New White House Security Report Warns of al-Qaeda WMD Pursuit By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Al-Qaeda, the most pressing terrorist threat confronting the United States, will probably redouble efforts to place agents inside the country and will remain bent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction, the White House said yesterday its new homeland security strategy (see GSN, July 26)...Full Story

Congress to Limit Conventional Trident Options By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A U.S. Defense Department proposal to field a non-nuclear version of the Trident submarine-launched missile as early as next year has hit roadblocks in all four key congressional committees, forcing the Pentagon to focus increasingly on alternatives (see GSN, Sept. 18)...Full Story

U.S. Nuclear Experts Leave for North Korea U.S. nuclear experts left for North Korea yesterday to plan procedures to disable the Stalinist state’s nuclear complex, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Oct. 9)...Full Story

	Wednesday, October 10, 2007

New White House Security Report Warns of al-Qaeda WMD Pursuit By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Al-Qaeda, the most pressing terrorist threat confronting the United States, will probably redouble efforts to place agents inside the country and will remain bent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction, the White House said yesterday its new homeland security strategy (see GSN, July 26). The 53-page document addresses homeland security concerns ranging from border security to the nation’s ability to respond to a catastrophic natural disaster.  It is the first such strategy follow up since the Bush administration released an initial “National Strategy for Homeland Security” in 2002. Al-Qaeda, the report states, “is driven by an undiminished strategic intent to attack our homeland” and is expected to “enhance” its capability to attack the United States through cooperation with regional terrorist groups, in particular al-Qaeda in Iraq. Despite finding only a “handful” of individuals inside the United States with connections to senior al-Qaeda leadership abroad, officials conclude the group will probably increase efforts to place terrorists inside the country, according to the report. The document also warns that the country must not “lose sight” of al-Qaeda’s “persistent desire for weapons of mass destruction, as the group continues to try to acquire and use chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear material.” The statements closely echo warnings included in an unclassified summary of the most recent U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism threats released by the administration in July (see GSN, July 17). Terrorists now perceive the United States as a more difficult target to strike, but in light of their concerted efforts to conduct such an attack the country is in a “heightened threat environment” Deputy National Intelligence Director Thomas Fingar told Congress this summer. While the NIE summary and the new security strategy both note that al-Qaeda remains interested in WMD material, Fingar said the use of conventional explosives remains the most likely method of attack. In the new strategy document, the White House states that officials “remain particularly concerned about the employment of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in an attack against the homeland, given the ready availability of IED components and the relative technological ease with which they can be fashioned.” In addition to al-Qaeda, the strategy suggests that Hezbollah, the Lebanese-based, Iran-backed group might consider conducting attacks within the United States if the United States is seen to be a threat to the group itself or its Iranian supporters. Iran, currently the focus of intense global attention over what the international community believes a nuclear weapons program masquerading as civilian energy research, was not mentioned in the 2002 document. Calling the fight against terrorism a “generational struggle,” the strategy outlines four goals, including preventing and disrupting terrorist attacks; protecting the nation’s residents, infrastructure and resources; responding to and recovering from incidents that do occur; and continuing to improve the way the country pursues homeland security. The administration also called for Congress to “better align its oversight and committee structure” to more effectively support efforts to strengthen homeland security. That was a recommendation made by the 9/11 Commission following its review in the wake of the 2001 attacks, calling it “among the most difficult and important” of the called-for changes. “So long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need,” the commission wrote then. At the time of the report leaders at the Homeland Security Department could be called to appear before 88 committees and subcommittees in Congress.  Things have been little streamlined since then, if at all. In a letter to key House Republican on the Homeland Security Committee last month, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff complained that the time his department spends reporting to Congress represents an “unnecessary burden.” He called for a consolidation of oversight, noting that the Homeland Security Department currently reports to 86 committees and subcommittees — just two fewer than the tally in the 9/11 Commission Report. In President George W. Bush’s letter accompanying the report he states that “today, our nation is safer, but we are not yet safe.” “More than six years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we remain at war with adversaries who are committed to destroying our people, our freedom, and our way of life,” he said.  