A U.S. WC-135 aircraft, such as this one shown during midair refueling, last week collected air samples that could help scientists learn about the design and materials used in the North Korean nuclear weapon test. That could help following an act of nuclear terrorism to determine if the material used came from Pyongyang, experts said (U.S. Air Force photo). Airborne Debris Could Yield North Korean Nuclear Fingerprint By Jon Fox, Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Radioactive particles detected by U.S. sensors might provide insight into the weapon design and material that North Korea used in its nuclear test last week (see GSN, Oct. 16). Radionuclides leaking from the mine shaft where North Korean scientists detonated a device with a subkiloton yield on Oct. 9 could also offer the U.S. a valuable signature of North Korean plutonium — a sort of nuclear fingerprint. ..Full Story

D.P.R.K. Used Plutonium Bomb; Second Test Possible North Korea is believed to have used a plutonium-fueled bomb last week in its nuclear test, indicating that it has not yet succeeded in enriching uranium to levels that could be used in a weapon, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Oct. 16)...Full Story

Pentagon to Resume Mandatory Anthrax Vaccinations Mandatory anthrax vaccinations of U.S. military personnel serving in Afghanistan, Iraq and South Korea will resume within 30 to 60 days, the Defense Department announced yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 20)...Full Story

	Tuesday, October 17, 2006

WMD Interception Exercise Planned for Persian Gulf Five nations have scheduled a ship-boarding exercise in the Persian Gulf to practice intercepting illicit WMD cargo at sea, a U.S. Navy spokesman said yesterday (see GSN, Sept. 27). Led by the United States, the Oct. 29-30 exercise is set to include personnel and equipment from Bahrain, France, Italy and the United Kingdom.  A British ship, the RFA Brambleleaf, will serve as the suspect vessel to be boarded. The exercise “validates what we do already,” said Navy spokesman Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl.  “What’s key here is we’re working with our coalition partners as well as the Bahrainis, which is a good thing” (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Oct. 16). Back to top       Indian Official Warns of Terrorist WMD Use A senior Indian official cautioned troops yesterday to be prepared to fight terrorists using weapons of mass destruction, the Times of India reported (see GSN, July 26). Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil urged National Security Guard commandos to train to operate in settings where terrorists could use chemical or biological weapons, although he did not offer specific warnings that such an attack would occur (Times of India, Oct. 17). Back to top

