The U.S. Congressional Budget Office estimates that the United States will spend $18 billion on the Ground-based Missile Defense system, shown above in a September test, through 2017 (DOD photo). U.S. Missile Defense Spending to Peak in 2016 at $15 Billion By Jon Fox, Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Current U.S. plans indicate that annual spending on the missile defense system will peak in 2016 at about $15 billion, according to a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (see GSN, Oct. 30). The government has spent billions on a missile shield designed to protect the United States and its allies from the threat of ballistic missiles, but the program has yet to create an operational defense, critics say. Missile defense programs have a mixed record in testing; in September, a target missile in an intercept drill had to be destroyed shortly after launching (see GSN, Sept. 14).  ..Full Story

Russia Seeks Weakened U.N. Action on Iran In a counterproposal to a European draft U.N. Security Council resolution, Russia has deleted significant sections of language that would have called on Iran to curb major portions of its nuclear program, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 8)...Full Story

California Locksmith Dodges Chemical Bullet A Sacramento, Calif., locksmith escaped danger last month when he unknowingly avoided damaging vials of possible chemical weapon agents stored in an antique safe he opened (see GSN, Feb. 3)...Full Story

	Thursday, November 9, 2006

Russia Seeks Weakened U.N. Action on Iran In a counterproposal to a European draft U.N. Security Council resolution, Russia has deleted significant sections of language that would have called on Iran to curb major portions of its nuclear program, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 8). The Russian changes would weaken language on Iran’s heavy-water reactor plans and would soften a call for Tehran to allow more intrusive international monitoring of its nuclear activities, according to copy of document acquired by AP.  The Russian draft also contains no reference to Russian plans to complete construction of the Iranian nuclear power plant at Bushehr, AP reported. The Russian version seeks to focus the resolution entirely on Iran’s uranium enrichment program, according to AP. Iran plans to finish building a heavy-water reactor at Arak in 2009, a site of concern to the West because such reactors produce weapon-usable plutonium.  The European draft resolution says the Security Council “decides that Iran shall suspend work” at Arak, but the Russian version “calls upon Iran to reconsider” completing work there. As for more cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Western draft “decides … that Iran shall without delay” implement the Additional Protocol to its agency safeguards agreement.  The Russian draft only “urges” Tehran to adhere to the protocol (George Jahn, Associated Press/International Herald Tribune, Nov. 8). While Russia has disagreed so far with the European strategy, which is largely backed by Washington, Moscow has also been frustrated by Iranian actions, according to Russian analysts. “Russia is not ready to support fully fledged sanctions against Iran, but it is looking for ways to convince the Iranians to be more transparent in their nuclear research activities,” said Anton Khlopkov of the Moscow-based PIR Center. A planned visit to Moscow by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki was suddenly canceled yesterday, and plans for Russia to provide nuclear fuel for the Bushehr plant remain indefinite, AP reported today. An unidentified Russian nuclear official reportedly complained this week that Iran was not meeting all of its obligations, including making all required payments.  Another Russian export official said that the final fuel delivery schedule remains to be determined, according to AP (Henry Meyer, Associated Press II/Houston Chronicle, Nov. 9). Back to top       Senior Democrats Back U.S.-Indian Nuclear Deal As their party seemingly prepares to take control of Congress, two senior Democrats said yesterday they would continue to push for approval of the U.S-Indian nuclear trade deal, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Nov. 8). The U.S. House of Representatives has passed enabling legislation for the agreement, under which India would gain access to U.S. nuclear technology in exchange for opening its civilian atomic facilities to international monitoring.  The Senate has not yet voted on the bill. Legislators are “ready to go with the India bill,” possibly when Congress reconvenes next week, said Senator Joseph Biden (Del.), ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Biden and House International Relations Committee ranking Democrat Tom Lantos (Calif.) said they would push for approval of the legislation. The Senate would need “at least a day’s worth of debate, no more than two,” on the bill, Biden said.  