U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, shown last year, said yesterday that “cultural” problems have caused security problems at Los Alamos National Laboratory (Chung Sung-jun/Getty Images). Bodman Blames Scientists For Problems at Los Alamos By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON –— U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman yesterday told Congress that endemic security problems at one of the nation’s nuclear laboratories are caused by the “arrogance” of the scientists who work there (see GSN, Jan. 31). Waving off the suggestion that an unwieldy Energy Department bureaucracy has caused continuing security problems, Bodman called for a change in attitude among Los Alamos National Laboratory workers...Full Story

Chirac Offers Mixed Views on Nuclear-Armed Iran French President Jacques Chirac said Monday that a nuclear-armed Iran would not be very dangerous, but retracted his comments the next day, claiming he did not realize he was speaking on the record (see GSN, Jan. 31)...Full Story

House Bill Boosts 2007 Nonproliferation Funding By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — House lawmakers yesterday passed a fiscal 2007 spending bill that increases funding for two nuclear nonproliferation programs by more than $60 million (see GSN, Jan. 5)...Full Story

	Thursday, February 1, 2007

Bodman Blames Scientists For Problems at Los Alamos By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON –— U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman yesterday told Congress that endemic security problems at one of the nation’s nuclear laboratories are caused by the “arrogance” of the scientists who work there (see GSN, Jan. 31). Waving off the suggestion that an unwieldy Energy Department bureaucracy has caused continuing security problems, Bodman called for a change in attitude among Los Alamos National Laboratory workers. Bureaucratic issues are not “at the heart of the problem,” he told the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee.  “The heart of the problem is a cultural issue at Los Alamos.” “Many” of the problems have been addressed, but issues remain, he conceded.  Changing a culture takes time, Bodman told the committee, although he did not elaborate on the steps that have been taken. Asked by Representative David Loebsack (D-Iowa) to sum up the cultural impediment to security at the nuclear weapons facility, Bodman responded bluntly. “Arrogance,” he said.  “Arrogance of the chemists and physicists and engineers who work at Los Alamos and think they’re above it all.” Los Alamos has been the focus of intense scrutiny after a number of security problems in recent years.  Most recently, local police raiding a mobile home found hundreds of classified, weapon-related documents that a 22-year-old contract archivist had taken from the laboratory (see GSN, Nov. 6, 2006). In other instances, two computer hard drives containing sensitive information were found behind a copying machine at the facility, and the laboratory was temporarily shut down while workers searched for two missing disks that ultimately were found never to have existed (see GSN, Mar. 4, 2005). Lawmakers at a hearing Tuesday lambasted Los Alamos management and suggested removing security oversight from the National Nuclear Security Administration as well as simply closing the laboratory.  NNSA Administrator Linton Brooks lost his job last month over the persistent security problems (see GSN, Jan. 5). Scientists at the New Mexico facility, which conducts weapons research and produces plutonium cores of nuclear bombs, do not see security as a central part of their work or as a serious concern, Bodman said. “It has been that way for a long time, and that in my judgment is the issue,” he said.  While avoiding specifics, the secretary said laboratory management would become stricter to address the problem.  The laboratory has also instituted mandatory drugs testing, a requirement that could be instituted across the U.S. nuclear complex, he said. A report released yesterday by the Government Accountability Office stated that security lapses at Los Alamos, the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico and the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee were in part a result of administrative problems. Pointing to the GAO report released yesterday, lawmakers questioned the effectiveness of the relationship between the Energy Department and the National Nuclear Security Administration. Since it was created in 2000, the nuclear agency has failed to develop the degree of autonomy needed to improve security at nuclear sites and improve management, said Representative Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.). The idea was that  creating a semiautonomous agency to lead nuclear security management agency would streamline bureaucracy and simplify lines of authority and accountability. “I needed confidence that DOE is enabling NNSA to achieve top-notch science and security rather than serving as one big, bureaucratic roadblock,” she said.  “Frankly, Mr. Secretary, after reading your submitted testimony, I am losing that confidence.” Government auditors found that until recently the National Nuclear Security Administration had no consistent leadership for its security program, and since its inception, five of its six site offices have not been staffed at needed levels. Also, the Energy Department’s database for tracking security issues identified in assessments is incomplete.  