Airborne Debris Could Yield North Korean Nuclear Fingerprint By Jon Fox, Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Radioactive particles detected by U.S. sensors might provide insight into the weapon design and material that North Korea used in its nuclear test last week (see GSN, Oct. 16). Radionuclides leaking from the mine shaft where North Korean scientists detonated a device with a subkiloton yield on Oct. 9 could also offer the U.S. a valuable signature of North Korean plutonium — a sort of nuclear fingerprint. “In that sense, the North Koreans may have done us one kind of favor,” said Christopher Chyba, a professor of astrophysical sciences and international affairs at Princeton University. Air sampling early last week initially showed no radioactive particles drifting from North Korean territory, but by Wednesday aircraft had detected a radioactive signature consistent with a nuclear blast, congressional officials told the Associated Press over the weekend.  On Monday, U.S. officials confirmed that the blast was plutonium device with a yield below one kiloton. The United States still has little reason to fear that North Korea will be able to arm an ICBM with a nuclear warhead any time soon, Chyba said during a conference here last week. Based on Pyongyang’s abortive test of the Taepodong 2 long-range ballistic missile in July — it reportedly flew for just 40 seconds — and doubts about North Korean ability to build a nuclear device small enough to fit on top of a missile, a nuclear ICBM attack on the United States is just not possible, he said. Even if North Korea possessed the technological capabilities to produce a nuclear warhead that could be fitted inside a nose cone, and that missile could reach U.S. shores, an ICBM attack is immediately attributable, he added.  There would be no doubt where the missile came from. “One has to worry about the possibility of other means of delivery that would be less attributable,” he said.  That could include nuclear material being transferred to a terrorist group willing to detonate a weapon inside another nation. “In this sense the ability to do post-attack forensics and the ability to determine the origin of a nuclear weapon based on the debris from the explosion is extremely important,” Chyba said. By examining particles from the North Korean test, scientist might be able to determine the amount of time the plutonium spent in a nuclear a reactor and how long it has been since it has been reprocessed, according to experts.  Such information could provide a unique nuclear fingerprint that could in the future identify nuclear material as North Korean in origin. The day after the world learned of the North Korean test, U.S. President George W. Bush warned that “the transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or nonstate entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States and we would hold North Korea fully accountable for the consequences of such action.” Experts, however, have raised doubts about the capabilities of the U.S. nuclear forensics program.  If an act of nuclear terrorism were to occur in a U.S. city, scientists could be unable to conclusively link the nuclear material to its origin, Chyba said. “I think there is likely to be a certain credibility problem,” he said.  The success of nuclear forensics depends, in part, on a catalogue of nuclear signatures and data.  Possible sources could be identified and others eliminated, but it remains unclear how complete any such U.S. databank is, Chyba said. Open source information about the technological challenges and status of U.S. nuclear attribution capabilities is remarkably sparse.  In July, at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security Subcommittee, nuclear terrorism experts identified lagging attribution abilities as a serious issue (see GSN, July 28). Fred Ikle, a scholar with the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former defense undersecretary under President Ronald Reagan, called it “a deep problem” but declined to elaborate.  He suggested a closed hearing to discuss the sensitive issue. In testimony to the same committee, Deputy Energy Secretary Steven Aoki described a credible U.S. attribution ability as a core element in deterring nuclear terrorism.  Despite its importance, “a lot of hard work remains in fleshing out both the technical and policy dimensions of attribution,” Aoki wrote in a prepared statement. As U.S. nuclear scientists sift through the data provided by airborne radio isotopes, they might be able to garner a significant amount of information about the North Korean device beyond the simple confirmation that it was nuclear. “To be cautious here, it would amaze everybody … except for the people that have served in government what we will be able to tell if we’re able to pick up certain things, like radioisotopes, and able to calibrate some of the information,” Jon Wolfsthal, a nuclear expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said last week. A recent article in Arms Control Today examined a hypothetical case of nuclear terrorism in Moscow and suggested scientists examining debris or airborne particles could infer a significant amount about a device’s design and fuel. Among the first questions answered would be whether the bomb was fueled by highly enriched uranium or plutonium, wrote William Dunlap, former head of arms control programs at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Harold Smith, former assistant to the defense secretary on nuclear defense programs during the Clinton administration. In the case of a plutonium device, scientists could determine how much time the fuel had spent in a nuclear reactor, the length of time since the plutonium was separated from the spent fuel and possible clues as to methods of separation, they wrote.  Based on the efficiency of fission, analysts might also be able to make inferences about the sophistication of the weapon and its design. The dynamics of the surface explosion considered by Dunlap and Smith are significantly different than an underground test.  North Korea apparently detonated its device deep underground, which could limit the amount of material that escapes into the atmosphere. “What little gets up is not is not very rich,” said William Happer, a physics professor at Princeton University and former director of energy research at the Energy Department.  That is in stark contrast to the era of atmospheric tests, where everything was floating around for the sampling.  “It was amazing what kind of detail you could get from that,” he said. The small nature of the explosion might actually lead to more nuclear evidence — radionuclides — reaching the atmosphere than would occur with a larger underground detonation.  The larger the explosion, the more likely it is to crush and melt surrounding rock into a barrier against the leak of radioactive material. “It’s well known from experience at the Nevada Test Site that it was the small nuclear explosions that had the tendency to leak,” said Paul Richards, a seismologist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y.  