He expected that it would pass easily, but that current Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) would decide if the bill will be considered during this congressional session. “A lot of this depends on the mood and whether or not we’ve all become mature enough to say, OK, the voters have spoken; let’s move on and let’s get going,” Biden said. The India agreement is “very much in our national interest,” Lantos told AP. “Whether we do it in December or February is really secondary, but I am convinced that we should do it,” he said (Foster Klug, Associated Press/International Herald Tribune, Nov. 8). Back to top       Russian Warns of Cyber Terror Against Nuclear Sites A senior Russian security official has warned of grave dangers posed by the potential intersection of cyber terrorism and nuclear terrorism, Interfax reported yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 12). “An interconnection between nuclear terrorism and cyber terrorism could have a global catastrophic nature.  The likelihood is not an invention.  The hacking of a computer at the Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania could have resulted in a disaster similar to that in Chernobyl,” Russian Security Council Deputy Secretary Valentin Sobolev said at the “Terrorism and Electronic Media” conference in Cyprus. The computer networks of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California have been hacked, Sobolev said.  He also noted security problems at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico (see GSN, Nov. 6). Israeli researchers found more than 730,000 vulnerabilities in 36 million Internet addresses originating in 214 countries, Interfax reported.  These included information systems for French, Indian and U.S. nuclear research facilities. “A flawed system of control over fissile materials and flaws in antiterrorist laws in virtually all countries objectively increase the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists,” Sobolev said (Interfax, Nov. 8). Back to top       U.S. Election Could Spur Talks with North Korea The apparent takeover of Congress by the Democratic Party in Tuesday’s U.S. election could help force the Bush administration to negotiate directly with North Korea over its nuclear program, analysts said today (see GSN, Nov. 8). “Many Democrats in the Congress pressured the Bush administration to talk directly with North Korea.  This tend will be strengthened,” said So Chung On, international affairs chief for the Pyongyang-backing General Association of Korean Residents in Japan. “Talks are the best way to solve anything concerning the Korean Peninsula, so I like (this development) very much,” the North Korean representative added (Agence France-Presse I, Nov. 9). South Korean analysts concurred regarding the effect of the election, also noting the resignation yesterday of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, AFP reported. “Rumsfeld’s resignation will encourage voices calling for more flexibility on the U.S. side in dealing with North Korea through direct negotiations,” said Kim Chang-wood of the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses. “Bilateral talks with an intensity of one-on-one negotiations are likely to be held within the framework of the six-party talks,” said Tong Kim, research professor at Korea University.  He said, though, that the ultimate goal for Washington to have North Korea completely and verifiably eliminate its nuclear arsenal would not change. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should gain influence on North Korea policy, as the hawkish Vice President Dick Cheney “is likely to find his sway over the administration quite weakened,” Tong said. “The new defense secretary-designate [former CIA chief Robert Gates] is considered a moderate who has a deep understanding of the North Korean nuclear issue,” he added (Agence France-Presse II/ChannelNewsAsia.com, Nov. 9). U.S. President George W. Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao are expected to meet next week in Vietnam, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said yesterday amidst “strategic” talks in Beijing.  The meeting is expected to include discussion on resuming the six-party talks, now that Pyongyang has agreed to rejoin negotiations on its nuclear program, Reuters reported. “We are very interested in … talking about what we can do to defuse the problem of North Korea’s nuclear ambition,” Burns told Deputy Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo.  “In that vein, I look forward very much to the meeting next week next week between President Hu Jintao and President Bush in Hanoi” at the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (Lindsay Beck, Reuters/Washington Post, Nov. 8). Burns also met in Beijing with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alexeyev, AFP reported.  The U.S. diplomat said today that the five nations negotiating with North Korea remain united on their strategy for ending the nuclear standoff. “I think the five parties are very strongly together on what needs to be done, and that is the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, the fulfillment of the September 2005 agreement that North Korea has signed up to,” Burns said. Russian and U.S. officials in talks “entirely agreed on full and effective implementation of the U.S. Security Council Resolution 1718,” which imposed sanctions on North Korea in response to its Oct. 9 nuclear test, said Undersecretary of State Robert Joseph, who traveled with Burns to Japan, South Korea and China for talks on the nuclear standoff. “We did not discuss (the timing of the six-party talks),” Alexeyev said.  “But we both understand that the next round will take place” (Robert Saiget, Agence France-Presse III/TODAYonline.com, Nov. 9). Alexeyev said the six-nation negotiations would not resume before mid-December, the Associated Press reported (Scott McDonald, Associated Press, Nov. 9). Pyongyang agreed to return to the talks in order to “completely remove the U.S. nuclear threat,’ the Tokyo-based, pro-North Choson Sinbo stated today.  That could indicate it will require additional concessions from Washington, AP reported “If the U.S. does not live up to its responsibility and obligation with regard to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, North Korea will not give up its nuclear” weapons,” according to the newspaper (Associated Press II/USA Today, Nov. 9). Back to top       U.S. Seeks Bids for Uranium Downblending The U.S. Energy Department announced yesterday its intent to ask contractors to submit bids to produce low-enriched uranium fuel from a stock of highly enriched uranium no longer needed for U.S. nuclear weapons (see GSN, Sept. 18).  The downblended material would be kept in a reserve as part of the Bush administration’s Reliable Fuel Supply program.  That effort is intended to discourage other nations from developing domestic uranium enrichment capabilities by ensuring their access to nuclear fuel, according to a department release. “Establishing a reliable fuel supply supports the administration’s twin goals of expanding the use of nuclear power and curbing nuclear proliferation,” said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in the release.  “This will help countries pursue nuclear power confidently, without the burden of producing their own fuel, while curbing the spread of sensitive technology.” The Energy Department announced last year that it would set aside 17.4 metric tons of highly enriched uranium for the program (see GSN, Sept. 27, 2005).  Once blended down to civil power enrichment levels, the resulting 290 metric tons would be worth about $750 million. The National Nuclear Security Administration intends to grant the downblending contract in early 2007 and to have the process completed in 2010, according to the release (National Nuclear Security Administration release, Nov. 7). Back to top       Pentagon Forms Nuclear Survivability Task Force The Defense Department is forming a task force to consider the potential for crucial components of the U.S. military complex to survive a nuclear strike, Inside Missile Defense reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 26). The “Task Force on the Nuclear Weapons Effects National Enterprise” is to study the present and potential nuclear capabilities of enemy nations.  It will examine Pentagon “standards for nuclear survivability” and lists of “critical warfighting and enabling systems and capabilities that must function through, or immediately after, a nuclear event,” according to a memo from Defense Undersecretary Kenneth Krieg. A nuclear explosion in the atmosphere could release an electromagnetic pulse with the potential to cripple communications and weapons electronics, Inside Missile Defense reported (see GSN, June 22).  Part of the task force’s job will be to study “present and planned DOD programs and procedures for assessing these critical systems and capabilities against … applicable standards,” according to Krieg. The memo adds that the panel should “elevate nuclear survivability as an important ‘requirement’ and ensure a viable (nuclear weapons effects) assessment capability for the future.” The task force is expected to produce a “national enterprise” involving modeling and simulation, which the Pentagon and Energy Department could use to meet survivability goals by 2015 and years after, Krieg stated (Keith Costa, Inside Missile Defense, Nov. 7). Back to top

California Locksmith Dodges Chemical Bullet A Sacramento, Calif., locksmith escaped danger last month when he unknowingly avoided damaging vials of possible chemical weapon agents stored in an antique safe he opened (see GSN, Feb. 3). To media fanfare, Rick Vanina opened the 1930s-era safe that had been found at a Sacramento demolition site.  A first inspection of the opened safe produced only old financial documents. Later, Vanina discovered four liquid-filled vials, each the size of a cigarette pack, hidden the safe’s door. After consulting with a more-veteran locksmith, Vanina learned that chemicals, such as tear gas agents and even mustard gas, were sometimes placed in safes to defend against criminal safecrackers, the Sacramento Bee reported. Vanina missed hitting the vials when he drilled through the door to open the safe. Three of vials have been destroyed by law enforcement officials, and the fourth was kept for testing, the Bee reported.  A bomb-squad official said he thought the liquid was probably chloropicrin, a chemical agent used in World War I (Bob Shallit, Sacramento Bee, Nov. 8). Back to top