Not all security deficiencies have been entered into the database because it is “very difficult to use,” connections are slow due to the lack of high-speed encrypted modems and it often crashes. As a result, the security administration fails to have a full understanding of problems, according to the GAO report. “Management problems continue, in part, because NNSA and DOE have not fully agreed on how NNSA should function within the department as a separately organized agency,” auditors wrote.  “This lack of agreement has resulted in organizational conflicts that have inhibited effective operations.” Bodman agreed that the National Nuclear Security Administration has not had the effect intended by lawmakers.  “It remains my belief that the creation of NNSA as a separately organized entity within the department has not yielded all the beneficial results that the legislation’s authors intended,” he said in his testimony. Bodman criticized the redundancies created by the two linked agencies and said the structure “imposes severe limitations” on his management authority.  The secretary is unable to directly control subordinate NNSA personnel, he said.  The structure also prohibits DOE officials from addressing problems arising from NNSA activities, he argued. Despite his reservations, the secretary said he was committed to the relationship between the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Energy Department.  “We’ve made it work,” he said.  “It’s not a big deal.” Back to top       Chirac Offers Mixed Views on Nuclear-Armed Iran French President Jacques Chirac said Monday that a nuclear-armed Iran would not be very dangerous, but retracted his comments the next day, claiming he did not realize he was speaking on the record (see GSN, Jan. 31). The incident could illustrate policy differences between Paris and Washington on how to handle the Iranian nuclear crisis, the New York Times reported.  The United States, France and other nuclear powers have so far remained publicly unified in the goal of preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. “I would say that what is dangerous about this situation is not the fact of having a nuclear bomb,” Chirac said in a tape-recorded, on-the-record interview Monday with several reporters.  “Having one or perhaps a second bomb a little later, well, that’s not very dangerous.” “But what is dangerous is proliferation,” he added.  “It is really very tempting for other countries in the region that have large financial resources to say: ‘Well, we too are going to do that; we’re going to help others do it.’” “Why shouldn’t Saudi Arabia do it?  Why wouldn’t it help Egypt to do so as well?  That is the real danger,” he said (see GSN, Jan. 22 and Sept. 25, 2006). Nuclear weapons would have little value to Iran because the nation would be easily deterred, Chirac said. “Where will it drop it, this bomb?  On Israel?” he asked.  “It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed.” On Tuesday, however, Chirac called back reporters to retract many of his remarks, saying, “I should have paid attention to what I was saying and understood that perhaps I was on the record.” An official transcript of the original interview released by his office omitted Chirac’s diminished concern over a nuclear-armed Iran, according to the Times. He also reversed himself on the prospect of a devastating retaliation against Iran. “I retract it, of course, when I said, “One is going to raze Tehran,” he said Tuesday. In addition, he stepped back from his comments on Saudi Arabia and Egypt. “I drifted — because I thought we were off the record — to say that, for example, Saudi Arabia or Egypt could be tempted to follow this example,” he said.  “I retract it, of course, since neither Saudi Arabia nor Egypt has made the slightest declaration on these subjects, so it is not up to me to make them.” Chirac asserted that an Iranian nuclear weapon could be intercepted after it was launched, but before it reached its target. “It is obvious that this bomb, at the moment it was launched, obviously would be destroyed immediately,” he said.  “We have the means — several countries have the means to destroy a bomb.” Chirac’s remarks could suggest a growing rift between France and the United States, which has consistently worked toward denying Iran a nuclear weapon, the Times reported.  They could also indicate tensions within Chirac’s government about how aggressively to pursue economic sanctions against Iran, according to the Times (Sciolino/Bennhold, New York Times, Feb. 1). Back to top       House Bill Boosts 2007 Nonproliferation Funding By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — House lawmakers yesterday passed a fiscal 2007 spending bill that increases funding for two nuclear nonproliferation programs by more than $60 million (see GSN, Jan. 5). Congress was able to pass only two appropriations bills as the 2006 session drew to a close, requiring a short-term continuing resolution to keep government employees paid and programs funded through Feb. 15. The bill passed by the House yesterday will set funding levels for the remainder of this fiscal year.  A number of defense nuclear nonproliferation programs receive the same funding they did in fiscal 2006 under the long-term continuing resolution, but two received sizable boosts. The International Nuclear Material Protection and Cooperation program received a $50 million shot in the arm, jumping from $422.7 million to $472.7 million under the House resolution.  