Al-Qaeda Web Site Detailing WMD Assembly Discovered

A Web site containing an Arabic-language manual for producing nuclear, radiological and biological weapons has been attributed to al-Qaeda and has attracted more than 57,000 hits since it was posted early last month, the London Sunday Times reported (see GSN, Oct. 7).

The forum “al-Firdaws,” or “Paradise,” contains 80 pages of instructions and photographs of making bombs. The manual contains lessons such as “The Nuclear Bomb of Jihad” and the “Way to Enrich Uranium,” and is called a “gift to the commander of the jihad fighters, Sheikh Osama bin Laden, for the purpose of jihad for the sake of Allah,” the Times reported.

The site also encourages al-Qaeda followers to seek materials such as radium, which it calls an “effective alternative to uranium and available on the market.”

“Perhaps nuclear weapons represent a technology of the 1940s. However, the Crusaders, the allies of the Satan, Allah’s curse be upon them, insist on depriving the jihad fighters of the right to have these weapons,” the unknown author of the forum writes.

Some nuclear physicists found the Web site worrisome.

“Normally you just get generic principles, but this appears to be more like a proper instruction manual,” said John Hassard, a physics professor at Imperial College in London. “The thing about this Web site that is striking is that it is very particular. A lot of effort has been put into it.”

Hassard said smuggling networks with access to nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union’s vast arsenal could put the information to use.

Al-Qaeda experts said the organization, which two years ago issued a fatwa permitting the use of weapons of mass destruction, is now outright encouraging followers to produce such weapons.

“Al-Qaeda strives to move directly from the stage of obtaining the WMD to the stage of using it,” said Matti Steinberg, an Israeli expert on the group. 

Steinberg added that al-Qaeda, whose followers are Sunni Muslims, could be racing to acquire unconventional weapons before Shiite Iran produces a nuclear weapon.

Bin Laden may be attempting to “balance the efforts by Iran to obtain the first Shiite bomb by building the first Sunni one,” he said (Mahnaimi/Walker, Sunday Times, Nov. 6).

Meanwhile, the head of Germany’s intelligence agency yesterday warned that evidence of terrorist groups trying to make weapons of mass destruction is mounting, Reuters reported.

“We observe experiments, training efforts, and production instructions being passed on via the Internet,” August Hanning told ARD television.

Al-Qaeda has made contact with Pakistani nuclear scientists and has attempted to acquire radioactive material several times, Hanning said (Reuters, Nov. 9).

Back to top

Libya Touted Disarmament to North Korea, Weldon Says

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Globe-trotting U.S. Representative Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said today that Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qadhafi took him up on a private “challenge” to try to persuade North Korea to follow Libya’s example in giving up weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Aug. 22).

Weldon led a delegation to Libya last year in the first such high-level contact in nearly four decades. The congressman said today that during the visit, which followed Libya’s 2003 decision to relinquish long-held weapons of mass destruction in return for economic and other benefits, he had a one-on-one meeting with Qadhafi “that I don’t talk about much publicly” (see GSN, Oct. 8, 2004).

During the private meeting, Weldon said, he issued a “challenge” to Qadhafi to seek to “convince [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Il to do what you’re doing.”

“I can’t reveal my sources,” Weldon said today at the American Enterprise Institute, “but I have confidence that that has in fact happened.”

Weldon said the “sources” represented countries that have been involved in organizing his visits to Libya.

Speaking at a panel discussion on Libya at the Washington think tank, Weldon argued for extending the “Libya model” of disarmament diplomacy to countries such as North Korea, rather than isolating those nations over human rights concerns. He said the latter course of action could undermine efforts to curb WMD proliferation.

“I’m not what you’d call an appeaser,” he said but “the ultimate human-rights violation would be a chemical, nuclear [or] biological weapon emanating from Libya and unleashed on tens of thousands of people.”

Weldon acknowledged that Libya presents human rights worries but noted that the United States nurtures deep ties to other countries of concern, including China and Saudi Arabia. He added that he has cited the “Libya model” frequently in talks with representatives of other countries of concern, including North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan.

Center for Strategic and International Studies Middle East Program Director Jonathan Alterman expressed doubt about whether the Libyan example is applicable to other cases.

U.S. goals in Libya — such as WMD disarmament and a compensation agreement for families of passengers in a Pan Am airliner shot down over Scotland in 1988 — were discrete and verifiable. The situation also lacked the urgency that characterizes the North Korean and Iranian nuclear threats, Alterman said. He added that the main incentive to Libya was the opening of markets to its large oil supplies, making the deal more financially attractive for the United States.