U.S. Missile Defense Spending to Peak in 2016 at $15 Billion By Jon Fox, Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Current U.S. plans indicate that annual spending on the missile defense system will peak in 2016 at about $15 billion, according to a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (see GSN, Oct. 30). The government has spent billions on a missile shield designed to protect the United States and its allies from the threat of ballistic missiles, but the program has yet to create an operational defense, critics say. Missile defense programs have a mixed record in testing; in September, a target missile in an intercept drill had to be destroyed shortly after launching (see GSN, Sept. 14).  The most advanced components of the system “may” rather than “should” have some defensive capability against a limited attack, Defense Department Operational Test and Evaluation Director David Duma stated in January (see GSN, June 26). Defense officials, though, have continued to express their belief in the system’s ability to bring down an ICBM.  Asked in June how much faith he put in the system, Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Henry Obering said, “In my mind it’s a much higher confidence than what has been described by our critics.”  Funding for the program remains robust and the budget office expects it to reach its highest level in 2016 as a number of defense systems move through the procurement phase and begin to be deployed.   Annual costs would then decline to about $8 billion in 2024, the office expects. The peak comes roughly three years later than the date projected by budget analysts in a 2005 report, due to delays a number of major projects.  The budget office analysis does not detail the nature of those delays. In preparing its report, the Congressional Budget Office examined current Pentagon plans for missile defenses as well as policy statements from the White House.  Virginia Samson, a missile defense analyst with the Center for Defense Information, called the analysis a valuable peek into the future of U.S. missile defenses. The Missile Defense Agency faces different reporting requirements than other military agencies regarding its budget requests and details of its programs remain relatively murky, Samson said.  “I think it’s one of the better things that we have,” she said of the budget projections released last month. The funding for the missile defense program has been set by Congress at $9.4 billion for fiscal 2007.  The analysis by the budget office, however, does not provide precise yearly estimates going forward, nor does it provide a precise breakdown of estimated funding for each missile defense program. Due to the spiral nature of the missile defense development — programs are rolled out even as they continue to be developed to create an interim defense capability — requirements for program details are loosened for missile defense, Samson said.  “For whatever reason missile defense is thought to be in such a special category that it can do that type of thing,” she said.  That makes projecting costs years in advance very difficult, Samson said.  “It just makes oversight very hard.” The president’s fiscal 2007 budget request and the Defense Department’s Future Years Defense Program report propose funding averaging $10 billion annually for continued research and development of an overall missile defense system through 2024. Another $500 million annually would go toward systems designed to intercept missiles toward their end of their flights, such as Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missile interceptors. The projected spending would fund research, development and testing of antimissile systems designed to counter ballistic missiles in all phases of flight — shortly after they are launched, in midflight and as they re-enter the atmosphere. According to the CBO analysis, an expanded deployment of the U.S. Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system will be completed in 2013, but the government will continue to purchase additional missile interceptors through 2017.  Total cost for work on the system through 2017 is estimated at $18 billion. The office also expects the Defense Department to develop and deploy “a constellation of space-based infrared sensor satellites.”  Such satellites would be able to detect and track ballistic missiles in flight beginning shortly after their launch.  That data would then be relayed back to interceptors launched to destroy the warheads. The Defense Department’s initial plans include a constellation of 24 to 27 satellites, but the budget office interprets current plans as calling for the launch of a five-satellite group in 2014.  