At a hearing yesterday, U.S. Representative Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) questioned Bush administration efforts to address the North Korean nuclear crisis (Getty Images/Alex Wong). U.S. Lawmakers Question North Korea Talks Statement By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Democrats at a House committee hearing yesterday were generally supportive and Republicans derisively skeptical about the Bush administration’s efforts to address North Korea’s nuclear weapons capabilities (see GSN, Oct. 6). The House International Relations Committee hearing was titled, “The Six-Party Talks and the North Korean Nuclear Issue: Old Wine in New Bottles?” summarizing a prime Republican critique of a set of principles agreed to last month in Beijing by North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States...Full Story

Former U.N. Disarmament Chairman Asks U.S. Congress to Scuttle India Nuclear “End Run” By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S.-Indian nuclear technology-sharing plan announced in July violates the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty’s provisions against transferring nuclear technology to non-NPT members, a veteran disarmament diplomat from Canada said here yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 30)...Full Story

White House May Reconsider Missile Defense Approach By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — After spending years and billions of dollars to develop and deploy ground-based missile interceptors, the Bush administration appears to be reconsidering its leading approach to defending the U.S. homeland against enemy ICBMs, a key congressional committee said last week (see GSN, Oct. 4)...Full Story

	Friday, October 7, 2005

Bush Claims 10 Al-Qaeda Attacks Foiled The White House said yesterday that the United States and its allies have stopped 10 al-Qaeda terrorist attacks in the years since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, Sept. 22). The Library Tower in Los Angeles, ships in international waters and foreign tourist spot were all targeted.   Three of the plots targeted sites within the United States. Five al-Qaeda attempts to survey targets and place operatives in the country were also stopped, according to the White House.  This is the first time the Bush administration has publicly compiled a list of foiled attacks. However, it provided little detail beyond the location and general date of each plot, raising questions about the seriousness of the threats and the government’s role in stopping them, according to the Post. “While the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil but not insane,” President George W. Bush said. He said the foiled attacks mean “the enemy is wounded but the enemy is still capable of global operations.” Of the plots targeting U.S. soil, one was the alleged effort by Jose Padilla to detonate a radiological “dirty bomb” in the country (see GSN, Sept. 12). The other two involved plans to hijack and crash plans on the West Coast in 2002 and the East Coast in 2003, the Post reported. A source said that the West Coast hijacking targeted the Library Tower — now called the U.S. Bank Tower — and involved Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohamed and Malaysian militants. The foreign plots included using hijacked plans against London’s Heathrow Airport, attacks on ships in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz, attacks on Westerners in Pakistan and a multitarget bomb strike in the United Kingdom. The “casings and infiltrations” included the capture of Iyman Faris, who was accused of plotting to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. Another apparently involved Majid Khan, who was sent to the United States to scout gas stations.  In his speech yesterday, Bush denied that “extremism” has been “strengthened” by the war in Iraq. A former White House counterterrorism official disagreed. “To say Iraq has not contributed to the rise of global Sunni extremism movement is delusional,” said Roger Cressey. “We should have an honest discussion about what these unintended consequences of the Iraq war are and what do we do to counter them” (Baker/Glasser, Washington Post, Oct. 7). Back to top

U.S. Lawmakers Question North Korea Talks Statement By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Democrats at a House committee hearing yesterday were generally supportive and Republicans derisively skeptical about the Bush administration’s efforts to address North Korea’s nuclear weapons capabilities (see GSN, Oct. 6). The House International Relations Committee hearing was titled, “The Six-Party Talks and the North Korean Nuclear Issue: Old Wine in New Bottles?” summarizing a prime Republican critique of a set of principles agreed to last month in Beijing by North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States. Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) suggested that the much-reported statement released by the six nations on Sept. 19 resembles the 1994 Agreed Framework, in which the Clinton administration agreed to help provide nuclear reactors to North Korea in exchange for a freeze on all other nuclear activities. “Such developments lead us to wonder if, in a roundabout way, we are not turning back toward a Son of Agreed Framework and spinning our wheels in the process?” he said, addressing the top U.S. negotiator, Assistant Secretary Of State For East Asian and Pacific Affairs Christopher Hill. The now-defunct Agreed Framework called for replacing North Korea’s two graphite-moderated reactors with light-water reactors that posed a reduced proliferation risk and for securing Pyongyang’s spent nuclear fuel. Some conservatives have criticized the deal because North Korea