“The taxpayers did not subsidize Libyan rapprochement with the United States,” Alterman said.

The situations in Iran, North Korea and Syria, Alterman said, are “messy” compared with that in Libya and might not be as readily solved by similar diplomatic deals.

American Libyan Freedom Alliance founder Mohamed El-Jahmi, a Libyan who lives in the United States and whose brother is a political prisoner in his home nation, expressed doubts about whether even Libya itself is a good case for applying the “Libya model.” The overall outcome of the deal remains to be seen, and Qadhafi’s record is cause for skepticism, El-Jahmi said.

“He can be your friend now, and he can undermine you somewhere else,” El-Jahmi said. “He’s unpredictable.  That’s his history.”

Foundation for the Defense of Democracies journalist-in-residence Claudia Rosett, who identified herself as the right wing of the discussion panel, said Qadhafi disarmed because of his fear of the U.S. military. She said the discussion was not really about a “Libya model” but about an “Iraq model,” whereby a U.S. attack in one place can spur change among fearful tyrants elsewhere.

“We scared the dickens out of Qadhafi, and we got him to send his nuclear equipment to Tennessee,” where it stored at a U.S. nuclear laboratory, Rosett said.

Alterman said such an approach could discourage ordinary people from seeking change. Citizens in Middle Eastern states, he said, have seen the news from Iraq and concluded, “I just don’t want the chaos. … I can live with what I’m living with.”

Replied Rosett, “Whilst they may be able to live with it, we can’t.”

Back to top

Washington, Moscow Come to Liability Agreement for U.S.-Backed Nuclear Projects in Russia

By David Francis
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The United States and Russia are nearing an agreement on liability that would permit U.S. support for disposing of Russian weapon-grade plutonium, officials said yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 8).

However, the officials said no final agreement has been reached on funding the project to build a Russian plant to convert plutonium from weapons into nuclear power-plant fuel by blending it with uranium. In 2000, Russia and the United States agreed to dispose of 34 tons of plutonium each by producing the mixed-oxide, or MOX, fuel.

A dispute over liability issues has stalled progress on the plan as the United States has been pushing for broad liability protections for U.S. contractors conducting nuclear-security work at Russian sites, but U.S. and Russian officials said yesterday that the liability problem has nearly been solved.

“As far as liability, I was informed that at least maybe before the end of this year, maybe January” an agreement would be finalized, said Russian State Duma Deputy Valentin Ivanov, speaking here at the Carnegie International Nonproliferation Conference.   “It will be solved by both sides.” 

“There is an agreed document. That document is being reviewed,” agreed James Timbie, senior adviser to Robert Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. “The current obstacle of progress is no longer liability.”

Timbie could not offer a specific time at which the liability agreement might be in place.

Still, the issue of funding for the Russian facility remains, Ivanov said.   Russia has only $800 million to pay for the plant, which is expected to cost $2.5 billion. The rest must come from the international community, he said.

“It isn’t possible to start any attempt, from my point of view,” Ivanov said. “We won’t have money to pay for the extra price.”

Timbie, in an interview with Global Security Newswire, said countries planning to support the plant are discussing how much money each would give. So far, France, Germany and the United States have pledged financial assistance.

“It’s a mismatch between how much money has been raised and how much people think it’s going to cost,” Timbie said. “The big next step is to try to refine what those costs are and to try to match the contributions.”

The liability agreement “certainly removes the first barrier,” said Anthony Wier, a research associate at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. “That’s not to say there’s not another barrier — the funding barrier — right behind it.”

“Countries are prepared to move forward” with contributions, Timbie said. “But still more needs to be agreed on. Negotiations are ongoing.”

Funding efforts were also drawn out as the United States and Russia sought to conclude the liability agreement.

Two U.S. senators said in July that an agreement was imminent, but critics said the senators were trying to increase funding for the U.S. MOX plant at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina (see GSN, July 21).

The United States last month broke ground at the Savannah site, although it is unclear how the $1.6 billion facility will be funded. The Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration has already committed $600 million to the plant. 

Earlier this week, U.S. lawmakers agreed to set aside $220 million for construction of the plant. The Energy Department funding bill, finalized by a House-Senate conference, mandates that MOX processing begin by 2012. If processing is not completed by 2020, the Energy Department must remove remaining plutonium from South Carolina (see GSN, Oct. 17). 