In addressing that threat, “we recognize that our efforts must also involve offense at home and abroad.” In his letter accompanying the 2002 strategy, Bush touted a “global coalition that has defeated terrorist and their supporters in Afghanistan and other parts of the world.” “More than 60,000 American troops are deployed around the world in the war on terrorism,” he wrote. Mention of U.S. troops deployed abroad is absent from Bush’s new letter, an absence that seems conspicuous given the current debate over troops levels in Iraq and the lingering U.S. involvement there. In responding to the White House document, the Democratic chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Representative Bennie Thompson (Miss.) described it as disappointing. “Any anticipation leading up to the release of this report may have been more exciting than the information contained within it,” Thompson said in a statement. “The reality is that this strategy provides little guidance for the deficiencies already taxing our homeland security capacity, while at the same time, it attempts to define successes in border security, information sharing, and biopreparedness, which have not yet been realized,” he said. The report touts “historic steps to address biological threats” including “unprecedented efforts to develop and procure medical countermeasures against bioterrorism.” One of the administration’s initiatives, Project BioShield, a $5.6 billion attempt to help pharmaceutical companies to address biological threats, however, has been an acute disappointment (see GSN, July 3) Back to top       U.K. Boosts Counterterrorism Budget The United Kingdom has announced plans to increase its intelligence budget by about $2 billion by 2010 to support counterterrorism efforts, the London Guardian reported (see GSN, July 11, 2006). In a pre-budget report, Chancellor Alistair Darling said the United Kingdom’s current intelligence budget of about $5 billion would be boosted to roughly $7 billion.  The intelligence budget covers funding for the MI5 and MI6 intelligence agencies as well as police operations and other counterterrorism activities. Darling also announced an addition of more than $800 million in new defense funds to support current military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Defense spending has already been expected to rise to $75 billion by 2010 in what Darling called “the longest period of rising investment in the defense of our country for almost 30 years.” The defense funds are intended to pay for the construction of army vehicles with improved armor as well as two new aircraft carriers. Darling added that money spent maintaining the nation’s Trident submarine-launched nuclear missiles would not undercut funds supporting the United Kingdom’s military actions abroad (see GSN, July 11, 2006; London Guardian, Oct. 9). Back to top

Congress to Limit Conventional Trident Options By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A U.S. Defense Department proposal to field a non-nuclear version of the Trident submarine-launched missile as early as next year has hit roadblocks in all four key congressional committees, forcing the Pentagon to focus increasingly on alternatives (see GSN, Sept. 18). Under the $503 million “Conventional Trident Modification” effort, defense officials have sought to install 96 non-nuclear warheads on 24 D-5 missiles throughout the submarine fleet.  The remaining missiles aboard the boats would be nuclear-armed. If deployed, the conventional D-5s might be used for a mission the Pentagon terms “prompt global strike.”  They would be capable of striking a small number of urgent targets — such as terrorists on the move or a rogue missile being readied for launch — anywhere around the world, according to defense officials.  As it stands, only nuclear-armed missiles are available in the response times involved, which call for a weapon to reach its target within 60 minutes of a launch order, Pentagon leaders have said. Lawmakers in both the Senate and House have raised concerns that a major nuclear power like Russia might misinterpret the launch of a conventional Trident missile as a first nuclear salvo, potentially triggering a dangerous response.  An interim report by the National Academy of Sciences echoed such worries about missile launch “ambiguity” (see GSN, May 16). For fiscal 2008, the Senate committees overseeing defense authorization and appropriations delivered harsher blows to the conventional Trident effort than their House counterparts: — The Senate Appropriations Committee zeroed the $175 million the White House requested in fiscal 2008 funds for Trident missile modification.  The panel moved $125 million into a new multiservice account for all prompt global strike efforts, dictating that the Pentagon use the funds “for engineering and development of alternatives to the conventional Trident missile program.” — House appropriators earlier carried out a similar move, shifting all funds out of the conventional Trident account and investing $100 million in the multiservice account.  However, the House bill would allow some of the pooled funds to be used for developing the conventional Trident, at the defense secretary’s discretion.  The panel also directed the Pentagon to submit a report to Congress on Trident modification initiatives, due Jan. 31, 2008. — The Senate Armed Services Committee, which shares defense policy oversight responsibilities with its House counterpart, also shifted prompt global strike monies from across the military into a central fund.  The panel stated in June that no funds from the new account should be used for the Conventional Trident Modification “or other similar capability that could raise any nuclear ambiguity issues.” — The House Armed Services Committee cut $33 million of the $49 million the Pentagon requested for conventional Trident missile procurement in the coming year. However, the panel fully supported the Bush administration request of $126.4 million for research and development of the modified Navy weapon.  