U.S. Trident submarines, such as the USS Florida above, would be a prime candidates to carry a new type of nuclear warhead under Energy Department plans (Lynn Friant/U.S. Navy). U.S. Reaffirms Need for Modernizing Nuclear Complex By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — U.S. officials reaffirmed the need to transform the U.S. nuclear weapons complex at a public hearing yesterday while critics of the plan used the event as an opportunity to attack the size of the nation’s atomic arsenal (see GSN, Oct. 20)...Full Story

North Korea Could Test Another Weapon, South Says North Korea might conduct another nuclear test in order to improve its bargaining position at the next round of six-party talks due to begin Monday, according to South Korean Defense Minister Kim Jang-soo (see GSN, Dec. 14)...Full Story

Nuclear Supplier Nations to Become Focus of Washington Effort to Advance U.S.-Indian Deal Now that the U.S. Congress has cleared the way for the U.S.-Indian nuclear deal to proceed, the Bush administration plans to focus its efforts on changing international nuclear export guidelines, a senior U.S. official said this week (see GSN, Dec. 13)...Full Story

	Friday, December 15, 2006

House Democrats Plan to Reorganize Intel Oversight Democratic leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives plan to reorganize the body’s oversight of U.S. intelligence agencies in an effort to implement some changes urged by the Sept. 11 commission, the Los Angeles Times reported today (see GSN, Nov. 30). Under the plan announced yesterday by incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House would create a Select Intelligence Oversight Panel that would be responsible for overseeing both the operations and budgets of U.S. intelligence services. “This panel will have the responsibility to hold hearings, to consider the budget for intelligence,” Pelosi said.  “Its purpose is to protect the American people with the best possible intelligence.” The move followed a call for similar action by the commission, which determined that congressional oversight has been fragmented, with some committees handling classified briefings and others managing agencies’ budgets. The different committee responsibilities led to occasions when policy recommendations of one panel were not funded by another, the Times reported.  In addition, the intelligence agencies could bypass the oversight committees and go directly to the Appropriations Committee for support. “Whenever they ran into a problem with us, they quickly knocked on the door of appropriators and worked it out,” said one congressional staffer. The Pelosi plan would help resolve this problem, according to some commission members. “While this solution is not the precise formula the commission recommended, it clearly achieves the commission’s goals,” said former Representative Timothy Roemer (D-Ind.). “It’s a significant step forward,” said former Senator Slade Gorton (R-Wash.).  “It means there will be one group of members who will be primarily responsible for the intelligence budget.  They will therefore pay attention to it and provide a greater degree of oversight” (Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 15). Back to top       Prewar Iraq Not Seen as Risk to U.K., Document Says The British government did not believe that prewar Iraq posed a threat to the United Kingdom, according to a statement from a former Foreign Office official made public this week (see GSN, Sept. 7). Carne Ross, former first secretary to the British mission to the United Nations, submitted his statement in 2004 during an inquiry into prewar intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, July 14, 2004). “At no time did [Her Majesty’s Government] assess that Iraq’s WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the U.K. or its interests,” according to Ross’ statement, which was posted yesterday on the Web site of the House of Commons’ Foreign Affairs Committee. “There was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW (chemical weapons), BW (biological weapons) or nuclear material,” said Ross, who resigned from the Foreign Office in 2004 to protest the invasion. “There was moreover no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbors or the U.K. or U.S.,” his statement adds. “It was the commonly held view among the officials dealing with Iraq that any threat had been effectively contained,” Ross said.  “I remember on several occasions the U.K. team stating this view during our discussions with the U.S. (who agreed).” “At the same time, we would frequently argue, when the U.S. raised the subject, that ‘regime change’ was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos,” he said. The British government offered the primary foreign support to the U.S.-led 2003 invasion.  No evidence of active WMD programs in Iraq have been found since the fall of the Hussein regime (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Dec. 15). Back to top

