U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) sponsored an amendment, passed in the Senate today, repealing several restrictions on the Defense Department’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program (Getty Images/Alex Wong). Senate Eases WMD Threat Reduction Restrictions By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate yesterday decisively approved a repeal of several restrictions on the Defense Department’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which works to secure and destroy excess unconventional weapons in Russia and other nations (see GSN, June 22)...Full Story

U.S. Prepares for Use of WMD Countermeasures By David Francis Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is asking pharmaceutical companies to submit information on drugs and vaccines that could be used as countermeasures in case of a WMD attack.   This information would be used to expedite the approval of the drug’s use under emergency authority permitted by Project Bioshield, said Boris Lushniak, FDA assistant commissioner for counterterrorism policy (see GSN, Dec. 17, 2004)...Full Story

Defense, Homeland Security Departments Predict Technology Transfer Agreement Within Months By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. Defense and Homeland Security departments expect within months to complete an agreement governing the transfer of Pentagon counterterrorism technology to Homeland Security, officials said yesterday at a House of Representatives hearing (see GSN, May 27)...Full Story

	Friday, July 22, 2005

Defense, Homeland Security Departments Predict Technology Transfer Agreement Within Months By Joe Fiorill Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. Defense and Homeland Security departments expect within months to complete an agreement governing the transfer of Pentagon counterterrorism technology to Homeland Security, officials said yesterday at a House of Representatives hearing (see GSN, May 27). Representative Jim Saxton (R-N.J.) opened the hearing by questioning the “largely informal basis” on which he said the two departments had been sharing “good ideas.” “I believe it would be better to have a more rigorous, formal process in place,” the Armed Services Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee chairman said at the joint hearing of his panel and the Homeland Security Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology Subcommittee. Defense Department and Homeland Security Department witnesses at the hearing said they were a few months away from announcing a formal structure on the transfers. Assistant Defense Secretary for Homeland Defense Peter Verga and Homeland Security Systems Engineering and Development Director John Kubricky said the departments had completed a “blueprint” on the “Section 1401” technology transfers, named for the section of the fiscal 2003 Defense Department Authorization Act that authorized them. A formal memorandum of understanding on the process is expected to be complete by this fall, the two officials said. Witnesses Describe Active Transfer Effort Witnesses at the hearing outlined a wide variety of technology, much of it related to WMD detection and defense, that the Pentagon has transferred or is planning to transfer to other U.S. agencies, including Homeland Security. Verga highlighted successful transfers of nuclear and other sensors to Homeland Security’s border and customs components, as well as “unique DOD equipment transferred to the FBI for use in response operations against threats of nuclear terrorism.” The assistant defense secretary added that a pilot program operating under the Defense-Homeland Security technology transfer “blueprint” has completed an inventory of Pentagon technology “which resulted in several hundred items with the potential to enhance public safety.” High-priority items under the program, he said, include laser-based chemical and biological sensors and a new suit that protects against fire and various weapons of mass destruction. The Pentagon increasingly seeks to be mindful of the potential civilian counterterrorism applications of technologies it develops, Deputy Defense Undersecretary for Advanced Systems and Concepts Sue Payton told the subcommittees. “We are simultaneously expediting the research and development and commercialization of dual-use technologies with the needs of the first-responder community as a priority for the DOD,” Payton said. “Standoff detection capabilities for explosives [and] chemical and biological agents and enhanced blast-resistant coatings for vehicles, boats, buildings and public transportation are some of the current technologies we are focused on.” Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Director Tony Tether called WMD defense “probably the richest area now and in the future for transitioning technology from DARPA to civilian agencies including DHS.” Tether described a variety of promising programs for technology transfers, including his agency’s Triangulation Identification for Genetic Evaluation of Risk program, which “has developed a universal sensor that can detect any type of pathogen” using nucleic acid weights. Homeland Security is funding the technology at the National Bioforensics Analysis Center, Tether said. “In the future, I expect DARPA to sponsor more CBRN [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear]-sensor technologies,” Tether added. “For example, critical gaps exist in our capability to detect and identify chemical and biological agents concealed in packages delivered to military facilities,” he said.  “DARPA’s Advanced Portal Security program is developing technologies to rapidly search, detect and identify chemical and biological agents carried by individuals or hidden inside envelopes in the mail or in other small containers like briefcases, backpacks and boxes.” Officials Warn of Transfer Obstacles Despite listing dozens of completed and potential Defense-Homeland Security technology transfers, witnesses cautioned the legislators against unrealistic expectations. When “the users of [Defense Department-developed] homeland-security technology are federal entities” such as Homeland Security agencies, Kubricky said, “the transition is relatively straightforward to a captive user base … that can regularly communicate their needs, be directly involved in the development process and fund deployment, operations and maintenance when development is complete.” “In other cases, the end users of homeland-security technologies are not federal entities — for example, first-responder technologies that benefit state and local governments or cybersecurity and infrastructure-protection technologies that benefit private companies,” he said. “In these cases, combining the ingredients that make for a successful transition can be more complicated and can include elements of commercialization such as market development, venture-capital stimulation or public-private partnerships.” Tether said obstacles to transfer could arise even between federal agencies. “The BWD [Biological Warfare Defense program] technologies DARPA is developing are oriented toward use in military operations, where the population and operational considerations are different than those of civilian operations,” he said. “A sensing system you might use to warn our troops in the field of chemical attack is not likely to be the same sort of system you would use in a city. … The false-alarm … constraints are different, and civilians don’t have protective suits they can don in a matter of minutes.” “The populations are also quite different,” he said. “The young, healthy men and women in the military who follow orders in a controlled environment are a very different group from the overall civilian population that spans young to old [and] infirm to healthy and who live and work in a far less regulated setting.” Back to top

Senate Eases WMD Threat Reduction Restrictions By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate yesterday decisively approved a repeal of several restrictions on the Defense Department’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which works to secure and destroy excess unconventional weapons in Russia and other nations (see GSN, June 22). Lawmakers voted 78-19 to pass an amendment to the fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill sponsored by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and 29 other Republicans and Democrats. Debate on the full bill was suspended yesterday and resumed this morning.  The House of Representatives did not include similar language on CTR restrictions in its version of the bill, which was approved in May. The Bush administration supports the repeal legislation.  The White House also supports an alternative contained in the House bill, which would extend through 2007 presidential authority to waive the restrictions. Restrictions Said to Hamper Dismantlement Lugar and former Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) developed the initial legislation creating the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, also called the Nunn-Lugar program, in 1991. The amendment would repeal three provisions contained in the Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 1991, the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993, and the Russian Chemical Weapons Destruction Facilities law passed in 1999.  The restrictions require the U.S. government to certify annually that CTR recipient countries have performed certain actions, primarily in areas of weapons dismantlement.   For instance, without certification that Russia spends at least $25 million annually on chemical weapons destruction and provides a full and accurate declaration of its chemical weapons stockpile, U.S. support is blocked for construction of the major Shchuchye chemical weapons destruction facility. Such restrictions have hampered U.S. efforts to assist Russia in eliminating unconventional weapons as well as WMD materials and technology, Lugar said. They “bring about delay, sometimes very severe delay, at a time that we take seriously the war on terrorism, and the need, as a matter of fact, to bring under control materials and weapons of mass destruction as rapidly and as certainly as possible,” he said. That effect, he said, runs “contrary to almost all common sense.” “If we came to a conclusion that for some reason the Russians had not spent precisely the amount of money that we think they ought to spend, does any senator believe we at that point should stop taking warheads off of missiles, should stop trying to get control of weapons of mass destruction in the chemical and biological areas? Of course not,” Lugar said. Called Important for Accountability Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.), the initial sponsor of the defense authorization bill, spoke against the amendment. He said prior to the vote that the certification criteria were important for informing the U.S. public and Congress on whether threat reduction funds were being well spent.  