Back to top

DOE Bunker-Buster Study Said Dead, DOD May Continue

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A senior Bush administration official and the House Appropriations Committee this week declared the Energy Department’s controversial Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator study dead, following a congressional decision not to fund the program (see GSN, Nov. 4).

The nuclear “bunker-buster” study could continue, however, through Defense Department funding, as some lawmakers have proposed.

House and Senate conferees on the fiscal 2006 energy and water appropriations bill on Monday announced that they had rejected the Bush administration’s $4 million request to continue the study at the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration.

A report by the conferees said the bill provides “no funds” for the study. A fact sheet released by the House Appropriations Committee said further that “the bill terminates” the program.

Asked by Global Security Newswire yesterday whether he believed the program was being canceled, NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks said, “Yep, that’s the way I read the bill.”

On whether the study of the nuclear capability would continue with the Air Force, he said, “You’d have to ask the DOD.”

The Pentagon had not responded by publication time today to a request for comments.

The study, intended to assess the feasibility of developing a reliable, deeper-penetrating nuclear weapon than currently in the arsenal has been the subject of domestic and international criticism. Proponents say it is needed to threaten hardened and deeply buried targets. Critics say it could cause mass civilian destruction if used, might be deemed a more “usable” weapon, and undermines global nonproliferation efforts. 

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Energy and Water Subcommittee, described the conferees’ decision as an important blow to the administration’s pursuit of an improved nuclear penetrator.

“The fact that all funding for this program has been eliminated is a tacit acknowledgment that this is the wrong policy at the wrong time,” she said in a press release yesterday.

Government documents and statements in recent months have suggested the administration could transfer control of the program to the Defense Department, rename it, and increase focus on conventional penetrator options while continuing the nuclear study.

A House Armed Services Committee report released in May accompanying its fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill said the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator program should be shifted from Energy to Defense. The committee authorized $4 million for the military to continue the study.

Since planned testing under the program could provide information on “various options” for defeating hardened and deeply buried targets, it said, “The committee believes that this study is more appropriately conducted under a program element within the Department of Defense.”

Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) said in a May statement that that money would support “nuclear penetrator” as well as conventional options (see GSN, May 23).

The Senate version of the defense authorization bill, currently under Senate floor consideration, authorizes funding only for the NNSA study. However, actual money for the project has now been stripped away.

A letter from the National Nuclear Security Administration to Congress last month indicated the agency wanted to see the study continue, particularly a planned impact test of the penetrator needed for assessing its feasibility (see GSN, Nov. 4).

Arms Control Association Executive Director Daryl Kimball said that with congressional authorization this year for continuing the nuclear study at the Defense Department, the Pentagon could obtain money for the project through a supplemental appropriation or a funding reprogramming request.

He said, though, that Congress would probably then cut funding for the study again next year.

“The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator has been rejected by Congress twice and the administration should understand that Congress’s intent is that we should not continue this costly and provocative weapons program,” Kimball said.

“If the Defense Department were to attempt to revive this program as a Defense Department program, I would predict a similar fate in 2006,” he said.

Back to top

Nuclear Talks Resume as North Korea Appears Ready to Finish 50-Megawatt Reactor

Multilateral negotiations aimed at implementing North Korea’s pledge to dismantle its nuclear programs began today in Beijing, while Pyongyang reportedly continues construction of a 50-megawatt nuclear reactor that would greatly improve the nation’s capacity to produce plutonium, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, Nov. 8).

North Korea is “moving full speed ahead with its nuclear weapons programs,” former Los Alamos National Laboratory Director Siegfried Hecker, who visited the country in 2004 and again in August, said in Washington yesterday at a nonproliferation conference hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

North Korean officials have said they could complete construction in two years. The reactor would produce enough weapon-grade plutonium to produce 10 nuclear bombs a year, the Post reported.

“They’re poised to continue their program, to make more plutonium and to strengthen their deterrents,” Hecker said, citing discussions with top North Korean officials, include Ri Hong Sop, director of an existing nuclear facility at Yongbyon.

Ri told Hecker that a redesign of the unfinished 50-megawatt reactor had been completed and that workers were preparing to return. Ri estimated that the facility would be complete in a couple of years, Hecker said.

The Institute for Science and International Security said that satellite images taken in September of the site indicated preparations were under way for construction, the Post reported.