It is important to catch leaking material within a few days of the event, Richards said, “because the most diagnostic isotopes have a not very long half life.” Depending on the quality of the samples, the radionuclide data could provide information about the yield of the weapon as well something about the construction, said Philip Coyle, the Pentagon’s former head of weapons testing and former head of nuclear testing at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  “If we get good samples, yes, it will tell us quite a bit,” said Coyle, now a senior adviser to the Center for Defense Information. While the scientific data might provide insight into the weapon’s composition and general design goals, what exactly North Korea intended to achieve with the detonation will, however, remain cloudy, Wolfsthal said. “We won’t be able to tell anything about the overall makeup, the size of it, whether it was intended for warhead or a simple demonstration — I think that may be beyond our capacity,” he said. Back to top       D.P.R.K. Used Plutonium Bomb; Second Test Possible North Korea is believed to have used a plutonium-fueled bomb last week in its nuclear test, indicating that it has not yet succeeded in enriching uranium to levels that could be used in a weapon, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Oct. 16). “This is good news because we have a reasonably good idea how much plutonium they have made,” said Siegfried Hecker, former head of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, who has seen parts of Pyongyang’s nuclear infrastructure. North Korea purchased uranium enrichment equipment and information from the nuclear black market operation once run by head Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. Pyongyang’s plutonium stores are large enough to produce between six and 10 weapons, according to U.S. intelligence analysts. Meanwhile, there have been signs that North Korea is planning a second test, the Times reported (Shanker/Sanger, New York Times, Oct. 17). “I have received information on that, but can’t disclose the details,” Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso said today, according to Agence France-Presse. Recent satellite imagery of the site of the Oct. 9 underground blast has shown people and trucks, according to NBC News. “U.S. intelligence is not ruling out the possibility of North Korea conducting a nuclear test.  But there isn’t any evidence one is imminent,” an intelligence official told AFP. “We’re watching it, obviously, and discussing it with other parties as well,” said U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.  “That would further deepen the isolation of North Korea and I hope they would not take such a provocative act” A South Korean official said the images might show military activity that is not connected to a coming nuclear test. “We’re preparing for uncertainties, but are very cautious in analyzing North Korea-related intelligence,” he said. A Japanese lawmaker argued that the seeming failure of the test, measured at less than one kiloton, means that North Korea cannot be considered a nuclear power. “If it was a failure, then North Korea does not possess a nuclear capability,” said Hidenao Nakagawa, secretary general of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (Agence France-Presse I/Interactive Investor, Oct. 17). There is some discussion among scientists and weapons designers that the test involved a complex, small weapon, the Washington Post reported.  There is little intelligence about the design of the device that might have been used. It might take North Korea up to a decade to produce a nuclear bomb that could be fitted to a missile, according to U.S. intelligence. Rice plans in her trip this week to Asia and Russia to press nations to completely implement the sanctions approved Saturday by the U.N. Security Council. “Every country in the region must share the burdens as well as the benefits of our common security,” she said yesterday.  Her comments were directed at China and South Korea, which have expressed their intent to maintain some level of trade connections with their neighbor. Nations must “collectively isolate” North Korea, Rice said (Kessler/Linzer, Washington Post, Oct. 17). China said today it would meet its obligations under the resolution while also obeying its own regulations, AFP reported. “The Chinese side has always implemented the Security Council’s resolutions seriously and in a responsible manner.  This time is no exception,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao. “We will act in accordance with our commercial regulations and domestic law,” he added (Agence France-Presse II/Channel NewsAsia, Oct. 17). The sanctions are “a declaration of war,” North Korea announced today. “It is quite nonsensical to expect the D.P.R.K. to yield to the pressure and threat of someone at this time when it has become a nuclear weapons state,” according to a statement carried by the state-run news agency. Chief South Korean nuclear negotiator Chun Young-wood said the statement was “the usual rhetoric that they have been using at the time of the adoption of the Security Council resolution,” the Associated Press reported (Jae-Soon Chang, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Oct. 17). Back to top       EU Backs Sanctions Process Against Iran The European Union agreed today to support limited sanctions against Iran in an effort to force Tehran to curb its nuclear activities (see GSN, Oct. 16).  Foreign ministers from the 25-nation EU Council met in Luxembourg and agreed that “Iran’s continuation of [uranium] enrichment related activities has left the EU no choice but to support consultations” on adopting sanctions under Article 41 of the U.N. charter, according to a released statement.  Article 41 permits the U.N. Security Council to take measures to enforce Security Council resolutions.  Earlier this year, the council formally demanded that Iran freeze its sensitive nuclear activities. The EU Council expressed frustration that Iran has not accepted a package of incentives offered in June. “The proposals presented by the High Representative [EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana] on June 6 as a basis for a long-term agreement are far-reaching and would give Iran everything it needs to develop a modern civil nuclear power industry while addressing international concerns,” the statement says. The EU Council stressed that Iran could still return to the negotiating table.  The council “reaffirmed its commitment to a negotiated solution, and that such a solution would contribute to the development of the EU’s relations with Iran.  It urged Iran to take the positive path on [the] offer,” the statement says (European Union release, Oct. 17). Meanwhile in New York, Russia hinted that it might not back Security Council action against Iran unless the United States drops sanctions against two Russian firms. The Bush administration banned U.S. business with Russian arms exporter Rosoboronexport and aircraft maker Sukhoi after the firms triggered the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, a U.S. law that sanctions entities for conducting certain types of trade with Tehran (see GSN, Aug. 7). The existence of the Russian sanctions puts Moscow in a “predicament,” Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin said yesterday.  If Russia were to back Security Council action against Iran, Moscow would be supporting a measure “which at least by implication supports sanctions which have already been imposed on us,” he said. “So it is a somewhat ridiculous, bizarre political predicament,” Churkin said, “and the other side of it is that we don’t know why those sanctions were imposed on the two organizations back in Russia.” He suggested that Russia would link any support of Iranian sanctions to a lifting of U.S. sanctions. “This is a concern.  This has been an ongoing discussion,” Churkin said.  “If we work collectively, we need to work collectively.  If they want to go it on their own, legislating unilateral sanctions, then they are welcome to tackle the problem alone” (Edith Lederer, Associated Press, Oct. 17). Back to top