is believed to have violated it by secretly pursuing a uranium enrichment program for weapons. Its advocates have argued the agreement was better than any alternative and that at least it secured North Korean plutonium stores for nearly a decade. Hyde also faulted the page-long statement of principles approved last month for failing to address an alleged North Korean uranium enrichment program and for failing to restate the Bush administration’s formula that “comprehensive, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement” of all nuclear weapons and weapons infrastructure would be required of Pyongyang. “One cannot examine the results of the latest round of negotiations in Beijing, without coming away with a sense, as Yogi Berra once famously put it, of ‘deja vu all over again,’” he said. Representative Ted Poe (R-Texas) said North Korea appeared to be stringing the United States along by faking interest in disarmament. “It seems to me that negotiations with North Korea haven’t moved beyond where they were over 10 years ago, and yet, we’ve continued the facade and continued to cajole this totalitarian dictatorship. I personally don’t understand why we deal with outlaw, rogue nations in this unrealistic manner.” Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) said the six-party statement “failed to address core issues about timing [of disarmament], about the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the scope of the safeguards inspection process.” Ranking committee Democrat Tom Lantos (Calif.), on the other hand, called the statement “a major step towards peace” on the Korean Peninsula.   He said negotiations with North Korea require “increased flexibility” and that “nothing could be accomplished between our countries unless they agreed to the basic statements of principles to govern the six-party talks.” Lantos said, though, that North Korea’s post-talks statements that it would require a light-water reactor before fully disarming “raises legitimate questions about the durability of the Beijing agreement” (see related GSN story, today). “Now that a statement of principles has been set, the hard work of negotiating a comprehensive, verifiable six-party deal lies ahead,” he said. Representative James Leach (R-Iowa) called Hill’s approach of beginning the current round of negotiations with a statement of principles “promising, perhaps visionary,” but said neither overall failure nor victory is assured. Agreement in Principle Hill told the committee the administration’s demand for complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement was what was meant by the statement’s requirement for “denuclearlization.” He said the next round of talks, scheduled for November in Beijing, would be aimed at working out the details of the deal, “including the timing of the D.P.R.K.’s denuclearization,” and “to be sure, will involve some very, very tough negotiations.” Hill stressed that the statement called for, and United States had only agreed to, “discussions” of North Korea receiving a light-water reactor. He said such discussions could come only after Pyongyang had completely disarmed and come into full compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, had “demonstrated a sustained commitment to cooperation and to transparency, and had ceased proliferating nuclear technology.” Terms of providing economic cooperation, non-nuclear energy assistance, and normalization of relations with North Korea have yet to be negotiated, Hill said. He stressed the statement represented only an “agreement in principle” and that it is only really “the beginning of the process.” Hyde warned that Congress would be reluctant to provide significant assistance to North Korea as part of any agreement, in light of “overwhelming national concern for homeless fellow citizens along the Gulf Coast” following Hurricane Katrina. “The green eyeshades of congressional accountants will go over any final agreement that involves the commitment of U.S. tax dollars with a fine-tooth comb,” he said. Lantos, who himself has been to North Korea, urged Hill to meet with North Korean officials there as a way of encouraging trust and dialogue. Hill agreed on a need to “keep the momentum of this process going” but said, “I do not have travel plans to D.P.R.K. or to any other country at this point.” Back to top       Former U.N. Disarmament Chairman Asks U.S. Congress to Scuttle India Nuclear “End Run” By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S.-Indian nuclear technology-sharing plan announced in July violates the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty’s provisions against transferring nuclear technology to non-NPT members, a veteran disarmament diplomat from Canada said here yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 30). Following U.S. President George W. Bush’s appeal last month to Congress to make law allowing for nuclear transfers to India (see GSN, Sept. 20), former U.N. Disarmament Committee Chairman Douglas Roche said U.S. legislators should instead ensure the deal is “stopped in some way.” “What you’re doing is conferring a status on them that they do not deserve,” said Roche, a former ambassador for disarmament and lawmaker who is now chairman of the Middle Powers Initiative, an umbrella association of groups seeking to eliminate nuclear weapons. “They have literally thumbed their nose at the Nonproliferation Treaty,” Roche said during a Capitol Hill meeting organized by U.S. Representative John Spratt (D-S.C.). “The United States is doing an end run around the Nonproliferation Treaty.” Roche also criticized his own country’s decision to follow the U.S. lead in sharing nuclear technology with India (see GSN, Sept. 29), a decision he blamed on U.S. pressure and on Canada’s wariness about defying its powerful southern neighbor too often. The United Kingdom has also indicated an interest in loosening its past nuclear export restrictions to India (see related GSN story, today). Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin “spent a lot of political capital” in rejecting involvement in the U.S. missile defense program early this year and in refusing to join the invasion of Iraq, Roche said. When the time came in recent months to decide whether to pursue a nuclear deal with India, he said, “The Canadian government … came to the decision that they owed the United States one.” Global Security Institute President Jonathan Granoff said at the meeting that the India deal “changes the paradigm” long defined by the NPT bargain, in which countries are assured of peaceful nuclear technology only if they renounce nuclear weapons. Granoff said the deal sends a message to countries that there may be no point to following the NPT framework. “India has openly said, ‘We want nuclear weapons, and we want nuclear technology without constraint,’” Granoff said. Since the country is on a U.S. “good-guy list” but is not an NPT signatory, he said, “You get the benefit of the bargain without giving anything up.” Roche Says Disarmament Neglect Doomed Treaty Review Roche said U.S. failure to respect the treaty’s disarmament commitments was the key reason for the failure of this year’s treaty review conference (see GSN, May 31). “One cannot lay the blame for the failure of the conference directly on the doorstep of the United States,” Roche said, but “it was clear that the undermining of the integrity of Article 6 of the treaty by the United States … in a very formal manner resulted in a deadlock of the review conference.” Article 6 calls on treaty members to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” At the 1995 and 2000 reviews, Roche said, the United States was a positive force, notably championing the “13 practical steps” to disarmament agreed to in 2000. The steps included support for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, since rejected by Washington; a moratorium on nuclear explosion tests; and a fissile material production ban. In a reversal of course, Roche said, the United States this year insisted on keeping any reference to the results of the two previous meetings out of the review conference agenda, and “the preparation meetings ended in complete disarray.” He criticized Washington for working to sink a set of European Union proposals at the review that in part recalled the 13 steps of 2000, and for what he called its intention to scuttle a Canadian-supported U.N. proposal planned for this year calling for the creation of new disarmament committees in the General Assembly as a way of circumventing a multiyear deadlock at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. “If the United States government is not going to move forward on progressive steps,” Roche asked, “could you at least stop obstructing those who want to move forward?” Roche called on the United States to again become a “role model” in nuclear matters, expressing hope that a better-informed U.S. public could help bring about such a change. “There ought to be in this country a public debate about where the American people want to go,” Roche said. “Do the people of the United States understand that their government is spending $112 million a day on nuclear weapons?” Back to top       North Korea Demands Energy Reactor as Precondition to Resuming International Inspections North Korea said yesterday it would not rejoin the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or readmit International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors until the United States provides it with a light-water nuclear reactor for generating electricity, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Oct. 6). “In order to recover relations of trust between North Korea and the U.S., the U.S. should show its intent to turn words into actions,” said Kim Yong Guk, section chief of the European department of North Korea’s Foreign Ministry. “The physical foundation of consolidating trust between our nations is a light-water reactor,” Kim said (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Oct. 6). The United States, meanwhile, is worried that South Korea’s planned assistance to Pyongyang could undermine the six-nation nuclear negotiations, the Yonhap News Agency reported today. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the top U.S. envoy to the talks, expressed concerns about Seoul’s planned massive aid to Pyongyang, a source said. “[Hill] thought some of the remarks to the Korean press after the negotiations about the willingness of the South Korean government to provide massive assistance undermined the negotiation posture of the five countries, vis-a-vis North Korea,” the source said. Seoul has not announced any formal plans for assistance, but officials have mentioned food and fuel shipments, according to Yonhap (Yonhap, Oct. 7). Back to top       ElBaradei, IAEA Share 2005 Nobel Peace Prize The Norwegian Nobel Committee today announced that its 2005 Peace Prize would be awarded to the International Atomic Energy Agency and its director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, Oct. 6, 2004). The committee called ElBaradei “an unafraid advocate” for nuclear nonproliferation “at a time when the threat of nuclear arms is again increasing.” It cited both ElBaradei and his agency “for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way.” In recent years the agency, which monitors nuclear materials around the world that could be diverted to illegal weapons manufacture, has been instrumental in investigating four major international