The original budget request for the program in  this fiscal year, which began in October, was $413.2 million. Under the initiative, U.S. officials work with counterparts in Russia and former Soviet states to secure fissile material and nuclear weapons.  Assistance includes installing monitors and helping to develop a security culture and infrastructure at sensitive nuclear sites (see related GSN story, today). Much of funding is to be directed toward monitoring systems at transit points on the Russian border and ports to prevent nuclear smuggling. The Global Threat Reduction Initiative also received additional support.  Funded at $97 million in fiscal 2006, it received $115.5 million in the House spending plan.  The fiscal 2007 budget request was $106.8 million. The program seeks to repatriate U.S. and Russian spent reactor fuel being used in other nations, and to convert research reactors from using highly enriched uranium to more proliferation-resistant low-enriched fuel (see GSN, Dec. 18, 2006). The additional funding was a result of a weeks-long lobbying effort on Capitol Hill, said David Culp, of the Friends Committee on Nuclear Legislation, an anti-nuclear weapons group. The extra funds came from $500 million that had been directed toward cleanup of the Rocky Flats nuclear site in Colorado but ultimately was not needed (see GSN, Dec. 9, 2005). “There was pretty intense lobbying for that $500 million and we succeeded in getting a piece of it,” Culp said. The Senate is expected to take up the continuing resolution next week.  The current resolution expires on Feb. 15. Back to top       North Korea Repeats Demand for End to Sanctions North Korea demanded again this week that it be freed from U.S. financial sanctions in order to promote serious discussions on Pyongyang’s nuclear program at six-party talks next week, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Jan. 31). Pyongyang has demanded “that the United States show an attitude of lifting the financial sanctions and not expanding them so as to create an atmosphere for entering into discussions on denuclearization commitments” in a 2005 agreement, the regime-friendly Choson Sinbo in Japan reported today. U.S. Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Daniel Glaser met with North Korean officials this week in Beijing to discuss the sanctions.  He said the talks reaffirmed Washington’s belief that Pyongyang is involved in illicit financial activity, but also indicated that the dispute might end, AP reported. “I think we are now in a position after a very lengthy investigation … to start moving forward and trying to bring some resolution to this matter,” he said. Glaser did not say how that could occur.  Media reports have indicated that some of the $24 million in frozen North Korean assets at a bank in Macau might be released (Jae-Soon Chang, Associated Press I/Washington Post. Feb. 1). South Korea wants to see the next week’s negotiations end with a written document on implementation of the September 2005 agreement, Agence France-Presse.  North Korea pledged then to eliminate its nuclear program in exchange for economic aid, diplomatic recognition and security guarantees. “An agreement does not come in words.  Lots of words have been exchanged among parties.  I expect them to turn into a joint document,” said Foreign Minister Song Min-soon (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Jan. 31). The lead Russian negotiator at the talks yesterday played down the likelihood of an agreement on disarmament, AP reported. “I think that there are unlikely to be any concrete or significant agreements resulting from these negotiations but we should be able to establish quite clearly the route for reaching them in subsequent meetings,” said Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov. He described Pyongyang’s nuclear program as a threat to far-eastern Russia. “I am not going to publicly speculate on how far these activities have advanced in North Korea.  But it is obvious that they are not going in the direction that Russia and the other participants in the talks would like to see,” Losyukov said.  “The population of the Far East is worried at the rise of this nuclear threat right on their doorstep.” Another North Korean nuclear test would lead to additional sanctions from the U.N. Security Council, he said.  “No doubt harsher measures will be taken,” Losyukov said (Associated Press II, Jan. 31). He said it would be premature to discuss Russia’s potential delivery of a light-water reactor to North Korea, Interfax reported. “We have such technical possibilities,” he said.  “However, it would be too bold to say today that we will deliver a reactor to Pyongyang” (Interfax, Jan. 31). The former top U.S. negotiator with North Korea said he could foresee Pyongyang giving up its nuclear weapons program, but not the weapons that it has already produced, the Yonhap News Agency reported today. “They may be willing to negotiate … all those things associated with making plutonium and nuclear weapons.  