Pentagon to Resume Mandatory Anthrax Vaccinations Mandatory anthrax vaccinations of U.S. military personnel serving in Afghanistan, Iraq and South Korea will resume within 30 to 60 days, the Defense Department announced yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 20). A U.S. district judge ordered the mandatory immunization program halted in 2004 because of problems with the Food and Drug Administration’s approval process for the anthrax vaccine.  Six anonymous service people had challenged the vaccination program. The military since April 2005 has been offering the shot on a strictly voluntary basis, the Los Angeles Times reported.  Roughly half of service personnel heading to the regions of concern agreed to take the shots, said William Winkenwerder, assistant defense secretary for health affairs. “It is clear nobody likes getting shots if they don’t have to,” he said.  With the voluntary program, ‘we have been sending a signal that it is not as important as we believe it is.” The FDA in December 2005 ruled that the existing anthrax vaccine is safe and effective, opening the door to resumption of mandatory shots. “The vaccine has been thoroughly reviewed by several independent outside groups,” Winkenwerder said. Plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Zaid said he would file a new lawsuit to again halt the program.  The risks of the vaccine outweigh the benefits, he said.  “There is no scientific proof the vaccine is effective in human beings,” Zaid said. Several people died after receiving the anthrax vaccination, though the Pentagon has said a direct link between the shot and death has not been established, the Times reported. There are now 140,000 troops in Iraq, 20,000 in Afghanistan and 30,000 in South Korea, along with defense contractors, who would fall under the mandatory program. Winkenwerder said the threat of a biological attack should not be discounted. “There have been very public, very direct comments made by terrorists about the religious duty to obtain chemical, biological and radio-nuclear capabilities,” he said (Julian Barnes, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 17). Back to top       Court Blocks Opening of Livermore Biodefense Lab The U.S. Energy Department cannot open a biodefense laboratory at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California until it has studied the potential environmental effects of a terrorist attack on the facility, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 6). The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the agency to consider the likelihood of a terrorist attack on the laboratory, and whether the potential impact triggers a complete environmental review.  It could take a year to complete that review, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. The Energy Department had previously dismissed the need for such a review, saying there was a negligible chance of an attack.  The laboratory is intended to improve detection of biological agents such as anthrax and plague that might be used in acts of terrorism.  Plaintiffs in the 2003 lawsuit that led to the ruling argued that the research would involve using aerosolized forms of the pathogens on test animals. “I feel safer because of the court’s decision,” said Marylia Kelley, executive director of Tri-Valley CAREs, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.  “In the event of a terrorist attack on this laboratory where bioagents become airborne, hundreds or thousands of people could have been exposed to deadly pathogens.” Livermore spokesman Steve Wampler said the government has not determined its response to the ruling or an opening date for the laboratory (Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 17). Back to top