crises: Iran, Iraq, North Korea and the nuclear black market created by former Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Post reported (Barbash/Linzer, Washington Post, Oct. 7). ElBaradei said he was surprised by the win and only learned of being chosen while watching today’s televised ceremony, Reuters reported. “The award sends a very strong message: ‘Keep doing what you are doing — be impartial, act with integrity,’ and that is what we intend to do,” he said. “The fact that there is overwhelming public support for our work definitely will help to resolve some of the major outstanding issues we are facing today, including North Korea, including Iran and nuclear disarmament,” he said (Reuters/Yahoo!News, Oct. 7). The Bush administration, which has clashed with the U.N. nuclear watchdog on Iraq and Iran and had opposed ElBaradei’s election to a third term, offered its congratulations. ElBaradei is worthy of the honor, said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton ducked questions on whether the award could be seen as a comment on the U.S. stand on nuclear matters, according to the Associated Press. “I’ll stick with the secretary’s statement,” Bolton said (Barry Schweid, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Oct. 7). Some environmental activists today criticized the committee’s choice, saying the agency had in fact spurred proliferation by encourage the spread of nuclear energy programs, Agence France-Presse reported. “The IAEA is hoodwinking the public by claiming that its inspections are preventing access to nuclear weapons by countries that have signed the (Nuclear) Nonproliferation Treaty,” the French group Sortir du Nucleaire said in a press statement. “India, Pakistan and Israel have joined the five ‘great powers’ [the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China and France] in having an unjustifiable right to possessing nuclear weapons and in not meeting their pledges on nuclear disarmament,” the group said. “Recent developments (Iran, North Korea, etc.) have confirmed the IAEA’s patent failure,” it said. Greenpeace International praised ElBaradei as “a voice of sanity” for supporting a nuclear-free Middle East. However, spokesman Mike Townsley added that ElBaradei was trapped by the agency’s “contradictory role, as nuclear policeman and nuclear salesman” (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Oct. 7). Back to top       U.K. Agrees to Share Nuclear Technology with India The United Kingdom plans to provide civilian nuclear assistance to India, British Defense Secretary John Reid said yesterday, citing New Delhi’s eased tensions with Pakistan and its “responsible” role in world affairs (see GSN, Sept. 29). After meeting Wednesday with Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee in New Delhi, Reid was quoted by The Hindu newspaper as saying “India has proved a responsible power in the world.” Reid said the British decision was not a reaction to India’s planned nuclear deal with the United States. “We had been thinking about this for a considerable period of time,” he said. “It is true that we have shifted our position. We have done it because the circumstances have changed” (Associated Press/India Daily, Oct. 6). Meanwhile, France yesterday agreed to sell India six Franco-Spanish Scorpene submarines for $3 billion, Agence France-Presse reported. The submarines are to be built in Indian city of Mumbai as part of a technology transfer pact, according to AFP. “The first submarine will be ready for induction … within seven years of signing of the contract. The remaining five will be delivered at intervals of one year each thereafter,” the Indian Defense Ministry said in a statement. India also entered into an agreement with the European MBDA weapons firm for submarine armaments. Indian government sources said the submarines would be armed with nuclear-capable Exocet missiles (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Oct. 6). Back to top       Blair Links Iraq Bombings, Iran Nuclear Program British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned yesterday that pressure on Iran over its nuclear program would not let up in order to address Tehran’s suspected involvement in attacks on British soldiers in Iraq, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Oct. 6). “There is no justification for Iran or any other country interfering in Iraq,” Blair said. “Neither will we be subject to any intimidation in raising the necessary and live issues to do with the nuclear weapons obligations of Iran under the Atomic Energy Agency treaty.” Blair said it remained unclear whether Iran itself or the militant group Hezbollah, which is sponsored by Tehran, had provided explosives used in the Iraq bombings (MacAskill/Whitaker, The Guardian/Pravda, Oct. 7). The Bush administration, meanwhile, said yesterday it has no plans to renew diplomatic contact with Iran, despite a briefing paper circulated within the State Department suggesting direct contact with Tehran as a strategy to revive its nuclear negotiations with the European Union, the Associated Press reported. “Secretary of State (Condoleezza) Rice is not contemplating any such change in U.S. policy,” said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. “If anything, over the past weeks and months, you have seen an ever tougher-minded U.S. policy as well as a tougher-minded policy from the international community,” McCormack said (Barry Schweid, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Oct. 6). Elsewhere, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said yesterday that Moscow would not become involved in the stalled Iran-EU talks, AP reported. “As for relations between the European trio [France, Germany and the United Kingdom] and