“Age has taken its toll” on the building, making a two-year time frame for completion optimistic, said ISIS President David Albright. However, new construction “would be seen as undermining (Pyongyang’s) agreement to end all nuclear programs,” he said (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, Nov. 9).

Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, top U.S. envoy to the talks, said that the negotiating parties should first agree on steps toward disarmament, setting aside questions of benefits for Pyongyang, the Post reported (Philip Pan, Washington Post, Nov. 9).

Hill said Washington would not discuss giving North Korea a light-water reactor until Pyongyang returns to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Associated Press reported today (Alexa Olesen, Associated Press/ABCNews.com, Nov. 9).

However, experts said Pyongyang was eager to discuss the light-water reactor.

“North Korea is not going to give up its demand for a light-water reactor in this round and that it be discussed first, before disarming,” said Shen Dingli, an international relations expert at Fudan University in Shanghai (Pan, Washington Post, Nov. 9).

North Korea is prepared to abandon its nuclear weapons program, North Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan said as talks opened today.

In exchange, Pyongyang demanded inspections in South Korea aimed at guaranteeing the absence of U.S. nuclear weapons, as well as removal of the U.S. nuclear umbrella from the South, ITAR-Tass reported (Kirillov/Solovyov, ITAR-Tass, Nov. 9).

China has proposed creating working groups to handle key issues within the talks, Yonhap News reported today.

Top Chinese nuclear envoy Wu Dawei today suggested that three committees be formed to address a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, the normalization of U.S.-North Korea relations and energy aid to Pyongyang, said Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao.

The committees would report to the top envoys, who would in turn construct a roadmap for a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, Wu said.

Lead South Korean envoy Song Min-soon earlier today expressed skepticism on breaking the negotiations down into working groups, according to Yonhap (Yonhap I, Nov. 9).

Meanwhile, a South Korean lawmaker said yesterday that the United States is willing to open an office in Pyongyang as a demonstration of nonaggression, Yonhap reported.

Washington would also try to establish relations with North Korea and convert the Korean War armistice into a peace treaty, said Song Young-sun of the main opposition Grand National Party (Yonhap II, Nov. 9).

Back to top

Russian Nuclear Agency Chief Backs Bilateral Fuel Assurances for Nonproliferation

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Russian nuclear chief Alexander Rumyantsev avoided comment yesterday on his nation’s stance on a proposed international system to assure nuclear fuel to countries that forgo proliferation-sensitive activities, but declared Russia ready to do bilateral “business” in a similar vein (see GSN, Nov. 8).

Appearing at the Carnegie International Nonproliferation Conference, the Atomic Energy Agency director noted that Moscow already has a legal framework in place to provide Iran with nuclear fuel for the Russian-backed reactor under construction at Bushehr, and to take back spent fuel from the facility.

“We are prepared to do business with other countries on the same terms,” Rumyantsev said in response to a question from International Atomic Energy Agency verification official Tariq Rauf.

The proposed international deal, which has been a frequent topic at the Carnegie conference, would take place under IAEA auspices. Countries that do not enrich uranium or reprocess nuclear material would agree not to pursue such technologies, in exchange for guarantees of fuel from producing nations.

The United States this year pledged 17 metric tons of highly enriched uranium to be blended down for use in such a system, and IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said Monday at the conference that Russia had indicated it also planned to make material available.

Rumyantsev noted that a supply-assurance system was discussed in July at international fuel-cycle talks in Moscow, but he added quickly that “one way” to achieve the same aim was through bilateral arrangements.

Asked about Tehran’s alleged nuclear weapon-development activities, Rumyantsev said the nuclear-power agreements would not aid in any illicit Iranian pursuits.

“Iran has both signed the NPT [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty] and even the Additional Protocol with the IAEA” allowing for more intrusive inspections, Rumyantsev said. “Under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, each signatory is entitled to build a civilian nuclear-power industry.”

“Make no mistake: the Russian Federation is committed to the position whereby Iran must never, ever be able to develop and build its own national nuclear-weapons arsenal,” he continued, “and as we are helping Iran build its first nuclear power plant, we are continuously making sure that none of what is involved in this can be used by Iran to develop and upgrade its nuclear technology in a direction which could result in Iran’s building weapons-grade materials and eventually nuclear weapons.”

U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration head Linton Brooks, appearing alongside Rumyantsev, did not comment directly on Bushehr but said nuclear energy should be expanded around the world, provided that enrichment and reprocessing are not.