Awareness of Chemical Weapons Urged in Africa The vice president of Tanzania yesterday urged all African nations to consider the danger posed by chemical weapons, IPP Media reported (see GSN, July 27). Greater understanding is needed regarding the issues of chemical disarmament and the Chemical Weapons Convention, Ali Mohamed Shein said at a regional meeting of African agencies designated to fulfill their countries’ obligations under the treaty. “We cannot deny that most of our people do not have the awareness, but history shows us that chemical weapons had been used in many countries like Angola, Guinea Bissau, Egypt, Mozambique and Zimbabwe,” Shein said. Forty-eight African nations have signed the treaty that prohibits the development, production, use or transfer of chemical weapons.  Five African nations have not signed the pact, which has 180 states parties, IPP reported. Each member state is required to designate a national authority and develop legislation and administrative rules to meet its treaty requirements.  This was the fourth meeting of national authorities in Africa (Hannah Mwandoloma, IPP Media, Oct. 17). Back to top

Russia Seeks Clarity on European Missile Defense Russia would like more information about NATO’s plans to deploy missile defenses, a Russian military leader said yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 16).  In particular, Moscow needs to know whether it will be included in a joint system now being considered, said Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the chief of staff of Russia’s armed forces. “It’s necessary to decide:  What’s next?” he said as a joint NATO-Russian computer-based missile defense exercise began.  “Will we create a joint missile defense for Europe with Russia’s participation, or will it be a European missile defense without Russia’s participation, as a segment of a U.S. national missile defense?” Russia has protested U.S. plans to deploy missile interceptors in Eastern Europe, complaining that they would be intended to defeat Russian strategic missiles (see GSN, Sept. 22).  Baluyevsky said NATO leaders have agreed to discuss the issue at a planned NATO-Russian meeting in November (Associated Press/International Herald Tribune, Oct. 16). Back to top       More Missile Defense Funding Needed, Analyst Says A former Defense Department official expressed confidence in the U.S. missile defense system but said it requires significant additional funding, Space & Missile Defense Report reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 11). Dan Blumenthal, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said he believes the system is capable of protecting Japan and South Korea. “I think that, however, we need a lot more investment” in missile shield initiatives, said Blumenthal, who served as a country director in the defense secretary’s Office for International Security Affairs from 2002 to 2004. He noted successful tests of the ballistic missile defense system, including downing of target missiles by sea-based interceptors. “The Japanese felt a lot more reassured when we sent Aegis” ship-based antimissile systems prior to North Korea’s July 4 launches of seven missiles (see GSN, July 5). North Korea’s subsequent testing of a nuclear weapon (see related GSN story, today) also illustrates the need for missile defense, Blumenthal said. “Absolutely, this speaks for more defense, more missile defense,” he said at an AEI forum (Space & Missile Defense Report, Oct. 16). Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

© Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.