Russia, we are not expecting any change in these relations. There is no need for that,” Lavrov said. “From the very beginning of the trio’s work in its talks with Iran, Russia has closely interacted in this process and this cooperation is continuing now,” he said. “We are ready to make our contribution to this process, working in parallel, to achieve a result that is in everyone’s interest” (Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Oct. 6). Back to top       U.S. Lawmaker Questions Nuclear Test Site Security A key U.S. lawmaker raised concerns earlier this week about security at the Nevada Test Site, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Feb. 4). In a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, U.S. Representative Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), who chairs the House Government Reform National Security Subcommittee, said “continued and deep-seated security problems” were threatening National Nuclear Security Administration facilities. The Energy Department is evaluating whether to renew a contract with Wackenhut Services Inc. to provide security at the site. Wackenhut’s current contract is up at the end of the year, according to AP. Security at the site is “among the best in the world and among the best in government,” Wackenhut chief executive Jim Long said yesterday. Long said he believed that the Energy Department would renew the contract. Shays in his letter noted a May report by Navy Adm. Richard Mies that cited Wackenhut’s security problems as including a lack of accountability, a bias against training, a lack of a team approach and a lack of trust in the company. The report did not specifically mention security problems at the Nevada Test Site. However, Shays said in the letter that the report suggested reforms “should not be encumbered by lengthy contracts with companies that are not performing as needed.” Wackenhut has provided security services at the Nevada site, which hosted above- and below-ground nuclear explosions from 1951 to 1992, since 1965. In recent years the site has been used for underground experiments on nuclear weapons, hazardous materials training and Homeland Security Department exercises, according to AP (Associated Press/San Diego Union-Tribune, Oct. 6). Back to top

Kentucky Approves Air-Quality Permit for Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant Kentucky issued an air-quality permit Wednesday for the planned Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant Project (see GSN, Oct. 4). The permit allows for the construction, testing and operation of a facility to destroy weapons containing nerve and blister agents, according to a Blue Grass press statement. The Environmental Protection Agency has 45 days to review the permit and comment. These comments will be incorporated into a final permit, the release said (Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant release, Oct. 6). Meanwhile, weapons destruction at the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility in Utah, stopped since June, might not resume until fall 2006, the Anniston (Ala.) Star reported. The facility has already destroyed 89 percent of its weapons, and is making the transition from processing nerve agent to blister agent. It is the only site among  U.S. chemical weapons destruction facilities that is not currently operating, according to the Star. Workers since June have been decontaminating the facility, according to Tooele spokeswoman Alaine Southworth. Extra time is needed to switch nerve agent processing equipment and safety procedures to procedures and equipment for eliminating blister agent weapons, she said. “The other agents are nerve agent, and this is a blister agent. You change everything from monitoring to the equipment that’s going to process this, and how things are going to be processed through the plant,” Southworth said. She added that the blister agent is likely to be destroyed before 2010. Tooele also stores tabun, but there is no schedule for its elimination. Blister agent comprised 44 percent of the chemical weapons stockpile at the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility in Alabama. Workers at the facility are finishing processing of sarin-filled weapons and expect to begin work on VX weapons in the first half of next year. Blister agent will not be destroyed until 2008, according to the Star. “We do not expect that it will take us as long to initiate mustard processing as our sister site in Utah,” said Anniston spokesman Mike Abrams, adding that the Anniston facility is newer and workers will gain knowledge from work already performed at Tooele and the now-closed Johnston Atoll site. “We would anticipate five months. We may find out later on that we’re overly optimistic,” he said (Brian Lyman, Anniston Star, Oct. 6). Elsewhere, a critical report by the state of Utah led the U.S. Army yesterday to close a holding site for materials contaminated by chemical weapons, the Associated Press reported. The facility will remained closed for two to three months while the Army responds to the Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Division report.   The report was critical of the Chemical Agent Munitions Disposal System’s “operational culture,” according to Southworth. Col. Raymond T. Van Pelt, who ordered the shutdown, said the problems cited in the report will be fixed and the facility would take on a more “disciplined operational mind-set. We have initiated this work stoppage on our own because we are absolutely committed to the safety of our workers and the public,” he said. The facility, located 40 miles west of Salt Lake City, holds protective gear, cleaning materials, tools, insulation, steel containers and munitions casings that were contaminated by chemical weapons, according to AP (Associated Press/KUTV, Oct. 7). Back to top

