Gen. James Cartwright, head of U.S. Strategic Command (U.S. Marine Corps photo). Nuclear Attack Now Only Option in Some Cases, U.S. General Says By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The United States has made little progress in developing a conventional “prompt global strike” capability, leaving the military few options short of a nuclear attack in certain scenarios, the head of U.S. Strategic Command said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 2). U.S. troops might not be able to respond quickly to a sudden military threat that has the potential for great harm to the United States, said Gen. James Cartwright.  ..Full Story

Reaction to Chinese Antisatellite Technology Test Continues to Swirl on Capitol Hill By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Nearly two months after China destroyed one of its own satellites in a test of antisatellite technology, the provocative act continues to reverberate across Capitol Hill (see GSN, Jan. 24)...Full Story

China, Russia Hold Out on Iran Sanctions China and Russia yesterday continued to oppose certain measures intended to further penalize Iran for failure to obey a U.N. mandate to halt uranium enrichment activities, Reuters reported (see GSN, March 8)...Full Story

	Friday, March 9, 2007

Nuclear Attack Now Only Option in Some Cases, U.S. General Says By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The United States has made little progress in developing a conventional “prompt global strike” capability, leaving the military few options short of a nuclear attack in certain scenarios, the head of U.S. Strategic Command said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 2). U.S. troops might not be able to respond quickly to a sudden military threat that has the potential for great harm to the United States, said Gen. James Cartwright.  Such troop movements could take three to five days, he said, and other conventional strike capabilities exist that could eliminate threats within a day or two.  However, in cases in which a major threat must be addressed at intercontinental ranges immediately there is no option except for a nuclear-armed ballistic missile, Cartwright said in testimony before the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee. “In the diverse threats that we deal with, that is not necessarily appropriate across the spectrum,” he said.  “We really need to be able to provide a capability for the nation below the nuclear threshold that can address these fleeting, high-value, high-regret factor type threats.” Military officials have said a prompt global strike should deliver conventional weapons to a target as quickly as technology would allow and could include either a land- or sea-based ballistic missile system. Such threats could range from a WMD-tipped ballistic missile or a weapon of mass destruction delivered by irregular means. To respond to what Cartwright termed this “seam” in U.S. capabilities, the Defense Department has proposed modifying 24 nuclear-capable, submarine-launched Trident ballistic missiles to carry conventional warheads. Lawmakers questioned the proposal last year and asked for an independent review by the National Academy of Sciences.  The report is due March 15.  Senators Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), leaders of the opposition to the plan, spelled out their concerns more explicitly in a letter to the academy earlier this month. “The fact that one would not be able to differentiate between a conventional missile launch and nuclear missile launch from a Trident submarine was viewed with particular concern by those of us who opposed the program,” they wrote. Subcommittee Chairwoman Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) echoed those concerns during her opening statement at the hearing yesterday, citing the Trident issue as one of a number of “important questions” regarding “prompt global strike.” Cartwright did not directly address those concerns during his testimony but said a global strike missile is needed within two years. Tauscher called for a public dialogue on the role of nuclear weapons and nonproliferation.  She also pointedly pushed Cartwright on the issue of the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, a plan to replace some or all of the nation’s nuclear stockpile with next-generation warheads that administration officials say would be easier to maintain and safer. Officials from the Defense and Energy departments last week selected a design for the first new warhead.  The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California is due to spend the next year further developing that design (see GSN, March 2). “I strongly believe we need a public debate on the nature of strategic deterrence and the role of nuclear weapons,” Tauscher said.  “General, as you know, I believe that finding ways to prevent the spread and possible use of nuclear technology, material and weapons is at least important as the future of the nuclear arsenal.” Tauscher stressed that a number of outstanding questions remain on the RRW program, and said Congress in this budget year would make no decision on funding actual construction of the new warhead (see GSN, March 5). President George W. Bush’s fiscal 2008 budget request contained nearly $89 million for the program, a more than threefold increase over the last congressionally approved budget. A new, more reliable warhead would allow military planners to reduce the current stockpile without jeopardizing deterrence, Cartwright said.  “We need to have an infrastructure that is responsive to operational and technical surprises.” Officials have said the new weapon would also incorporate more measures to prevent detonation if terrorist group ever obtained a U.S. bomb.  “Nirvana for me is if the wrong person gets a hold of it, it’s a paperweight,” Cartwright said.  “That’s where we need to be.” The warhead is slated to first replace the payloads on submarine-launched W76 ballistic missiles and the nuclear yield is not expected to change by any significant amount.  The massive explosive power of the weapons would only fluctuate by perhaps 1 or 2 percent, Cartwright said. “We are allowing the designers, where appropriate, to reduce the size and yield … in order to optimize for larger margins and ensure we don’t have to test,” he said. Lawmakers have said they would strongly oppose the program if it meant a return to nuclear testing, something the United States has not done in more than a decade (see GSN, March 7).  The United States has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Back to top       China, Russia Hold Out on Iran Sanctions China and Russia yesterday continued to oppose certain measures intended to further penalize Iran for failure to obey a U.N. mandate to halt uranium enrichment activities, Reuters reported (see GSN, March 8). The U.N. Security Council in December approved a resolution including limited economic penalties and demanding that Tehran halt nuclear fuel cycle work within 60 days.  Iran has ignored the mandate. Representatives from the permanent members of the council and Germany met again yesterday as they tried to agree on a harsher set of sanctions for Iran.  Another meeting is scheduled for today, but a draft resolution is not likely to be presented earlier than next week. “There is no resolution to address yet,” said acting U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Alejandro Wolff.  “We were just taking stock of where we were.” China and Russia have objected to a number of measures included in a working paper on a sanctions resolution, Reuters reported.  One area of concern was freezing the assets of companies controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Beijing and Moscow, which have expressed the greatest concerns among Security Council powers over sanctioning Iran, appeared to support a ban on Iranian arms exports, Reuters reported after viewing the working document.  They did, however, question a provision that would allow for “cooperative action” to be taken against weapons trafficking by Tehran. Other areas of concern were the potential withholding of funds from Iran by international financial entities and a call for countries to “exercise vigilance and restraint” in offering economic support to Tehran. U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack indicated that China might be presenting the greatest objections to the proposed penalties (Reuters I/New York Times, March 9). Iran indicated today again that it might reduce its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, after the body’s governing board supported suspension of 22 technical assistance programs to the nation, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 8). “This sort of decision can affect the cooperation of Iran,” said Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.  He did not elaborate. Iran now allows IAEA inspectors and cameras access to certain nuclear sites, but has refused to allow the agency to place additional cameras at the Natanz nuclear facility where it plans to install 54,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges.  Tehran in January also blocked the entry of 38 IAEA inspectors into the country (Associated Press/New York Times, March 9). Meanwhile, three days of talks this week failed to resolve a dispute over Iranian payment to Russia for construction of the Bushehr nuclear power reactor, Reuters reported. Moscow claims that Iran has fallen behind on payments in the amount of tens of millions of dollars.  Iran says its payments are up to date. “The Iranian delegation discussed all the questions but no firm decisions were made to overcome the crisis,” a Russian official said.  “A further dragging out of these questions will further worsen the existing delays to the timetable for building the (power station).” Iran offered additional money to ensure the power plant begins operations in September, Atomic Energy Organization deputy chief Mohammad Saeedi told Reuters. “Atomstroiexport has financial problems and has asked Iran to pay part of the contract money before what was said in the contract,” he said. Russian officials are expected in Tehran next week for talks on the startup schedule at Bushehr (Reuters/New York Times, March 9). Back to top       North Korea Wants U.S. Action Before Reactor Closed North Korea said it would close down its nuclear reactor only after the United States eliminates economic sanctions against the Stalinist state, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, March 8). Shutdown of the Yongbyon reactor is among the first steps Pyongyang is to take in its Feb. 13 denuclearization agreement. “The United States promised to resolve the problem of sanctions against our country within 30 days.  