Acting U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration head Thomas D’Agostino (NNSA photo) Livermore Picked to Develop New U.S. Reliable Replacement Warhead A team of U.S. Energy and Defense department experts has selected the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California to lead the development of a new U.S. nuclear warhead, the Energy Department announced today (see GSN, Feb. 22). The announcement ended a competition between Livermore and the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico to design a warhead to replace current U.S. nuclear weapons.  The Energy Department has said it has fading confidence in the existing stockpile of warheads, none of which has been tested in an explosion since 1992...Full Story

World Powers Discuss New Iran Sanctions Leading U.N. nations “made progress” yesterday toward installing new economic sanctions against Iran, according to a U.S. State Department statement (see GSN, March 1)...Full Story

Experts Question U.S. Nuclear Terror Readiness The United States has spent more than $300 billion on homeland security under the Bush administration, but experts say the nation is not ready to respond to an act of nuclear terrorism, McClatchy Newspapers reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 14)...Full Story

	Friday, March 2, 2007

U.S. Intel Analysts Show New Caution Recent U.S. intelligence assessments on Iran and North Korea have illustrated post-Iraq War efforts to do a better job of analyzing intelligence data, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Feb. 26). This week, U.S. officials publicly testified that they have reduced their confidence in an earlier claim that North Korea had a production-scale uranium enrichment program (see GSN, Feb. 28).  The new assessment backs away from earlier ones used to support administration claims about North Korea. U.S. President George W. Bush, for example, said in November 2000 that “contrary to an agreement they had with the United States, [North Korea is] enriching uranium, with the desire of developing a weapon.” Also last month, intelligence reports said Iranian-made explosives were being used in Iraq, but the reports refused to judge whether leaders in Tehran had ordered the bombings. The reticence shows that the intelligence community is following a new guideline dubbed “the Powell rule” by some officials, the Times reported.  The goal is to avoid embarrassing top officials who cite intelligence information in public.  Prior to the Iraq War, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered a detailed briefing to the U.N. Security Council to defend U.S. assertions about Iraqi WMD capabilities.  Virtually all his claims were later shown to be false, the Times reported. Among other things, the new methods call for more transparency in intelligence assessment and for analysts to “show their work” by thoroughly explaining how they derive their judgments. Some former U.S. officials have expressed concern that intelligence analysts could become too conservative under the new procedures, according to the Times (Mark Mazzetti, New York Times, March 2). Back to top