White House May Reconsider Missile Defense Approach By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — After spending years and billions of dollars to develop and deploy ground-based missile interceptors, the Bush administration appears to be reconsidering its leading approach to defending the U.S. homeland against enemy ICBMs, a key congressional committee said last week (see GSN, Oct. 4). While the U.S. Missile Defense Agency continues to seek billions to develop and deploy the interceptors — including as many as 40 in silos in Alaska by the end of 2007 and some in Europe after that — it appears to have abandoned ambitions for significantly improving the current system and to favor other approaches, the Senate Appropriations Committee said in a report accompanying its version of the fiscal 2006 defense appropriations bill. “After many years of investment in this midcourse interceptor, MDA has now essentially decided that the first generation GBI [ground-based interceptors] will also be its last generation GBI. This approach would fail to capitalize on the years of previous investment and technology development in a decreasing budgetary environment,” it said in a lengthy critique. The language was drafted by the committee’s defense subcommittee chaired by Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Allegedly Abandoning Upgrades The agency’s “spiral development” approach to developing missile defense, uncommon to military weapons development, is to field systems before they are fully developed and then make upgrades or field improved systems in two-year cycles as technological development progresses.  In its report, the committee said the agency plans no further spiral development for the interceptor currently being deployed and is seeking to separate it from other parts of the midcourse intercept program, which includes advanced radars and command and control. “MDA at best plans only marginal improvements to the capability of the GMD [Ground-based Midcourse Defense] program’s ground-based interceptor,” the committee said. It cited a statement by a senior Defense Department official at a Jan. 28 briefing that the agency would “not pursue major booster or kill vehicle upgrades” for the interceptors. The committee report directs the agency to fully develop and upgrade the system, in conjunction with related sensors and command and control systems, until they are in “a final stable configuration.” Lawmakers also demanded a report by Dec. 1 on a plan for carrying out the directive. A spokesman said the agency would not comment on the report’s points until after the appropriations bill is finalized later this fall. A critic of the administration’s missile defense policies suggested the committee’s language reflects a struggle between politics and science. “It appears the agency has come to recognize the limitations of this system and what [the committee is] trying to say is that they don’t want them to,” said Philip Coyle, a senior adviser at the Center for Defense Information and a former top Pentagon testing official. The system’s “proponents are concerned about this and they’re trying to get MDA’s attention,” he said. A pullback from the spiral development of ground-based interceptors would reflect the military’s “extremely low confidence in the system,” said University of Maryland arms control analyst Jeffrey Lewis, noting the midcourse defense system was not activated last year despite a December deadline. “MDA simply realizes that they cannot deliver a [ground-based interceptor] system that works, or at least, that anyone [in the military services] wants,” he said. Allegedly Politically Motivated The interceptors, each of which consists of a single “kill vehicle” launched into space by a multistage rocket, have been a core element of the agency’s foremost and most costly technological approach so far to trying to intercept enemy long-range warheads in space: the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program. Critics have charged the approach is fundamentally flawed, contending its high complexity could undermine its effectiveness and that the interceptors could easily be fooled by the simplest countermeasures. They have said the system was pushed into deployment by politics. Administration officials have disputed those arguments. The Clinton administration first gave the program priority in 1996, with the announced goal of developing by 1999 elements of an initial national missile defense system that then could be fielded within three years of a decision to deploy. That “3+3” plan included developing and fielding up to 100 interceptors in Alaska along with powerful ground-based radars, satellite sensors, upgraded early warning radars, and a huge command and control infrastructure. A newly Republican-controlled Congress pressured the Clinton administration to develop and field the system at the earliest possible date, Coyle said. “There was pressure on the administration and Secretary of Defense William Perry to do more on missile defense,” he said, noting for instance a 1999 law declaring a policy to deploy “as soon as is technologically possible.”  