If this promise is kept, then we will shut down our nuclear facilities in 60 days,” said lead North Korean nuclear negotiator Kim Kye Gwan (Associated Press/Washington Post, March 9). Kim arrived in China yesterday to discuss his meetings this week in New York with lead U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill, Agence France-Presse reported (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, March 8). Distrust among the nations participating in the six-party talks — China, Japan, Russia, the United States and North and South Korea — is hampering the denuclearization effort, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei said today, Reuters reported. “The countries involved suffer a serious lack of trust among them.  That’s the biggest problem the six-party talks must face,” he told the Xinhua News Agency. “Nonetheless, we’re still full of confidence in pursuing hope in hardship,” he said. Working groups on various components of the deal are scheduled to meet next week, followed by a new round of multilateral negotiations on March 19 (Reuters/New York Times, March 9). Meanwhile, South Korea in coming weeks plans to resume fertilizer shipments to the North, the Financial Times reported yesterday. The North Korean Red Cross this week requested 300,000 tons of fertilizer, ahead of the spring planting season.  Pyongyang is also requesting 400,000 tons of rice. The fertilizer shipment would be an indicator of the support North Korea could receive upon nuclear disarmament, the Times reported (Anna Fifield, Financial Times, March 8). Back to top       Congo Uranium Smuggling Network “Smashed” A newspaper in the Democratic Republic of Congo reported Wednesday that more than 100 bars of uranium had disappeared from the atomic energy center in Kinshasa over a number of years, the BBC reported (see GSN, March 8). The report in Le Phare follows the arrests Tuesday of the country’s atomic energy commission chief and an aide.  The BBC reported that it had not been able to verify the newspaper’s claim of the disappearance of the uranium bars and an unknown amount of the material contained in helmet-shaped cases. “A vast network aimed at the fraudulent exploitation of DR Congo’s uranium has been dismantled,” said Scientific Research Minister Sylvanus Mushi.  “It was a criminal network” (BBC News, March 8). Back to top       Nuclear Trade Agreement Provides No Aid for Indian Weapons Programs, U.S. Says A senior State Department official on Wednesday rejected arguments that the U.S. nuclear trade deal with India might benefit New Delhi’s military atomic program, the Press Trust of India reported (see GSN, March 7). Critics of the plan have argued that providing U.S. nuclear fuel for power reactors could enable India to use its limited amounts of domestic uranium in military reactors producing weapon-usable plutonium. “There have been a lot of studies and a lot of statements … about what this (nuclear deal) would do for India’s military programs, whether it would do anything at all.  I still believe it wouldn’t; I don’t think the incentives are there,” Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher told a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee. “As far as the potential for an arms race in the region, we’ve talked quite clearly to both India and Pakistan.  Both of them tell us they don’t want to see an arms race … they have no intention of starting one,” he said. New Delhi would meet its obligation under the planned agreement to keep its military and civilian nuclear programs separate, Boucher said. “There are a series of safeguards that will be negotiated between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency,” he said.  “That is one piece of the package that will be looked at, will be ready for the Congress to look at when we ask you to vote again on finalizing the deal” (Sridhar Krishnaswami, Press Trust of India/Hindustan Times, March 8). U.S. officials hope now to see the deal come into effect by next December, Agence France-Presse reported.  A previous prediction put the implementation date in the first half of the year. Officials from New Delhi and Washington continue their negotiations.  