This is also the only committee of the four that did not set up a new, multiservice account for prompt global strike funding (see GSN, May 12). House and Senate lawmakers are expected to meet in conference over the coming weeks to resolve the differences between their respective bills and produce compromise authorization and appropriations legislation.  The conference bills would then be sent to the White House for the president’s signature. Until then, it remains uncertain whether the Pentagon will be prevented from allocating any 2008 funds on conventional Trident, as the Senate would prefer, or if instead the House will prevail with its more lenient spending allowance for the program. Defense leaders have warned that potential alternatives to the Trident missile would take longer to develop and field, leaving them without an adequate tool for rapid global attacks for years to come. The most prominent alternatives sound somewhat futuristic. They might include an Air Force concept for a Conventional Strike Missile that features a Common Aero Vehicle riding atop a long-range missile into space.  The weapon would glide back into the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds to destroy its target.  Air Force officials have said the weapon could be ready to field as early as 2013. The Army is developing its own alternative called Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, which would enter space aboard a two-stage rocket, separate and glide hypersonically to target, according to defense officials.  If funded, initial deployments of this weapon could begin as early as 2009, its backers have said. For its part, the Navy is examining the possibility of a new, intermediate-range missile that might be launched from submarines.  The Pentagon has used some fiscal 2007 funds to begin conceptual studies of the so-called Submarine-Launched Global Strike Missile, defense officials have said.  It might be carried by four U.S. Navy Ohio-class submarines undergoing conversion from their nuclear weapons-carrying role to use solely in conventional missions. Some critics suggest the Pentagon would do better to develop new conventional weapons for the prompt-strike mission than to modify existing nuclear-tipped missiles, as the latter potentially opens the door to confusion over which warhead the missile is carrying. “The recent mistaken transport of six nuclear-armed cruise missiles onboard an American B-52 bomber may raise more questions among lawmakers about other possible accidents that could result from blurring the line between nuclear and non-nuclear technologies,” Travis Sharp, a policy analyst at the Council for a Livable World in Washington, told Global Security Newswire this week. Sharp was referring to a late-August incident in which a military aircraft mistakenly transported six nuclear-armed Advanced Cruise Missiles on a roughly 3 1/2 hour mission from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La.  The air crew apparently was unaware that the missiles were armed with nuclear warheads and the error was only discovered hours after the B-52 arrived (see GSN, Sept. 7). Back to top       U.S. Nuclear Experts Leave for North Korea U.S. nuclear experts left for North Korea yesterday to plan procedures to disable the Stalinist state’s nuclear complex, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Oct. 9). The U.S. team is expected to remain in North Korea for about one week after its scheduled arrival in Pyongyang tomorrow until another nation’s team takes over in a “baton pass,” U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. Christopher Hill, the chief U.S. envoy to the North Korea nuclear disarmament talks, said the United States hopes to disarm North Korea thoroughly enough to prevent it from restarting its nuclear program in the future. “We don't want a situation like in 2002 ... (when) they were able to turn the plant back on in two months time,” he said, referring to North Korea’s withdrawal from a 1994 nuclear disablement agreement with the United States after the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush accused Pyongyang of enriching uranium secretly. “We need many more months and ideally, I'd like to see, you know, around 12 months,” Hill said, adding disablement is intended to “make it difficult” for North Korea to restart its nuclear activities. “You can take certain components out of the facilities and, for example, take things out of a reactor such that they are not so easy to just put back into the reactor,” he said. “For example, if you took a battery out of a car and just left the battery next to the car, that would not be real disablement because you could just put the battery right back in the car. “But let's say you put the battery somewhere else or let's say it's the only battery in town and the battery is disabled slightly on its own, then it becomes more difficult to do,” he said (Agence France-Presse/Google News, Oct. 10). Meanwhile, Japan’s national cabinet yesterday extended economic sanctions against North Korea for its nuclear program six months, the Associated Press reported. The sanctions banning North Korean imports and barring North Korean ships from entering Japanese ports were enacted following North Korea’s nuclear bomb test in October 2006. Japan extended the sanctions that were set to expire this month because North Korea has not yet moved forward on its agreement to disable its nuclear facilities by the end of 2007, said a Foreign Ministry official (Mari Yamaguchi, Associated Press/International Herald Tribune, Oct. 9). Back to top       White House Debates Syrian Nuclear Evidence Debate has continued within the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush over the credibility of Israeli intelligence indicating that Syria has received nuclear assistance from North Korea, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Oct. 2). More conservative administration officials, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, have argued that the intelligence presented months ago to U.S. officials has justified the Sept. 6 Israeli air strikes inside Syria.  