “are not integrated,” he said. Gormley said slower- and lower-flying cruise missiles and UAVs pose a particular challenge to U.S. missile defense systems because U.S. ground-based radars are programmed to disregard slower moving objects and generally do not scan below 6,000 feet. There is “virtually no detection capability below 3,000 feet over the U.S. homeland,” he said. The Iraq war serves as “a kind of serendipitous warning event,” he said, citing instances in which U.S. Patriot radar systems engaged Iraq cruise missiles but failed to down them. Gormley did not argue that ballistic missile defenses are not needed. He said that the combined threat of such missiles with cruise missile and unmanned aerial vehicle attacks could challenge U.S. air defenses in future conflicts. “I worry about the next state actor mixing in low-flying threats with ballistic missiles,” he said. He faulted an “excessively singular focus on the ballistic missile threat,” and estimated that hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year by various armed services on cruise missile defense versus roughly $10 billion annually spent on ballistic missile defense. With the Bush administration directing so much money for ballistic missile defense, “there may not be room” for more cruise missile defense spending, Gormley said. Back to top       Canada to Participate in Early Warning Radar System Canada has agreed to participate in an early warning radar system for North America that will be incorporated into U.S. missile defense efforts, the Toronto Globe and Mail reported today (see GSN, March 18). Canada’s participation would result in the early warning radar being operated by the jointly operated North American Aerospace Defense Command, instead of having solely a U.S. military command, according to the Globe and Mail. Canada’s decision to participate was relayed in the past two weeks to the Bush administration, which had been pressuring Ottawa for a decision, according to sources. While Canada’s decision does not commit it to full participation in the U.S. missile defense system, sources indicated yesterday that Ottawa plans to join the effort, the Globe and Mail reported. Any Canadian role, however, would probably not go beyond military decision-making at NORAD, according to the Globe and Mail (Drew Fagen, Globe and Mail, April 29). Back to top       Boeing Receives Contract to Build Components for U.S.-Israeli Arrow Missile Interceptor U.S. defense contractor Boeing announced yesterday that it received a $78 million contract by Israel Aircraft Industries to produce components for the Arrow 2 missile interceptor being developed by Israel and the United States, according to the Jerusalem Post (see GSN, April 27). The contract is set to run through 2006, with options for additional production through 2008, according to the Post. If all options are exercised, the total value of the contract could total more than $225 million, Boeing executives said (Tal Muscal, Jerusalem Post, April 29).   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.