U.S. Reaffirms Need for Modernizing Nuclear Complex By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — U.S. officials reaffirmed the need to transform the U.S. nuclear weapons complex at a public hearing yesterday while critics of the plan used the event as an opportunity to attack the size of the nation’s atomic arsenal (see GSN, Oct. 20). Thomas Graham, a career U.S. nonproliferation and disarmament diplomat, called for a smaller nuclear arsenal adapted for an “age of terrorism.” “The Cold War is over,” he said before the department’s hearing.  “Why do we need so many weapons?  Why do we even want so many nuclear weapons?” The dominating threat of the moment is terrorism, Graham said.  Nuclear deterrence, long the backbone of U.S. defense policy, is powerless to prevent nonstate actors, Graham said. “The principal threat is nuclear terrorism, which cannot be deterred by nuclear weapons,” he said. Graham spoke before the U.S. Energy Department held the last of 17 public hearings to solicit input on Complex 2030, its plan to refurbish and reconfigure the nation’s nuclear weapons infrastructure. The meetings are mandated under the National Environmental Policy Act and have been held over the last two months at sites around the country close to nuclear weapon-related installations. Federal agencies are required under the law to create an impact statement when undertaking actions that might significantly affect the environment.  Comments regarding environmental concerns are taken into account by DOE planners, officials said. The meetings have no bearing on the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. defense strategy; that is set by the president and was last outlined in the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review. Energy Department officials said participants frequently used the forums as platforms to call for U.S. nuclear disarmament.  The final meeting yesterday at department headquarters here followed the pattern. “We are quite literally marching in the wrong direction from the rest of the world,” said the Rev. John Chryssavgis, of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.  The archdiocese was one of 23 national religious organizations to submit a statement of opposition to Complex 2030 yesterday. The proposal to revitalize the nuclear complex, which is being driven in part by the Reliable Replacement Warhead program to replace some weapons in the U.S. stockpile, would cost more than $150 billion over the next 25 years, according to preliminary estimates from the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration (see GSN, May 22). The Energy Department’s spotty track record in pulling off large-scale projects, the cost of the proposal and the perceived importance of the nation’s nuclear deterrent, led the Government Accountability Office in November to highlight Complex 2030 as a suggested area of oversight for the incoming Congress. Citing an Energy Department history of “poor project management,” GAO auditors called on Congress to require the Defense Department to specify the number and type of weapons need for deterrence.  The agency also urged the National Nuclear Security Administration to develop accurate cost estimates for the proposal, as well as alternative plans and measurable milestones, and for Congress to re-evaluate the cost and need to develop new nuclear weapon designs compared to the price of refurbishing existing weapons in the stockpile. The aim of Complex 2030 is to update an aging and expensive nuclear weapons complex that in some cases dates back to the 1940s.  The result would be a more responsive and efficient infrastructure that could produce more warheads quickly if needed, according to the Energy Department. The United States has about 5,000 deployed nuclear weapons with another 5,000 in reserve, according to nongovernmental estimates.  The current Energy Department plan calls for replacing about 6,000 Cold War-era warheads with 2,200 new weapons designed under the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. The new or rehabilitated sites in coming years would be used to develop and manufacture the new weapons and to dismantle their predecessors, according to plans for the multiyear program. Plutonium handling and production of nuclear pits — the fissile core of a bomb —  would also be consolidated to one location that could produce as many as 125 bomb triggers a year.  Los Alamos National Laboratory is currently preparing to make 80 plutonium triggers annually at an existing facility. “As we look ahead, our nuclear weapons complex is not sufficiently responsive to address technical problems in the stockpile or react to adverse geopolitical changes,” Ted Wyka, document manager in the NNSA Transformation Office, said at the meeting.  “We want to fix this issue.” DOE officials have also argued that designing new warheads would eliminate a possible need to detonate an aging device to test the viability of the existing stockpile.  Others in the scientific community, however, have suggested that a new warhead would almost certainly need to be tested before the military would rely on it in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. It is unlikely that testing would be needed to check the maintenance of the current stockpile, said physicist Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.  “There has never been an aging-related safety problem with the nuclear stockpile of the United States.  