The midcourse system was viewed as the most likely to deploy early, Clinton said in a 2000 speech. However, he then deferred a decision to deploy, finding that a defense capability had not been determined feasible in part for lack of realistic testing, and citing questions about the system’s ability to deal with countermeasures. Criticizing the move, then-presidential candidate George W. Bush implied he would deploy an anti-ICBM system during his first term, and several months after taking office he declared the threat of ballistic missile attacks the “most urgent threat” facing the United States (see GSN, April 9, 2004). In December 2002, Bush directed the military to begin deploying the ground-based interceptors by the end of 2004, citing “progress made to date in our development efforts” (see GSN, June 23, 2003). Some program elements, including at least six interceptors in Alaska and two in California, have been fielded, while others are being prepared. The interceptor effort has drawn huge amounts of the agency’s budget, with $3.3 billion of the planned $8.73 billion budget for fiscal 2006 to be directed to the ground-based interceptors, according to a Congressional Research Service analysis in July.  Uncertain Capability The military, though, has not declared the system operational and officials last year suggested it might never be (see GSN, Jan. 14). Live testing has been repeatedly delayed. The Army has resisted taking ownership for system components and responsibility for their procurement. Officials have described its capability as providing only a “thin line” of protection; though they say that might be improved with the addition of advanced radar and more missiles in the coming year. Officials have maintained they gained sufficient confidence in the system from several successful intercept tests early this decade for the initial deployment. The system has a five-for-10 record of intercepts, though, and was unsuccessful in its three most recent tests. Interceptors failed to leave their silos in the last two tests. New Approaches Pursued Critics have charged that the ground-based interceptor concept is flawed, arguing that even with advanced sensors the interceptors could easily be fooled by countermeasures, such as decoys or liberally sprinkled chaff. Testing of the system, they have said, has been too artificial to demonstrate that the system would work against an actual attack. Missile Defense Agency officials have acknowledged that countermeasures pose a challenge and have indicated they are working to address the problem in several ways, including by trying to improve upon sensors and algorithms used to discern enemy warheads from countermeasures. However, they also are pursuing alternate methods for intercepting enemy warheads in space. The administration is increasing investment in developing miniature kill vehicles, many of which might be launched from a pod boosted by a single missile. Such technology, challenged in part by the high cost of building miniature interceptor components, has been viewed as an alternative, potentially better approach to midcourse defense than the single-interceptor rocket. The agency hopes to bring the cost down to below $100 million per “Multiple Kill Vehicle.” “MKV helps address the midcourse countermeasure challenge by destroying multiple credible threat objects in a single engagement,” the agency said in a budget document submitted to Congress in February. Also, officials this year revealed a possibly more serious alternative to the current concept: deploying transportable midcourse interceptors, which could be based beyond the current Alaskan and Californian silos and closer to a threat. With its Kinetic Energy Interceptor program, the agency envisions developing a potential “replacement” for the stationary program by 2011, agency Director Lt. Gen. Henry Obering said in prepared testimony to the defense subcommittee in May. In addition, the agency is pursuing boost-phase defenses, preparing airborne lasers and Kinetic Energy Interceptors to be used from land, sea and space. The committee report questioned the administration’s focus. “The committee is extremely concerned that MDA’s approach to the GBI is symptomatic of a broader lack of focus on the administration’s stated missile defense priorities.” That echoed comments by Stevens at the May hearing, suggesting that Obering focus on systems the agency is developing for near-term deployment (see GSN, May 12). He indicated concern about the future of the Alaskan missile fields, saying government scientists chose them as an ideal location for defense against a potential threat and noting the surrounding community had “already been through a trauma of one base closure.” “We’re trying desperately to reach that balance between the near-term priorities and the longer-term priorities that are involved in our development program,” Obering told the committee. “We cannot give up on the future though,” he said. Given the powerful congressional support, Lewis said he does not expect the interceptors to be abandoned completely. “I would be shocked if this system were disassembled by like the Sentinel/Safeguard system,” Lewis said, referring to a nuclear-tipped interceptor system that in 1976, by congressional mandate, was ordered taken apart by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld several months after it was activated. Back to top       NATO Could Decide on Missile Defense One Year Early A NATO decision on whether to initiate a coordinated missile defense system for North America and Europe could come next fall — one year earlier than expected, Inside the Pentagon reported yesterday (see GSN, June 2). A trans-Atlantic industry team in July delivered findings from a study to the NATO Consultation, Command and Control Agency in July. The team’s classified final report is designed to help officials assess the feasibility of a potential missile defense system.  A final report from the NATO Conference of National Armaments Directors is expected in the first quarter of next year, an alliance source said. A spokesman also confirmed last week that the alliance plans a summit next fall, Inside the Pentagon reported (Sebastian Sprenger, Inside the Pentagon, Oct. 6).     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.