“It’s in the interest of everybody in this room to expand global prosperity,” Brooks said. “Global prosperity depends on significant growth in energy.”

Compared with fossil fuels, he said, “It seems to me nuclear power offers a great many advantages.”

Rumyantsev was to meet today with U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.

Back to top

Iran Rejects EU Call for Uranium Conversion Freeze

Iran yesterday said it would not halt uranium conversion before resuming negotiations over its nuclear program, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 8).

The European Union on Monday called for Tehran to resume the conversion moratorium after top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani sent letters to France, Germany and the United Kingdom seeking new talks.

“The EU statement is surprising and unacceptable. We urge the Europeans to change their behavior toward Iran,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi

Asefi added that Iran also has the right to resume uranium enrichment (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press, Nov. 8).

Back to top

Lawmakers Agree on Nuclear Weapons Funding

The U.S. nuclear weapons budget for fiscal 2006 has tentatively been set at $6.4 billion, a 1.6 percent increase over this year’s budget, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 8).

Negotiators from the Senate and House of Representatives have backed that spending amount, which still must be approved by both legislative bodies and by President George W. Bush.

“I believe we have come up with a package that will maintain key lab missions without personnel or facility disruptions,” Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) said in a statement.

Although the budget essentially remains constant after taking into account inflation, some critics said the United States is still overspending on nuclear weapons development.

“This country still spends nearly 50 percent above the Cold War average for nuclear weapons research, development, testing and production,” said Jay Coghlan, head of the private watchdog group Nuclear Watch of New Mexico (Fleck/Coleman, Albuquerque Journal/RedNova.com, Nov. 8).

Congressional conference committee members also tagged $327 million in fiscal 2006 spending for a superlaser project at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the San Francisco Chronicle reported today (see GSN, Sept. 14)..

The amount is $10 million short of the $337 million the Bush administration sought for the project, known as the National Ignition Facility. 

Domenici, however, remained doubtful of the project’s viability.

“Although we’ve settled on continuing construction at NIF, I remain skeptical that [the Energy Department] will be able to deliver on its promises regarding schedule, cost and scientific capability regarding NIF,” Domenici said in a prepared statement.

More than $3 billion has been spent to date on the project, which was initially projected to cost less than $2 billion, according to the Chronicle. It is hoped that the project will be able to use lasers to model nuclear explosions, voiding the need to conduct actual weapons detonation tests (Keay Davidson, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9).

Back to top

Dutch Visit U.S. to Gather Evidence Against Businessman Accused of Selling Chemical Precursors to Iraq

Dutch investigators have been in Maryland collecting evidence against Frans van Anraat, a Dutch businessman accused of supplying Saddam Hussein in the 1980s with an important ingredient of mustard gas, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, June 13).

Van Anraat is expected to stand trial in the Netherlands for war crimes and genocide in the coming weeks, according to the Post.

Investigators have been looking into Baltimore chemical company Alcolac Inc., which manufactured the thiodiglycol that van Anraat supplied to Saddam Hussein. 

U.S. authorities said Alcolac supplied both Iraq and Iran with the chemical during the 180s war between the two countries. Alcolac was later sold and reorganized.

“Alcolac turned a blind eye to abundant evidence in its files that this chemical was not going to the final destination that its customers stated in documents filed with customs,” said Martin Himeles Jr. The former assistant U.S. attorney successfully prosecuted the company in 1989 for export law violations.

Van Anraat was arrested in 2004 in Amsterdam. Dutch investigators have been working with U.S. law enforcement authorities in Baltimore since March of that year, said Immigrations and Customs Enforcement spokesman Dean Boyd.

“Obviously, this is a man who is alleged to have supplied Saddam with chemical weapons, so we certainly wanted to do everything we could to help the Dutch with their case and ICE had information from its own long-term investigation dating back to 1984,” Boyd said.

Dutch investigators questioned Gary Pitts, an attorney working for Gulf War veterans who have sued Alcolac. He said that information from Iraq indicates that Van Anraat was one of the main suppliers of thiodiglycol to that country.

U.S. prosecutors have also played a role in the Dutch investigation. “The U.S. attorney's office has opened up all of the files that were relevant to the Dutch and their inquiries, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Harvey Eisenberg. 

Dutch court filings show that Eisenberg has helped Dutch investigators question a former CIA analyst on Iraq as well as former resident of northern Iraq (Eric Rich, Washington Post, Nov. 9).