He added that the current rules help to ensure that recipients “are committed to right-sizing their militaries, complying with arms control agreements, providing transparency regarding how CTR assistance is used, and respecting human rights.” Warner said the certification requirements do not impede Nunn-Lugar assistance because Congress has given the president authority to waive the restrictions.  Lugar said delays in funding have occurred in the past, including in 2002 when spending was frozen for six months pending passage of a temporary waiver by Congress. The defense bill also separately includes all $415 million requested by the Bush administration to fund the Cooperative Threat Reduction program in fiscal 2006 and a provision to transfer authority, from the president to the defense secretary, for approving Nunn-Lugar projects beyond the former Soviet Union. Albania last year became the first non-former Soviet country to receive Nunn-Lugar funding, to help destroy a stockpile of chemical weapons (see GSN, Oct. 22, 2004). President George W. Bush reportedly has said the program could be used to support retraining Iraqi and Libyan weapons scientists for civilian employment. [EDITOR’S NOTE: Sam Nunn is chief executive officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, and Richard Lugar serves on the NTI board.  NTI is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by the National Journal Group.] Back to top       U.S. Prepares for Use of WMD Countermeasures By David Francis Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is asking pharmaceutical companies to submit information on drugs and vaccines that could be used as countermeasures in case of a WMD attack.   This information would be used to expedite the approval of the drug’s use under emergency authority permitted by Project Bioshield, said Boris Lushniak, FDA assistant commissioner for counterterrorism policy (see GSN, Dec. 17, 2004). “What we’re looking for are obviously products that are potentially helpful to be released to the public at times of emergency,” Lushniak told Global Security Newswire.  The agency released draft guidelines earlier this month outlining the type of scientific information it wants to review on these potential countermeasures, including a description of the product, how it could be used as a WMD countermeasure, available safety data and a summary of the product’s risks and benefits. FDA scientists will use the information to determine if it is “reasonable to believe that the product may be effective in diagnosis, treatment [and] prevention” of injuries resulting from a WMD attack, Lushniak said.  The Food and Drug Administration is seeking data on both approved drugs and vaccines and products that are under development. Emergency use authority allows for products that have yet to receive full FDA approval to be used in the event of a declared emergency to counter the effects of a WMD attack.  “Without a doubt, there is a risk in making a decision on products that have not gone through the full approval process,” Lushniak said. The risk is necessary to quickly place countermeasures in the hands of the public, he said. “Our goal is ultimately to move these products to full approval by the FDA. So the EUA [emergency use authority], we’re looking at it as a way of getting products that are potentially helpful during times of emergency, get them into the hands of the American public,” said Lushniak. “But ultimately, as further research is done and further trials are done on these products … ultimately down the line the product will be fully approved.” “What we don’t want is to have a product that we know is potentially helpful, for it to be sitting on the shelf unused during times of emergency just because it’s not gone through the full but sometimes lengthy but complete approval process,” he added. Agency scientists are working with other government agencies, including the Defense and Homeland Security departments and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to identify threats and drugs or vaccines, whether approved or in development, which can counter medical problems resulting from a WMD attack. Identification of antiradiation drugs and countermeasures for worrisome biological agents like anthrax and smallpox are a top priority, Lushniak said. “We’re trying to figure out … what are the products out there that are currently available or are in the pipeline and … which organisms or other threat agents are we trying to treat, to diagnose, to prevent and can we start getting this information ahead of time prior to an emergency,” Lushniak said “This is part of our efforts for preparedness within the FDA, to have that information as much as possible in hand so short of an emergency we have as much data about safety and efficacy of products against specific organisms so if an emergency were to occur, we would already be set to go as much as possible.” Lushniak said a major goal of the draft guidelines was to let industry know that the agency wants information on unapproved products still in development. “Here is a request to all entities, government, nongovernment organizations, pharmaceutical companies, private sponsors of pharmaceuticals, to come to us if they believe they have a product and some data that shows this product might be helpful in times of emergency. The more we know about this product ahead of time, the better for all of us,” Lushniak said. If an emergency is declared, the agency can review this data to quickly identify potentially helpful drugs or vaccines and determine whether to allow emergency use of the products, Lushniak said. The agency is now concentrating mostly on unapproved uses for approved drugs, as was the case with the first emergency use permitted by the agency. The agency in December allowed BioPort’s anthrax vaccine to be given to military personnel on a voluntary basis to counteract possible inhalation of anthrax, even though the drug is only approved for anthrax contracted through the skin (see GSN, July 7).  