In 2017, more satellites would be launched, bringing the total up to nine, according to the budget office, which anticipates the total cost for the two groups to be $7 billion. For terminal-phase defenses, including the PAC-3 short-range missile defense systems, Medium Extended Air-Defense System and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, the budget office researchers estimate annual funding of about $2 billion a year through 2024. The Pentagon is also expected to spend $500 million in fiscal 2008 for the Space Test Bed to support research for boost-phase interceptors in space, according to budget office researchers. Information on the Space Test Bed is thin, but the fact that the Missile Defense Agency is going to seek funding as soon as 2008 to place weapon-related items in space is significant, Samson said.  As to what exactly the plans entail, “we can only hazard a guess at this point,” she said. To begin the weaponization of space “would be a huge change in policy for the United States,” Samson said. In June, both Russia and China told the U.N. Conference on Disarmament that the threat of space-based weapons could be equal to that posed by weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, June 9). A U.S. State Department official, however, asserted U.S. rights to develop space-based weapons (see GSN, June 14).  John Mohanco, State Department deputy director for multilateral, nuclear and security affairs, told the Conference on Disarmament that space weapons could help safeguard military and commercial satellites. Washington, he said, would oppose any international efforts restricting its plans.  “As long as the potential for such attacks remains, our government will continue to consider the possible role that space-related weapons may play in protecting our assets,” he said.  Still, he added that “for our part, the United States does not have any weapons in space, nor do we have plans to build such weapons.” Back to top       Pentagon Examines Missile Defense Priorities The U.S. Defense Department has asked some missile defense program managers to justify why their programs should remain on a list of activities that receive the highest priority in the acquisition process, Inside Missile Defense reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 17). Defense Undersecretary Kenneth Krieg issued a memorandum last month asking for a review of programs with at “DX” rating — those “of the highest national defense urgency based on military objectives.” Missile defense programs with a DX rating include terminal-phase interceptors such as the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missile (see GSN, Oct. 30), the Airborne Laser (see GSN, Oct. 30), and space-based systems (see GSN, Oct. 26). The review is “something I think that periodically needs to happen — these programs stay on the list for a long time without any re-look, and this is a good opportunity for that to happen,” Deputy Defense Undersecretary for Industrial Policy William Greenwalt said last week. Responses to the memorandum are due Dec. 1 (John Liang, Inside Missile Defense, Nov. 8). Back to top

U.S. Considers Airplane Attacks on Nuclear Reactors Members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission are debating the need to require designs for new nuclear power reactors to include specific protection against a strike by an airplane, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, June 20). The commission has approved two new reactor designs and is considering two more.  As it stands, new facilities would not have to meet security measures more stringent than those required for existing sites.  Airplanes are not among the threats that a nuclear reactor must be able to withstand.  Only one of the five commission members appears to support making that a requirement in design, the Times reported. “We’ve left it in the hands of Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration and the reactor vendors, who are building these plants, to do what they think is right in the area, and to me that’s clearly not the answer,” said commissioner Gregory Jaczko.  “We should be requiring they design plants to withstand such attacks.” The European Pressurized Reactor, one of the four new designs, is said to offer additional protection against airplanes. Owners of operating reactors are already required to plan for an airplane attack in order to reduce the damage and the potential release of radiation.  Jaczko argued that preconstruction design improvements would limit the later need for “mitigating actions.” Commission member Edward McGaffigan Jr. said, though, “We think we’ve done enough.” There are a “terribly complex set of target sets” — various reactor parts that a terrorist would need to disable — “that makes it highly improbable that a terrorist attack would succeed,” McGaffigan said. A senior staff member said the commission was not looking to produce additional requirements, but indicated that airplanes should be considered as a threat. “We want to be able to stand up to answer the logical question:  ‘Guys, did you look at the aircraft?  We want to be able to say yes, and we’re confident that there is no issue, or if there is an issue, we’ve taken appropriate measures,” the staffer said (Matthew Wald, New York Times, Nov. 9).   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.