Never,” he said. The Energy Department has also argued in the past the aging of plutonium bomb components makes a new warhead design essential to ensure the arsenal remains reliable.  However, a recently released DOE study found that life expectancy of those components is nearly twice what was previously thought (see GSN, Nov. 20). Since the release of that study earlier this month, DOE officials have suggested that the concerns regarding the reliability of the thousands of non-nuclear bomb components is sufficient to require a redesign.  “Neither plutonium lifetime or pit lifetime equals warhead lifetime,” Wyka said. All comments received at meetings or via mail through Jan. 17 will be incorporated into a draft supplemental environmental impact statement on Complex 2030.  A series of public hearings on the draft are planned for summer 2007, Wyka said.  A final statement is scheduled to be published in 2008, after which the National Nuclear Security Administration would announce any decisions regarding  Complex 2030 made on the basis of the comments. Funding for the Complex 2030 plan, however, as well as the RRW program, must still be approved by Congress.  Prospects for the plan’s passage are slim, David Culp, of the antinuclear Friends Committee on National Legislation, said at the meeting. “Some of the smartest people in town work in this building, and it’s of great frustration to me that you have come back with another failed proposal,” he said.  “What you’re doing doesn’t have public support.  It does not have support on Capitol Hill. … You’re not going to get this $150 billion plan through Congress.” Back to top       North Korea Could Test Another Weapon, South Says North Korea might conduct another nuclear test in order to improve its bargaining position at the next round of six-party talks due to begin Monday, according to South Korean Defense Minister Kim Jang-soo (see GSN, Dec. 14). “We have to be thoroughly prepared to counter the possibility of a second or third nuclear test by North Korea and a possible hostile act by it in the process of negotiations over its nuclear weapons program,” Kim said in a written statement ordering increased combat readiness by the South Korean military. While saying he had no information about a possible follow-up to Pyongyang’s Oct. 9 test blast, a South Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman declared that Seoul would not acknowledge North Korea as a nuclear power at the negotiations. “Despite the nuclear test, we have not yet verified whether North Korea has nuclear devices that can be used as weapons,” said spokesman Choo Kyu-ho. Pyongyang’s negotiating stance, in the wake of its nuclear blast and July missile tests, remains to be see, Choo said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Dec. 15). South Korea is likely to seek to stretch out the talks to increase its perceived benefits, the Los Angeles Times reported today. India and Pakistan have shown that keeping a nuclear program in place for an extended period increases a country’s chances of being accepted as a nuclear power, according to the Times.  Pyongyang might also be looking to keep talks going past the 2008 presidential election, in hopes that the next administration might be a more amenable negotiating partner. Extending the life of the negotiations reduces the chances that North Korea would face cargo inspections or the full-force economic penalties called for in a U.N. Security Council resolution approved after the nuclear test, according to the Times. Pyongyang would also have additional time to prepare a stronger nuclear device, with the expectation that the five other negotiating nations subsequently would offer more incentives for nuclear disarmament, the Times reported. “It would certainly be good if we could solve this within two years,” said Yan Xuetong, a professor at Qinghua University in Beijing.  “But looking at cases in South Africa, Ukraine, Libya, it can take decades to solver a nuclear crisis.  This one has only lasted 16 years” (Mark Magnier, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 15). Back to top       Nuclear Supplier Nations to Become Focus of Washington Effort to Advance U.S.-Indian Deal Now that the U.S. Congress has cleared the way for the U.S.-Indian nuclear deal to proceed, the Bush administration plans to focus its efforts on changing international nuclear export guidelines, a senior U.S. official said this week (see GSN, Dec. 13). As India possesses nuclear weapons and is not a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the planned agreement requires changes to U.S. nonproliferation laws and to guidelines set by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (see GSN, Dec. 14). Last week’s passage of U.S. legislation enabling the deal “is a very powerful message to the NSG countries that the U.S. is going to push very hard for India and champion its cause at the NSG,” U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told reporters Wednesday.  “That’s the message we are giving out to all the countries that sit on the NSG” (Times of India, Dec. 14). One potential message recipient could be Japan, which today reserved judgment on the deal at the end of a four-day visit by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Agence France-Presse reported. “On this issue, I have told Prime Minister Singh that our country’s position is still under examination,” Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said after their meeting.  “I told Prime Minister Singh that Japan was the only country that was attacked by nuclear bombs and so we have a special feeling against them” (Agence France-Presse/Sharewatch, Dec. 15) Back to top       Iran Sanctions Seen by Christmas, Diplomat Says Leading U.N. nations were unlikely to reach agreement today on imposing sanctions against Iran, but a diplomat said they hoped to finish before Christmas, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Dec. 14). Top U.N. representatives from the five permanent Security Council members and Germany were set to meet again today to find common ground on a proposed resolution to reply to Iran’s refusal to curb its nuclear activities. “My goal is to complete the negotiations before Christmas,” said French Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere.  “We can do it.” Still, “it will take probably some more days to finalize the text,” he added. Diplomats continue to disagree on a proposed measure to ban the international travel of 12 Iranian officials involved in nuclear and missile activities, according to AFP.  The United States strongly supports the provision. “We just don’t think it belongs,” said Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin (Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, Dec. 14). Iran warned again today that it could reduce its cooperation with international nuclear inspectors if the Security Council were to act against Tehran (see GSN, Sept. 18). “The approval of a sanctions resolution at the U.N. Security Council will only prepare the conditions for the Islamic republic to restrict inspections as a natural reaction,” said Alaedin Boroujerdi, head of the parliamentary foreign affairs committee (Agence France-Presse II/Khaleej Times, Dec. 15). Back to top       Arab Interest in Nuclear Technology Raises Concerns A group of Arab nations has agreed to look into developing nuclear technology, raising concerns among some experts of a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race, Reuters reported yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 16; Reuters/Khaleej Times, Dec. 14). At a meeting last weekend, the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council ordered “a GCC-wide study be conducted to formulate a joint program in the field of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, in keeping with international standards and regulations,” said a communique.  The council consists of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (Raid Qusti, Arab News, Dec. 11). The move could be a result of the continuing dispute over Iran’s nuclear ambitions (see related GSN story, today), as well as long-standing Arab concerns over Israel’s nuclear capabilities (see GSN, Dec. 14), said some nonproliferation experts. “Proliferation of any kind of nuclear technology raises the specter of some sort of nuclear arms race,” said Robin Hughes, deputy editor of Jane’s Defense Weekly. While the GCC communique asserts the study is peaceful, “it’s clear from the context the region is involved in a nuclear race,” said Adel al-Harby, political editor of the Saudi newspaper al-Riyadh. The question of intentions is key to assessing the weapons proliferation risk, added senior diplomats in Vienna. “If the GCC states just want nuclear power reactors, that’s no problem.  No state has ever used power reactors to yield nuclear weapons,” one diplomat said. “No one can give a definitive answer on the motivation of the GCC, but I don’t think it’s too difficult to understand,” said another diplomat.  “With Iran defiant and … Israel defiant … it’s only logical that the other states of the region would feel threatened” (Reuters/Khaleej Times). GCC officials sought to ease potential concerns of neighboring states. “It is not a threat,” said Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal.  “It is an announcement so that there will be no misinterpretation of what we are doing.  We are not doing this secretly.  We are doing it openly.” “We want no bombs,” he added.  “Our policy is to have a region free of weapons of mass destruction” (Qusti, Arab News). Back to top       Russia to Put Multiple Warheads on Missiles Multiple warheads will be placed on some Russian strategic missiles that now carry only just one, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Nov. 27). Moscow would use the switch to sustain nuclear deterrence without the cost of extra missiles and without breaking arms control agreements. “In the near future we will begin to substitute the single warheads on Topol M intercontinental missiles with multiple warheads,” said Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, head of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces. Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday inspected mobile Topol M launchers that were recently deployed.  The deployment is a “serious step forward in strengthening Russia’s defense capability,” Putin said. “It has a stronger survivability, faster launch, and an ability to penetrate any prospective missile defense,” Putin said of the Topol M (Associated Press I, Dec. 15). The Missile Forces are to receive 69 Topol M missiles by 2015; 40 silo-based versions are already in place, AP reported. The Topol M has a range of 6,000 miles and is designed to overcome missile tracking and missile defense efforts.  The launch of the missile is difficult to detect because it drops its engines earlier in flight than previous designs.  The missile’s warheads also are largely similar to its decoys in flight, making it more difficult to bring down the actual weapon, according to chief designer Yuri Solomonov (Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press II/The Courier, Dec. 14). Back to top