What they are not going to do is negotiate the weapons or plutonium themselves,” said Charles Pritchard, president of the Korea Economic Institute (Yonhap News Agency, Feb. 1). Back to top       U.S. Advances Security Upgrades for Russian Nukes The United States plans to begin efforts to improve security at a ninth and final Russian nuclear warhead site, as agreed under an agreement reached by the U.S. and Russian presidents at their 2005 meeting in Bratislava, Slovakia (see GSN, May 23, 2006). That agreement called for the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration to upgrade security measures at nine Russian facilities housing nuclear weapons. “NNSA’s main nonproliferation goal is to secure weapons and nuclear material as close to the source as possible,” William Tobey, the agency’s deputy director for nuclear nonproliferation, said in a press release. The new security measures are to include intrusion detectors, access controls and “hardened defensive positions,” according to the release. The agency has helped to improve security at 61 Russian military sites and has contracted to secure 23 additional sites by the end of next year (National Nuclear Security Administration release, Jan. 31). Back to top       Pakistan Considers Enhancing Nuclear Deterrence The pending U.S.-Indian nuclear trade deal could lead Pakistan to bolster its nuclear deterrent forces, Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said Tuesday (see GSN, Aug. 23, 2006). The deal calls for India, which is not a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to purchase nuclear power technology and materials from U.S. firms. “We are apprehensive that selective availability of civilian nuclear technology would enable the increase in quantities of fissile material for nuclear warheads in the region,” Aziz said at a meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels.  “In such a situation, we would need to take measures to ensure the credibility of our deterrence.” Aziz also expressed concern over India’s interest in acquiring missile defenses (Press Trust of India/Economic Times, Jan. 31). Back to top       Convicted Nuclear Smuggler Begins Appeals Process A Georgian appeals court has begun a review of the conviction of a Russian man caught smuggling 100 grams of weapon-grade uranium last year, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Jan. 31). Oleg Khinsagov received an eight-year sentence in September after a sting operation ended his effort to sell the uranium for $1 million.  Georgian officials said he told investigators the uranium came from a Russian facility at Novosibirsk. Russia has complained that Georgia has not provided a large enough sample of the seized material to determine its origin (Associated Press/International Herald Tribune, Jan. 31). Back to top

Australia Could Be a Bioterror Target, Scientist Says Australians should not consider themselves immune to the threats of bioterrorism, the director of the country’s new National Center for Biosecurity said yesterday (see GSN, Apr. 20, 2006). The United Kingdom and United States are more likely targets.  However, “security in those countries is so strong that if you were a bioterrorist, you’d think it would be difficult to release something there and you may try other countries,” said immunologist Ian Ramshaw. “We have to be concerned because a threat in England can easily spread to Australia if the plane arrives with passengers who are infected,” he said, according to The Canberra Times. Biological weapons could be made reasonably easy and cheaply, Ramshaw said. “It is easy to make Ebola virus in the laboratory and you can get the ingredients over the Internet,” he said.  “It’s probably a little bit difficult to make smallpox, but it is feasible, so I think we should be fully aware, not only now, but in the future, the chances of this occurring are going to increase” (see GSN, Jan. 30). “It’d put it like this:  If there is a problem, I’m glad I’m immunized against smallpox for my work in the laboratory,” Ramshaw added (Ross Peake, The Canberra Times, Feb. 1). Back to top

Funds Reclaimed for Last CW Disposal Sites The U.S. Congress looks set to include funding to build two chemical weapons disposal sites in a continuing budget resolution that must be approved by mid-February, The Pueblo Chieftain reported (see GSN, Jan. 12). Congress adjourned last year without approving the anticipated $42 million for the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado and $131 million for the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky.  That meant funding levels would remain the same as provided in 2006. Senators Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) vowed to oppose the Senate version of the funding resolution — needed to keep the government operating in the absence of an approved budget — if it appeared that Blue Grass and Pueblo would not receive the funding. “The continuing resolution is not final yet,” Allard said.  “We have several hurdles to clear but the early indication from the work we’ve done on the Appropriations Committee means Colorado has initially dodged a bullet.” “I think we’re in pretty good shape here,” Allard spokesman Sean Conway said of chances of seeing the money included in the final resolution. Without the money, complete construction of the Pueblo chemical neutralization plant might have been delayed by three years, according to another Allard staffer (John Norton, The Pueblo Chieftain, Jan. 31). Back to top