Back to top

Newport Depot Faces Early CW Processing Problems

Troubles at the U.S. Army’s Newport Chemical Agent Disposal Facility have forced the Indiana plant to suspend work for nearly half of its six-month operating life, the Indianapolis Star reported last week (see GSN, Nov. 7).

The cause of the latest problem — the spill of nearly 500 gallons of wastewater produced during VX nerve agent processing — has yet to be determined. This was the third spill at the depot since processing began in May. It forced the site’s second suspension of weapons disposal.

Depot spokeswoman Terry Arthur said that valves on processing equipment — which were linked to the previous spills — are not believed to have caused the latest incident.

“We're looking at pipes, flanges, gaskets and all kinds of joints,” she said.

The Army, site contractor Parsons Corp., watchdog groups and residents close to the plant expressed little concern by the spills.   Newport officials said the spills were contained in a specially designed room and posed no danger to the public or depot workers.

Army Chemical Materials Agency spokesman Jeffrey Linblad said troubles at the site don’t stem from problems with technology or processes, because the facility has successfully proven it can destroy nerve agent.  

Similar unexpected problems have occurred at other processing facilities, Lindblad said.

The Army still expects to meet a November 2007 deadline to destroy all the VX at the site. Officials hope the facility is back on line by January and will be capable of processing four VX containers a day.

“It's going to take what it takes,” Arthur said. “We are doing it slowly and deliberately.”

Others expect the delays to continue.

“I think there is going to be a long string of these (delays),” said Leonard Akers, who lives near the facility. “I think this is just a preview of coming attractions.”

Thomas Linson, permitting branch head at the Indiana Environmental Management Department land-quality office, said he is concerned about getting the nerve agent destroyed on time.

“The timeline probably is the overarching concern. It's in everybody's interest to get the VX destroyed as soon as possible, but we want it to occur safely,” he said (Tammy Webber, Indianapolis Star, Nov. 5).

Back to top

U.S. to Choose New Radiation Sensors for Ports

The U.S. Homeland Security Department is expected by spring of next year to choose improved radiation detectors for use at U.S. ports of entry, the Christian Science Monitor reported today (see GSN, July 21).

The department will choose from detectors manufactured by 10 companies, all of which were tested this summer. Field-testing at select ports will begin by June 2006, with a production decision expected in 2007, according to the Monitor.

One expert praised the department’s move. “We’re now on the cusp of seeing the next generation of [nuclear and radiological] detectors,” said physicist Benn Tannenbaum of the Center for Science, Technology & Security Policy at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Others believe the United States is not moving fast enough to bolster nuclear weapons defenses. They said the focus has been on biological countermeasures.

“Little steps are being taken that may be in the right direction,” said Richard Wagner Jr., a Los Alamos National Laboratory senior staffer and former Pentagon official. “It's the rate of progress I'm concerned about.”

According to a June Government Accountability Office report, the federal government since 1994 has spent about $300 million on 470 radiation detectors for use at U.S. borders and ports.

Homeland Security officials in March told U.S. lawmakers that 10,000 radiation hits had been registered at ports. However, in June the security manager for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said there were 150 “false positive” every day.

The department is working to create a network of domestic detectors as part of a system of global radiation sensors. “We anticipate mobile detection systems and fixed systems ... that enable us to achieve randomness and screening around the country, in transit zones, aircraft in flight, and container ships,” said Vayle Oxford, acting director of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.

Oxford believes detectors could screen entry points into risky cities and alert law enforcement authorities if anything suspicious is found. Data from sensors around the world would be collected into databases to create a global information network.

“What we're trying to do with global architecture is to knit this together,” said Oxford, whose office received $318 million from Congress for fiscal 2006.

The department by 2007 expects sensors to be installed at 2,500 ports across the country.

However, some experts to do believe radiation detection systems are enough. They argue that securing loose nuclear materials must be the first step in protecting against a nuclear or radiological attack. Next, sensors must be put in place at foreign ports with cargo destined for the United States.

Critics have argued that the bulk of money should be spent on securing nuclear materials. They have said that sensors could be ineffective if the material ends up in the hands of terrorists, the Monitor reported.

“This could become a Maginot line for us, creating a false sense of security,” said Randall Larsen, chief executive officer of Homeland Security Associates. “Anyone smart enough to get this stuff could sneak it past detectors” (Mark Clayton, Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 9).

Back to top