Those officials have also suggested the United States should not trust North Korea to follow through on a recent nuclear disarmament agreement (see related GSN story, today). Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have headed another contingent that has viewed Israeli allegations of a Syrian nuclear weapons program with more skepticism, White House officials said. “Some people think that it means that the sky is falling,” said one high-level administration official. “Others say that they’re not convinced that the real intelligence poses a threat” (Mazzetti/Cooper, New York Times, Oct. 9). Meanwhile, the speaker for the Iranian parliament said yesterday that the Israeli attack inside Syria was not intended to warn Iran about its own nuclear program, Agence France-Presse reported. “The violation of the airspace of Syria by Israeli planes was not meant to be a signal for Iran,” Hadad Alel told reporters on the sidelines of the annual meeting of the Interparliamentary Union (IPU) in Geneva. “Israel is not in a position to have the illusion of attacking Iran,” he said (Agence France-Presse/SpaceWar.com, Oct. 9). Back to top       India, ElBaradei Deny Pursuing Safeguards Deal Under pressure from India’s communist contingent not to move ahead on finalizing a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States, Indian leaders yesterday denied discussing a nuclear safeguards arrangement required for the deal with the U.N. nuclear watchdog head during his visit to India this week, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Oct. 9). “His visit has nothing to do with the Indo-U.S. deal,” said S.K. Malhotra, a spokesman for India’s atomic energy department.  “It is a goodwill visit and is a long-pending one.” International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said the agency “is ready for talks whenever India approaches me for the talks.” “The Indian government will have to take a decision,” he said (Associated Press/San Diego Union Tribune, Oct. 9). Meanwhile, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed to resume discussions of the nuclear deal with Indian communists on Oct. 22.  Recent talks have failed to break the impasse, in which the communist parties have threatened to withdraw their support from Singh’s government, possibly forcing new elections, Agence France-Presse reported. Talks between communist representatives and members of Singh’s Congress party took place in a “cordial atmosphere,” Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said.  “The government will not fall,” said Indian Railways Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, a Congress party supporter. D. Raja, a senior official of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), said the two sides “have agreed to discuss further” (Elizabeth Roche, Agence France-Presse/Google News, Oct. 9). The communists have attempted to block the pending U.S.-India deal on grounds that it would unacceptably boost U.S. influence over Indian policy, the New York Times reported yesterday “We don’t want to be another Japan,” said Communist Party leader Prakash Karat.  “It’s not in our interest.” The communists have wielded unusually great influence as part of Singh’s coalition government over the last three years, blocking proposed economic liberalization moves and changes in labor law as well as hindering the U.S.-Indian deal, the Times said. “There is a knee-jerk anti-Americanism,” historian Ramachandra Guha said while also acknowledging leadership successes among Indian communists.  “In some sense they can’t forgive America for having won” (Somini Sengupta, New York Times, Oct. 9). Back to top       Iranian Nuclear Assertions Unproven, Russia Says Russian President Vladimir Putin said today that no “objective data” exists to prove that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, although the international community should push the country to disclose details of its nuclear program, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Oct. 9). “We proceed from an assumption that Iran has no [nuclear weapons] plans,” Putin said after meeting with French President Nicholas Sarkozy. “We are sharing our partners' concern about making all Iranian programs transparent,'” he said.  “We agreed yesterday, and the president confirmed it, that Iran is making certain steps toward the international community to achieve that.” Putin is expected to make his first trip to Iran next week to attend a summit of Caspian Sea nations. “After the trip, there could be a will to cooperate — that is essential,” he said (Associated Press/New York Times, Oct. 10). Meanwhile, Iranian state media said yesterday that Iran has planned to give details on its uranium-enriching centrifuges to the U.N. nuclear watchdog following the arrival of an International Atomic Energy Agency delegation in Tehran, RIA Novosti reported (RIA Novosti, Oct. 9). Back to top       IAEA to Monitor Russian Enrichment Facilities The U.N. nuclear watchdog plans to begin conducting safeguards inspections of Russian civilian uranium enrichment facilities to pave the way for a civilian nuclear cooperation deal between Russia and Japan, Russia’s atomic energy chief said yesterday. International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei informed Russia last month that the agency would start monitoring enrichment sites in Angarsk and eastern Siberia, said Sergei Kirienko, chief of Russia’s atomic energy agency. Under the pending civilian nuclear agreement, Japan would purchase enriched uranium fuel for its nuclear power plants and return the spent nuclear fuel to Russia.  Japanese officials have pushed Russia to permit international inspections of the enrichment sites, however, to ensure that enriched Japanese uranium is not bring redirected for use in nuclear weapons. Nuclear experts are planning details of the inspections and expect monitoring to begin soon, Kirienko said (Japan Economic Newswire, Oct. 10). Back to top