U.S. Receives Latest Batch of Anthrax Vaccine A U.S. pharmaceutical firm recently delivered 3 million doses of anthrax vaccine to the Health and Human Services Department.  The order was the latest batch in a 5 million-dose contract that is scheduled to be completed by May 31, 2007 (see GSN, May 8). Emergent Biosolutions, the parent company of the firm once known as BioPort Corp., has supplied more than 9 million doses for the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile since 2005, according to a company release. “We are proud to play a vital role in the strategic defense of the United States and the protection of its citizens from the threat of an anthrax attack,” said company chief Fuad El-Hibri in the release (Emergent BioSolutions release, Dec. 14). Back to top

China, Japan Plan Joint CW Recovery Body China and Japan next week are expected to approve creation of a joint body to lead recovery and disposal of chemical weapons left by the Japanese army in China during World War II, The Daily Yomiuri reported (see GSN, Sept. 28). The new organization should be formally established in January. Afterward, Beijing and Tokyo are set to begin recovery of about 400,000 munitions believed buried in the Haerbaling district of the Jilin Province.  The area is believed to contain the greatest concentration of abandoned chemical weapons in China. The body would lead the recovery and treatment of the weapons, according to the Yomiuri.  It would be headed by senior officials from both governments. Japan is expected to pay for both the recovery plant, which is estimated to cost more than $827 million, along with the disposal facility with an estimated price tag of $1.7 billion (The Daily Yomiuri, Dec. 15). Back to top       Russia Hosts Inspectors at CW Destruction Site Inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons yesterday began their examination of a chemical weapons disposal facility Maradykovsky, Russia, ITAR-Tass reported (see GSN, Sept. 8). “This is the usual planned inspection that is conducted within the framework” of the Chemical Weapons Convention, said Russian official Mikhail Manin.  “The international inspections have shown that all operations to destroy especially dangerous means of mass destruction are carried out in strict accordance with international safety norms” (ITAR-Tass, Dec. 14). Back to top

U.S. Food Supply Remains Vulnerable to Sabotage The U.S. food supply is becoming increasingly vulnerable to intentional sabotage, even as work intensifies to prevent an act of agroterrorism, Newsday reported today (see GSN, Oct. 6, 2005). The United States has the most secure food supply in the world.  However, centralization of that supply, increasing imports from other nations, and what the Government Accountability Office called the “fragmented and problem-laden” safety system threatens that security. Recent cases of tainted food have killed three people and sickened hundreds, Newsday reported.  Those were all cases of natural food poisoning, but illustrate the danger posed by intentional threats. A Stanford University analysis last year said that hundreds of thousands of people could die from drinking milk tainted by only a third of an ounce of botulinum toxin (see GSN, June 29, 2005). “The threat from agroterrorism may not be widely recognized, but the threat is real and the impact could be devastating,” FBI Deputy Director John Pistole said at a recent meeting of law enforcement and agriculture officials. Documents on U.S. agriculture, translated into Arabic, have been found in caves in Afghanistan, he said.  There is no known specific danger, but “the absence of a communicated threat does not prove the absence of a threat,” Pistole said. The Homeland Security and Agriculture departments, FBI, and Food and Drug Administration are among the agencies that have prepared agroterrorism response plans since Sept. 11, 2001. The recent food contamination incidents bring those efforts into question, observers say. “What these incidents show is that the actual oversight of the food supply is questionable,” said RAND Corp. terrorism expert Peter Chalk.  “One of the major problems is that we require only self-regulation of the food processing industry and that the FDA lacks sufficient inspectors and resources to do the job.” Others say that terrorists are likely to look for strategies that would cause more deaths or greater fear, Newsday reported. “If your intent is to kill people, then you can do it in a lot more effective ways,” said Auburn University food scientist Jean Weese (Carol Eisenberg, Newsday, Dec. 15). 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.