Test Assessors Praise U.S. Missile Defenses An annual review of a key U.S. missile defense system has expressed more confidence that the system would work than previous reviews, Inside Missile Defense reported yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 20, 2006). The Ground-based Midcourse Defense system, which consists primarily of a missile interceptor designed to destroy enemy warheads in space, enjoyed a successful test in September when it destroyed its target even though an interception was not a primary goal of the test (see GSN, Sept. 5, 2006). “More robust GMD ground and flight testing increased confidence in its ability to perform the (Ballistic Missile Defense System) mission,” says the annual review by the Defense Department’s Operational Test and Evaluation Directorate. The previous review had criticized the Pentagon’s GMD testing program as “insufficient to support a confident assessment” of the system’s capabilities (see GSN, Jan. 20, 2006; John Liang, Inside Missile Defense I, Jan. 31). While the GMD assessment was generally positive, another component of U.S. missile defenses drew more criticism from the testing office. The sea-based Aegis missile defense system has not yet demonstrated that it could coordinate its work with GMD systems, the report says. “To date Aegis BMD has yet to participate in a GMD flight test in which Aegis BMD data contributes in real time to the development of a GMD weapons task plan,” the report says. Still, last year’s testing of the Aegis program led to “a significant step forward,” says the report. Those advances were made possible in part by using targets that more realistically simulated the missiles U.S. defenses would be asked to shoot down. To test its missile interceptors, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency launches surplus U.S.-made missiles as targets, according to Inside Missile Defense, but those missiles require modifications to fly like missiles that might actually attack the United States or U.S. forces abroad (John Liang, Inside Missile Defense II, Jan. 31) Back to top       Poland Plans Referendum on Missile Defense Poland is likely to conduct a citizens’ referendum to decide whether the nation should participate in U.S. missile defense plans for Europe, ITAR-Tass reported today (see GSN, Jan. 31). The United States has proposed to place 10 missile interceptors in Poland, along with a radar system in the Czech Republic. “We believe that it is necessary to consult the people on this matter,” said Polish Deputy Prime Minister Andrzej Lepper.  “The Polish government has not worked out an official stance on this problem.  Poland has not officially accepted the U.S. proposal” (ITAR-Tass, Feb. 1). Meanwhile, the lower chamber of the Czech parliament is scheduled to meet Feb. 7 for an emergency session on the proposed U.S. radar system, the Associated Press reported.  Opposition lawmakers had called for the meeting. At least two opposition parties have expressed a desire for a referendum on the issue.  Critics worry that the radar could make the Czech Republic an early target during a nuclear crisis, and could damage relations with Russia.  Moscow has charged that U.S. missile defenses in Europe could undermine Russia’s security. Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek opposes a referendum, AP reported.  He said the government in coming weeks would “probably” agree to begin talks with Washington on housing the radar. “Locating the base here will undoubtedly improve the security of the Czech Republic and Czech citizens,” he said. “Security issues usually are not decided by referendum,” Topolanek added.  “We don’t recommend a referendum” (Associated Press I/International Herald Tribune, Jan. 31). Russian President Vladimir Putin today reaffirmed his government’s rejection of the U.S. argument that any European missile defenses would be intended to provide protection against nations such as Iran and North Korea, AP reported. “Our military experts don’t believe that the missile defense systems to be deployed in Eastern Europe are intended to counter the threat from Iran or some terrorists,” Putin said, arguing that Iranian missiles could not reach Europe.  “We consider such claims unfounded, and naturally, that directly concerns us and will cause a relevant reaction.  That reaction will be asymmetrical, but it will be highly efficient.” Russian Topol-M ICBMs are capable of overcoming missile defenses, and the military is developing even better weapons systems, Putin said during his yearly press conference. “We will have next-generation systems immune to any prospective missile defense,” he said.  U.S. interceptors would be “helpless” against Russian missiles capable of shifts in altitude and direction, Putin said (Steve Gutterman, Associated Press II/Yahoo!News, Feb. 1). Back to top       U.S. Army to Form New Patriot Battalions The U.S. Army plans at some point to have a total of 15 Patriot air-defense system battalions, Inside Missile Defense reported yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 12, 2006). There are now 11 battalions.  Another two are to be ready by early fall, with the final two to be formed sometime afterward, a service official told Inside the Army. The source did not say how long it would take or cost to prepare the full 15 battalions. The Army is forming the new Patriot battalions as it attempts to increase its ranks by 65,000 soldiers (Ashley Roque, Inside Missile Defense, Jan. 31). 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.