Broad Principles Separate U.S., Russian Officials as They Prepare Missile Defense Talks U.S.-Russian disagreements over the merits of negotiated arms control agreements are endangering prospects for constructive results at this week’s meeting of senior officials in Moscow, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Oct. 9). The two sides have scheduled a Friday meeting in Moscow to debate U.S. plans to deploy missiles defenses in Eastern Europe, but that discussion could be waylaid by Russia’s announced intention to suspend participation in a multilateral conventional arms pact and by the U.S. refusal to extend a strategic nuclear arms agreement (Shanker/Myers, New York Times, Oct. 10). Preparatory meetings are scheduled to begin today between Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State John Rood.  Today’s meetings are set to pave the way for Friday’s session featuring U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and their Russian counterparts (ITAR-Tass, Oct. 10). The talks represent a major push to restore U.S.-Russian relations which have faltered in recent years, according to a senior Bush administration official. “We have tried to convey that our instructions from our senior leadership are to try and do everything we can to establish some basis for a cooperative approach with Russia,” the official said. The administration hopes that the future basis could revolve around finding a common approach to resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis, according to the official. “That is the big strategic factor in dealing with Iran: the two of us working together on what we feel is a serious, developing threat,” the official said. A more cooperative relationship, however, has been threatened by the U.S. missile defense plans in Poland and the Czech Republic as well as the publicly avowed disdain Bush administration officials have expressed for arms control agreements, one analyst said. “This is what feeds Russia’s paranoia,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “The United States is going to maintain the capability to field more nuclear weapons, and they are going to build a missile defense system that will ultimately threaten the Russian strategic forces.” U.S. officials have so far refused Russian efforts to negotiate an extension to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, a complicated pact that includes detailed verification and compliance measures that were painstakingly negotiated during the Cold War.  The treaty is set to expire in 2009 (see GSN, Sept. 4). Such agreements have seen withering criticism from Bush administration officials.  The United States withdrew from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 (see GSN, June 13, 2002) and it has joined North Korea and Iran in holding out to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (see GSN, Sept. 18). “Unfortunately we have very serious disagreements,” said Anatoly Antonov, an arms control official with the Russian Foreign Ministry.  “They concern the essence of the future [START] accord.  We have not agreed yet on the nature of the accord either.  We have not succeeded in convincing the U.S.A. that the new document must be legally binding” (Shanker/Myers, New York Times). Back to top

Pentagon Advisers Urge Nationwide Conversion of Radioactive-Sourced Medical, Safety Gear U.S. hospitals and research facilities should replace more than 1,000 irradiation devices in an effort to prevent terrorists from stealing materials to produce “dirty bombs,” a group of U.S. Defense Department advisers has recommended (see GSN, Sept. 28). The equipment contains cesium 137, a highly radioactive isotope that is useful for radiation therapy and efforts to sterilize blood and food products, the Associated Press reported. “Any one of these 1,000-plus sources could shut down 25 square kilometers, anywhere in the United States, for 40-plus years,” says a report by the Defense Science Board, consisting of retired military and intelligence officials as well as defense industry experts.  The report, acquired by the Associated Press, is expected to be publicly released later this year. Converting the irradiation equipment to use other radioactive sources would cost about $200 million over five years, the report says. The recommendation was part of larger study of strategies the United States could pursue to reduce the terrorist threat facing the nation. Among other more concrete measures, the report urges U.S. officials to pursue diplomatic policies more vigorously and to conduct “strategic communication.” Those efforts should promote universal values, such has health care and education, instead of politically laden U.S. goals, the report says. “What we say is often not what others may hear,” the report says.  “Concepts such as ‘democracy,’ ‘rule of law’ and ‘freedom’ have different meanings in different cultures and at different stages of their development.” “It is about them, not only about us,” it adds (Pamela Hess, Associated Press/Google News, Oct. 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.