Nothing about the anthrax emergency should be viewed as setting a precedent for future emergency declarations, Lushniak said. He added that each emergency would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. According to Lushniak, the agency did not play any part in the threat assessment that justified emergency use of the anthrax vaccine and in the future will have no input on emergency declarations. The Health and Human Services Department, in conjunction with the Homeland Security and Defense departments, determines whether the threat warrants the declaration of an emergency. After an emergency is declared, the Food and Drug Administration then determines, based on available scientific evidence, if a drug is reasonably safe to use, Lushniak said. Comments are due on the draft guide by Sept. 6, according to author and FDA regulatory counsel Charlotte Cristin. However, Lushniak said the agency is prepared to permit emergency use immediately if necessary. “We are in fact working under the auspices of if an emergency were to occur tomorrow, next week, next month, the fact that this guidance in draft form will in no way stop us from issuing EUAs,” he said. Questions from Capitol Hill Soon after the Pentagon requested emergency use of anthrax vaccine last year, Representative Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) began investigating whether the classified intelligence cited by then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz in the request mandated declaration of an emergency. Shays asked the CIA to provide him with the intelligence assessment cited by Wolfowitz and a briefing on the perceived threat. A second letter was sent to then-Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thomson asking whether his agency viewed Wolfowitz’s letter as a valid emergency determination under Bioshield’s requirements. Shays Chief of Staff Larry Halloran said the lawmaker, who has carefully followed the issue since the anthrax emergency was declared, is generally satisfied with the emergency use guidance. Halloran added that Shays is not opposed to the emergency use of drugs and believes in many instances the use of an unlicensed drug is necessary. However, Shays is concerned that the process undertaken by the Defense and Health and Human Services departments and Food and Drug Administration would not be transparent. “Every time DOD says jump, FDA says how high,” Halloran said. “We have serious concerns that it’s kind of an unholy relationship.” Back to top

Senate Debates New Nuclear Bunker-Buster Plan By David Ruppe Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — U.S. senators today debated a renewed effort to block a feasibility study on developing a new earth-penetrating nuclear weapon (see GSN, July 1). Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) placed an amendment to the fiscal 2006 Defense Authorization bill that would transfer $4 million designated for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator to the D.C. National Guard for use on mass casualty event training and equipment. Voting on that and other amendments to the bill is not expected until Tuesday at the earliest. A similar amendment to the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations bill that would have redirected the money toward paying down the national debt was defeated 53-43 in June, despite support from several Republicans.  The House this year has approved no appropriations for the bunker-buster study. It did, though, authorize in its version of the authorization bill money for the Air Force to conduct a study on the weapon. Democrats say that would allow analysis only of a conventionally armed penetrator. Republicans say the authorization would allow study of the nuclear option. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator study was until last year conducted by the Energy Department. Congress provided no funding for the program for the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The Bush administration this year requested the $4 million to conduct a crucial field test of the weapon that would involve slamming a mock version into a large concrete block. Kennedy said the Bush administration’s interest in funding the study shows “they do not have their priorities straight,” and that the money could better be spent on defense against conventional terrorism such as this month’s bombings of London’s mass transit system. Pursuit of the weapon also “threatens to launch a new nuclear arms race” by undermining efforts to roll back North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and a suspected Iranian effort, he said. “The administration would like us to develop something that we don’t need. That would endanger us by its very existence,” he said. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.), who sponsored the Defense Authorization bill, said continuation of the study does not mean the United States would necessarily build the weapon. Specific approval from Congress would be necessary for advanced development, he said. “I assure my colleagues, I assure the American public, that Congress is monitoring each step of this program,” he said. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said the study would not fuel an arms race, noting the United States has reduced its nuclear arsenal by more than 13,000 warheads since the late 1980s. The study “certainly does not indicate that we are in a warmongering mode,” he said. The Bush administration disclosed last year a plan to develop, with congressional approval, the penetrator over five years for an estimated $486 million. A National Academy of Sciences report in April concluded that a high-yield nuclear penetrator used to strike a deeply buried target could produce up to 1 million casualties if detonated near a populated area (see GSN, April 18). Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said that in response to the program, potential adversaries would be tempted “to put that deeply buried target under a city, under a historic or religious site,” making use of the weapon improbable. Back to top       China Reaffirms No-First-Use Nuclear Policy China said today it would not use nuclear weapons first in any conflict, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, July 18). Bejing would not initiate a nuclear exchange “at any time and under any condition,” the official Xinhua news agency quoted Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing as saying. “China has consistently observed the commitment since its first nuclear test in 1964,” Li said. Beijing was apparently distancing itself from comments by Gen. Zhu Chenghu last week that China could use nuclear weapons if the United States were to militarily intervene on its territory, including Taiwan. “What [Zhu] said was only his personal view and did not represent the stance of the Chinese government,” said Li. Li added, however, that China “will never allow anyone or any force to separate Taiwan from China by any means” (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, July 22). Back to top       North Korea Wants Peace Treaty to End Nuke Standoff North Korea announced today that it would seek a peace treaty to officially end the Korean War, thereby normalizing its relations with the United States, as a step toward solving the standoff over its nuclear program, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, July 21). A peace treaty would “automatically result in the denuclearization of the peninsula,” the official KCNA news agency quoted the Foreign Ministry as saying. The 1950-1953 Korean War ended in an armistice rather than a peace treaty, meaning the North is technically still at war with the United States and South Korea. Analysts said signing a peace treaty with Washington has long been a goal of North Korea’s leaders. “It has always been Pyongyang’s diplomatic goal of top priority to replace the armistice with a peace treaty and enter diplomatic ties with Washington,” said Paik Hak-soon of the Sejong Institute (Park Chan-Kyong, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, July 22). Meanwhile, the North Korean delegation to six-party nuclear negotiations, led by Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan, arrived in Beijing today for meetings with Chinese officials ahead of Tuesday’s talks, AFP reported. Elsewhere, Washington said North Korea should make the “strategic decision” to relinquish its nuclear arsenal. “If they make that decision, they can start to realize better relations with the international community and start to realize some of the benefits of coming into the international community,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. “No one should be coming into the talks with any preconditions,” he said (Martin Parry, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, July 22). McClellan added that the negotiations would focus on a proposal tabled by the U.S. delegation at the last round of talks more than a year ago. “That proposal, we believe, and the other members to the talks believe, addresses the concerns of all parties, and it is the way forward to getting to our shared goal of a nuclear-free peninsula,” he said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, July 22). Back to top       U.S. Backs Formation of Nuclear Fuel Consortium The U.S. Energy Department favors developing a commercial consortium of nuclear supplier nations to manage international nuclear fuel supplies, a senior department official told the Kyodo news agency on Wednesday (see GSN, July 13). The United States has opposed the International Atomic Energy Agency’s plan for international management of fuel recycling, said Paul Longsworth, deputy administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration. Under the agency proposal, eight to 10 nuclear facilities would be put under international control. “We believe that you have to have an approach that accommodates the commercial nature of providing fuel ... or it will fail because the economic consequences will outweigh any nonproliferation benefits,” said Longsworth. “It has to be economically viable.” “It could