Livermore Picked to Develop New U.S. Reliable Replacement Warhead A team of U.S. Energy and Defense department experts has selected the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California to lead the development of a new U.S. nuclear warhead, the Energy Department announced today (see GSN, Feb. 22). The announcement ended a competition between Livermore and the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico to design a warhead to replace current U.S. nuclear weapons.  The Energy Department has said it has fading confidence in the existing stockpile of warheads, none of which has been tested in an explosion since 1992. Plans call for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program to develop a new warhead that would not require explosive testing.  Livermore’s design was selected because it used concepts that had been better validated by past testing than the Los Alamos design, according to the department. “Higher confidence in the ability to certify the Livermore design without underground nuclear testing was the primary reason for its selection,” says a release from the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration.  “That design was more closely tied to previous underground testing.” The selection decision was made by the five-person Nuclear Weapons Council, a group of four senior Defense Department officials and NNSA acting chief Thomas D’Agostino. “The RRW design concept utilizes modern technology that was not available during the Cold War when our nuclear weapons were designed and built,” D’Agostino said in the release.  “This will permit significant upgrades in safety and security features in the replacement warhead that will keep the same explosive yields and other military characteristics as the current ones.  RRW will take advantage of today’s science to ensure the long-term confidence in the future stockpile.” While losing the direct competition, the Los Alamos design was “highly innovative and will be developed in parallel with the Livermore effort,” the release says.  “As they mature, the features may be introduced into the RRW design as it progresses” (U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration release, March 2). Back to top       World Powers Discuss New Iran Sanctions Leading U.N. nations “made progress” yesterday toward installing new economic sanctions against Iran, according to a U.S. State Department statement (see GSN, March 1). Political directors from the foreign ministries of the five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany conferred by telephone yesterday to discuss the outlines of a new council resolution on Iran.  The new resolution would follow a December decision in which the council imposed sanctions on Iran for its refusal to curb its nuclear activities. “They had a good productive discussion during which they made progress in agreeing on the elements of a resolution,” the statement said.  “A few more issues remain for discussion, and the political directors agreed to convene another conference call on Saturday morning.” More senior officials “could begin drafting the text of a resolution next week,” the statement added (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Houston Chronicle, March 1). Back to top       Experts Question U.S. Nuclear Terror Readiness The United States has spent more than $300 billion on homeland security under the Bush administration, but experts say the nation is not ready to respond to an act of nuclear terrorism, McClatchy Newspapers reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 14). “I don’t see money being focused on actual response and mitigation to a nuclear threat,” said Col. Jill Morgenthaler, Illinois homeland security director. Among the weaknesses are: — Absence of a government education campaign on how to shield against radiation from nuclear fallout; — The likelihood that many of the estimated 300,000 emergency personnel needed to respond to a nuclear strike would avoid the disaster area due to radiation fears; — Inability of hospital emergency rooms to handle a sudden rush of patients; — Inadequate numbers of available burn-unit beds in most cities, even though there could be tens of thousands of burn victims following an attack; and — The government’s failure to date to acquire significant new drugs for counteracting the effects of radiation on bone marrow. A 10-kiloton improvised nuclear device could cause hundreds of thousands of deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars in damage, according to the federal National Planning Scenario. The government has studied all forms of radiation-based strikes, from full nuclear weapons to radiological “dirty bombs” (see GSN, Feb. 20, 2007).  A number of federal agencies have conducted some nuclear strike planning.  The Homeland Security Department posted a Web site with instructions on treating radiation patients, while the Energy Department’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory could quickly create a computer model of the path of radioactive fallout to help guide warnings on evacuations and sheltering. Experts and government documents highlight the large potential for chaos following a strike, ranging from damaged bridges and tunnels to roads filled with vehicles that crashed when their drivers were blinded by an atomic blast. There is no equipment to protect rescue personnel from radiation as they approach the blast site, or to aid survivors as they seek to escape, McClatchy reported.  Hundreds more radiation meters are needed to help troops avoid overexposure. “We are concerned about the catastrophic threats and are trying to improve our abilities for disasters.  But you have to look at what’s pragmatic as well,” said Gerald Parker, deputy assistant secretary in the Health and Human Services Department’s Preparedness and Response Office. “People are just very intimidated to take on the problem” because “there may not be apparent solutions right now,” said Andrew Garrett of the Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University (Greg Gordon, McClatchy Newspapers, March 1). Back to top       German Buries Uranium in Yard German authorities have unearthed a small quantity of low-enriched uranium reactor fuel from a residential garden, raising questions about security conditions at German nuclear power plants, Reuters reported yesterday (see GSN, March 1). The 14 fuel pellets, enriched to 4 percent uranium 238, were acquired under still-unknown circumstances by a German man who wrote Chancellor Angela Merkel in December to report his holding. He placed the uranium in a steel container, wrapped it in plastic and buried the package in his garden in the town of Lauenfoerder, according to Reuters. “How do pellets get out of a nuclear reactor?” asked Environment Ministry spokeswoman Jutte Kremer-Heye.  “That’s not supposed to happen” (Reuters, March 1). Back to top       U.S. to Maintain Sanctions on North Korea The United States is waiting for North Korea to make significant moves on nuclear disarmament before removing sanctions against the Stalinist state or taking it off the list of state sponsors of terrorism, a senior U.S. official said today (see GSN, March 1). Such moves by Washington would arise from the Feb. 13 pact in which Pyongyang agreed to denuclearization in exchange for fuel aid and other support from other nations involved in the six-party talks. “When it comes to such issues as lifting of sanctions or delisting North Korea … those are issues that we have simply agreed to begin to discuss as part of this process,” said Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte. “This is not a process that we would expect to move very rapidly,” he added.  “There are many other aspects of compliance … that would have to have moved forward substantially before you could expect significant movement” (Associated Press I/New York Times, March 2). South Korea today also said it would not completely resume aid shipments to its neighbor until the Stalinist state freezes work at its Yongbyon nuclear reactor, one of the conditions of the agreement last month, AP reported. Senior officials are scheduled to meet late next month to discuss rice aid.  That would come after the 60-day deadline for Pyongyang to close down the reactor and allow international nuclear inspectors back into the country. Seoul stopped supplying rice and fertilizer following North Korea’s July 2006 missile tests. South Korean Foreign Minister Song Min-soon was expected to discuss the North Korean nuclear situation today in Washington with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and national security adviser Stephen Hadley (Jae-Soon Chang, Associated Press II/Yahoo!News, March 2). Back to top       German Man Denies Nuclear Smuggling Charges A German national pleaded not guilty yesterday in a South African court to charges linking him to the nuclear black market once operated by Pakistan’s top atomic scientist, Reuters reported (see GSN, Aug. 23, 2005). Gerhard Wisser, 67, has been linked to attempts to obtain gas centrifuge technology on behalf of Libya for uranium enrichment. Wisser and co-defendant Daniel Geiges, 66, a Swiss national, are alleged to have participated in the international network operated by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, which supplied nuclear equipment to nations including Iran, Libya and North Korea (see GSN, Nov. 27, 2006). Geiges presently is hospitalized, but is scheduled for a court appearance next month, Reuters reported. Charges against a third suspect, Johan Meyer, were dropped after he became a state witness (see GSN, Sept. 9, 2004). Prosecutors are seeking to have the trials of Geiges and Wisser conducted behind closed doors, and to prevent publication of all details of the trials (Andrew Quinn, Reuters, March 1). Back to top       U.S., Russia Look to New Arms Control Effort The United States and Russia are considering how to replace two bilateral nuclear arms control treaties set to expire in coming years, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Feb. 13). The two nations should “look ahead to the challenges and possibilities that lie beyond the expiration of the START Treaty in 2009 and the Moscow Treaty in 2012,” U.S. Ambassador to Russia William Burns said yesterday. The START pact, which prohibits both countries from deploying more than 6,000 nuclear warheads on 1,600 delivery systems, is due to expire in 2009.  The Moscow Treaty, which calls on Moscow and Washington to cut the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200, expires in 2012. “At the direction of our presidents, we have begun a strategic security dialogue to consider what we want in place when the START Treaty expires, what further steps to pursue and what sort of transparency and confidence-building regime makes the most sense,” Burns said during a speech at the Carnegie Moscow Center. While Burns lauded U.S. and Russian nuclear arms control and security efforts, he said more remains to be done, AP reported. “There never has been a moment when America and Russia, still possessing nuclear capabilities and responsibilities that no other nations can match, have had a greater opportunity to demonstrate real leadership,” he said.  “It would be a huge mistake, not only for the two of us but for the sake of global order, to miss that opportunity” (Jim Heintz, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, March 2). Back to top       China Plans Major Missile Submarine Boost China plans to build five ballistic-missile submarines, along with several attack submarines, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, Dec. 1, 2006). The U.S. Naval Intelligence Office prepared the estimate, saying the missile submarines, called Type 094s, could be armed with as many as 12 long-range JL-2 missiles (see GSN, June 20, 2005). The new systems would “provide China with a modern and robust sea-based nuclear deterrent force,” says the report (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, Mar. 2). Back to top       U.S. Nuclear Experiments Could Be Delayed The U.S. ability to resume a set of nuclear weapon experiments on schedule is in jeopardy, an Energy Department review determined last month (see GSN, Nov. 4, 2005). The “nuclear criticality” experiments were historically conducted at New Mexico’s Los Alamos National Laboratory.  However, work there stopped in 2005 so that operations could be shifted to a facility at the Nevada Test Site, where more stringent security measures are in place, according to Inside the Pentagon. Criticality experiments “validate safety evaluations, establish limits for operations involving special nuclear material and provide criticality training,” says a report released in late February by the department’s inspector general. The department’s National Nuclear Security Administration had planned to move equipment and personnel from Technical Area 18 at Los Alamos to Nevada and to resume experiments by fiscal 2010, but that goal is in trouble now, the report says. “Full resumption of criticality operations by [fiscal 2010] is at risk because NNSA has not adequately planned to replace, train and certify the staff needed to conduct criticality experiments,” the report says (Keith Costa, Inside the Pentagon, March 1). Back to top