be a commercial consortium backed by governments ... multilateral or be an agreement among governments to guarantee a supply of fuel but the delivery would then be from commercial facilities,” he said. “Companies can be our best nonproliferation participants. … They can do more for nonproliferation than governments can in many ways if we use them properly.” Longsworth said the most effective way to control nuclear fuel cycle technologies is to stop new countries from producing nuclear fuel, Kyodo reported (Kyodo News/Yahoo!News, July 21). Back to top       Nuclear Arsenal Remains Secure, Pakistan Says Pakistan yesterday responded to concerns expressed by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal in the face of the threat from Islamic militants, the Hindu reported (see GSN, July 21). “Pakistan’s nuclear program and strategic assets are secure, under strict and multilayered custodial controls,” the Pakistani Foreign Office announced in a statement. “We have studied the models of command and control systems elsewhere, and our multilayered security structures are at par with the most stringent international systems and practices,” the statement says (B. Muralidhar Reddy, The Hindu, July 22). Back to top       France Warns Iran on Nuclear Program French President Jacques Chirac warned Iran today that it could be referred to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, July 21). “I hope that [EU-Iran talks] will end favorably and eliminate the danger of proliferation,” Chirac told the Israeli Haaretz newspaper. “If that is not the case then it will naturally fall to the Security Council to consider the question,” said Chirac. Chirac added, however, that he was not in favor of a military solution to the standoff. Meanwhile, a delegation led by top Iranian nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani has delivered “a significant and complete message” to the European Union on the “means of getting out of the current situation,” negotiator Hossein Mousavian told AFP. Mousavian added that Wednesday’s discussions in London between the two sides were “constructive.” Iranian President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, however, reiterated yesterday that Iran would not relinquish its nuclear energy program. “Just as we hate weapons of mass destruction, we hate that some want to deprive other people from the right to peacefully use nuclear energy,” said Ahmadinejad. Elsewhere, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called today for economic sanctions on Iran. “Iran becoming a nuclear power cannot be tolerated,” Sharon told the French daily Le Figaro (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, July 22). Back to top       Russia Destroys ICBM Silo Russia yesterday blew up an ICBM silo in the Ural Mountains, Agence France-Press reported (see GSN, July 1). This was the fifth silo destroyed this year, AFP reported based upon reports from Russia’s ITAR-Tass news service. A Russian Defense Ministry official said another silo is expected to be destroyed by the end of the year. The silo was part of a unit of 20 Ural-based RS-20 ICBMs that is now being dismantled, according to AFP (Agence France-Presse, July 22). Back to top       U.S. Successfully Tests Minuteman 3 Missile The United States successfully tested the Minuteman 3 missile yesterday, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, May 12). The unarmed missile, launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, traveled 4,000 miles in roughly 30 minutes and struck a target at the Kwajalein Missile Range in the Marshall Islands, according to AP. The Minuteman’s success follows a test in June in which the missile failed to take off. The reason for the failure is being investigated (Associated Press/Monterey Herald, July 21).  Back to top

Investigators Find Possible Cause of Umatilla Fires A U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency investigation has confirmed that nitroglycerine migrated in M55 rockets containing VX nerve agent stored at the Umatilla Chemical Depot in Oregon, the agency announced yesterday (see GSN, July 21). The agency said the nitroglycerine migration was the potential cause of fires that occurred while the weapons were being destroyed at the depot. Other preliminary data indicated the rockets were safe while being stored, transported and handled.  Nitroglycerine shifted within all nine of the rockets tested, according to the CMA release. The rockets were shipped from Umatilla in mid-June and have undergone testing since their arrival at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey.   Tests on similar rockets from Pine Bluff Chemical Agent Disposal Facility in Arkansas, where additional fires occurred, are scheduled to begin soon. “I cannot stress enough that these are preliminary results. The jury is still out as we prepare to look at and contrast these test results with the Pine Bluff samples. At this point, we are dealing in conjecture. More samples will provide more insight but a progress update to our interested stakeholders is certainly warranted,” Gregory St. Pierre, the agency’s risk management director, said in the release (Army Chemical Materials Agency release, July 21). Authorities were still considering whether to cut M55 rockets stored at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky away from their warheads to prevent potential fires, the Associated Press reported. “No decisions