U.S. Wants Missile Defense Radar in Caucasus The United States hopes to install a long-range missile defense radar in the Caucasus, the head of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said yesterday (see GSN, March 1). “It would be very useful for the antimissile system,” said Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, who declined to identify which nation might house the radar (Slobodan Lekic, Associated Press I/Yahoo!News, March 1). Officials in Georgia said as of today they had not been approached regarding a U.S. radar base, AP reported.  An Azerbaijani official echoed their statements. “There have been no negotiations, and we are not discussing these questions either in a bilateral or multilateral format,” said Khazar Ibrahim, spokesman for the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry. Close military ties with Russia means Armenia, the third Caucasus country, is not likely to be approached. The European Union as a whole is not planning involvement in the U.S. missile shield, said EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.  He questioned the likelihood of a missile attack on Europe in the immediate future. “We are not as Europeans concerned to establish a mechanism of that type,” he said yesterday.  “This is for every country to decide.” Additional talks are needed within NATO on the U.S. plans, which also call for deployment of 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic, according to German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung (Paul Ames, Associated Press II/Yahoo!News, March 2). Russia yesterday warned again that it would respond strategically to placement of U.S. missile defense components in Europe, AP reported. Such deployment would be a “factor that we will have to take into account while determining our steps in the military-political sphere and military development,” said Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko. “In the modern world, security is indivisible,” he said.  “You can’t ensure your own security if you provide other nations’ concerns about their security,” he said in a prepared statement posted online (Lekic, Associated Press). 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.