have been made in terms of what to do in Kentucky," said Defense Department Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives spokeswoman Katherine DeWeese (Associated Press/WKTY, July 22). Back to top       New Zealand’s Chemical Weapons Response Plan Stalls The New Zealand Health Ministry’s effort to create a national hazardous materials response plan has stalled, the Southland Times reported today (see GSN, June 22). Frustrations of independent members of ministry workshop six months ago have impeded progress, according to the Times. Australian emergency doctor Robert Dowsett warned that lack of a plan is especially dangerous because chemical attacks are inevitable in New Zealand and Australia. “We will see chemical weapons deployed in civilian situations,” Dowsett said at the Australasian College of Emergency Medicine Symposium in Queenstown. “I don't think any country can consider themselves immune.” Roughly half of hospitals in the New Zealand are prepared to deal with the release of hazardous materials, said Christchurch Hospital emergency room doctor Paul Gee. He said such a release was more likely in the island nation to be accidental. John Chambers, director of emergency medicine at Dunedin Hospital, said Canadian and Israeli doctors were not impressed with the hospital’s decontamination plans during a visit this year. “They were polite but it was clear we weren't up to scratch,” he said (Rowan Quinn, Southland Times, July 22). Back to top

U.S. to Expand Missile Defense Program The United States plans to augment its missile defense system to counter possible strikes from the Middle East and China or by ship-to-shore missiles, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, July 11). With an eye toward the Middle East, the Defense Department is improving radars in the United Kingdom and seeking new locations in four European countries to station interceptor missiles, Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, Missile Defense Agency director, said yesterday. The Pentagon is working with Asian nations regarding China’s ballistic missile arsenal and working on strategies to block a Chinese long-range missile strike. “What … we have to do is, in our development program, be able to address the Chinese capabilities, because that’s prudent,” said Obering. The Defense Department has also studied the logistics of launching a Scud missile from an off-shore ship and found “it was not hard to do,” Obering said. That has led to U.S. efforts to block such an attack. There is $20 million set aside in the planned fiscal 2006 defense budget for studying the threat of an off-shore missile strike, the Associated Press reported. Missile Defense Agency spokesman Rick Lehner said he did not know of specific intelligence of short-range missile threats. “It’s more of a theoretical threat based on the proliferation of Scud-type missiles that are out there around the world,” said Lehner (John Lumpkin, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, July 21). Obering also acknowledged that the missile defense system remains riddled with technical problems, the Post reported. “We have a better than zero chance of successfully intercepting, I believe, an inbound warhead,” Obering said. “That confidence will improve over time.” System testing has been suspended after a string of failed intercepts, and in the meantime scientists have discovered 39 categories of technical problems, Obering said. One contractor, Boeing Co., has been docked “tens of millions of dollars” for “preventable” failures, Obering said (Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, July 22). A series of four interceptor flight tests, with increasing levels of complexity, is scheduled to begin in September or October, Obering said. The first test will involve launching an interceptor equipped with a “kill vehicle,” or warhead. However, it will not be directed at a target missile.  Intercept tests could then resume, said Obering (Drew Brown, Knight Ridder/Yahoo!News, July 22). Back to top       Japan Law Paves Way for Missile Defense The upper house of Japan’s parliament today voted 126-94 to authorize the country’s defense chief to fire on incoming missiles without first seeking permission from the prime minister or Cabinet, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, July 14). The legislation now becomes law. The lower house of parliament approved the bill last month. “If a missile comes flying into Japan, we have to shoot it down to protect the lives and property of the Japanese people before we can mobilize our defenses,” said Defense Agency chief Yoshinori Ono (Chisaki Watanabe, Associated Press/Austin American-Statesman, July 22). Back to top       U.S. Navy Orders More SM-3 Rounds Raytheon Co. has received a $124.1 million contract to supply additional Standard Missile 3 interceptors for the U.S. Navy’s Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system, the company announced in a press release yesterday (see GSN, July 1). The contract calls for the first delivery of SM-3 Block IA rounds, which provide “an incremental upgrade to improve missile reliability and supportability at a reduced cost” compared to the existing SM-3 Block I interceptors, the press release states. Raytheon has delivered six SM-3 Block I missiles to the Navy, and is contracted to supply another five (Raytheon release, July 21).     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.