Formal talks have yet to begin with the U.N. nuclear watchdog on safeguards for India’s civilian nuclear sector, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group has not signed off on the deal. “Progress is being registered … perhaps not as rapidly as we might desire, but in a manner that is consistent with the complexity and weight of the issues under consideration,” Boucher said at the hearing (P. Parameswaran, Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, March 8). Back to top       Security Not the Only Story at LANL, Official Says Security problems at the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory in New Mexico have overshadowed the work scientists there do to benefit the country, the facility’s new science chief said this week (see GSN, March 8). “I think we have to remind the country how much we do for them,” said Terry Wallace, citing development of titanium-based hip replacements, the explosive that makes vehicle air bags function and other high technology. In an interview with the Associated Press, Wallace acknowledged “very infrequent but potentially disastrous” security troubles at Los Alamos, most recently the removal of hundreds of classified documents by a contract employee (see GSN, Nov. 2, 2006). Scientists at Los Alamos believe both in their work and in security, said Wallace, who on Tuesday became principle associate director for science, technology and engineering. “Just a few people acting out in whatever circumstances have put the whole enterprise at risk,” he said.  “That’s really frustrating to the people of Los Alamos. “It’s also frustrating that this seems to be the issue that everybody knows about rather than all the accomplishments,” Wallace added. Fifty-eight percent of work at Los Alamos now involves nuclear weapons, Wallace said.  That amount is likely to drop to 33 percent over the next five years, he said, meaning scientists will look to other research areas. “Even the bulk of our (nuclear) work really has spinoffs that go into everything you can imagine in your life,” Wallace said.  “It’s really hard to imagine your life without Los Alamos” (Sue Major Holmes, Associated Press/Silver City Sun-News, March 8). Back to top

Reaction to Chinese Antisatellite Technology Test Continues to Swirl on Capitol Hill By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — Nearly two months after China destroyed one of its own satellites in a test of antisatellite technology, the provocative act continues to reverberate across Capitol Hill (see GSN, Jan. 24). As the United States has come to rely more heavily on space-based assets for military communications, imaging and other ends, the prospect of potential adversaries knocking out those electronic eyes and ears in orbit is troubling lawmakers. “I’m still concerned whether the administration or Congress has been adequately vocal about what our response should be,” Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said yesterday during a discussion at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The Chinese are very smart.  They know what they want, and they’re interested in what our response is, so tell them,” Kyl said. Kyl said the United States should make it clear, as outlined in both the space policies of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, that it is committed to “unfettered” space access for peaceful purposes. Despite the difficulty of preparing defenses against antisatellite weapons, he suggested the military should be pursuing both offensive and defensive measures.  Offensive measures would provide the capability to strike enemy satellites and defensive measure would protect U.S. space assets from attack. “I think it’s good to talk about these things quietly with your allies and publicly with regard to the bright lines you want to draw,” he said. Representative Jane Harmon (D-Calif.), who also spoke at the Washington think tank, called the Jan. 11 Chinese test a “serious challenge to America.” While the test should not have been a surprise — last year China illuminated a U.S. satellite with a laser beam, she noted — it means the United States should be trying to pinpoint Chinese capabilities and intentions. Imagining a situation in which the United States was engaged in a conflict and an enemy was tracking or targeting U.S. troops with satellites, Kyl suggested the military would not hesitate to blast foreign satellites out of orbit. “Preserving space as a sanctuary may seem attractive in theory, but it would be indefensible in practice,” he said. During a hearing yesterday of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Chairwoman Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) said the both Congress and the military need to focus on protecting U.S. assets and infrastructure in space. “The recent Chinese ASAT (antisatellite) test being the case in point,” she said.  “I am concerned these activities have not received the appropriate consideration and resources in the past.” Appearing before the committee, the head of U.S. Strategic Command said that the Chinese test was troubling but not unprecedented.  Both the United States and the Soviet Union tested their own antisatellite technology decades ago. The United States, however, tested in a “responsible way,” said Gen. James Cartwright.  U.S. targets were in the lower ranges of low-earth orbit, meaning debris cleared out and fell back to earth relatively quickly. Still, it took nearly 20 years before all traces of the test were gone, Cartwright said.  The Chinese target, he said, was in the upper ranges of the low-earth orbit.  Debris is expected to take significantly longer to clear. The metal bits hurtling through space at high speeds could jeopardize satellites and even the International Space Station.  “Platforms costing billions of dollars to replace and the lives of astronauts from many nations are now at risk from debris left by China’s recent ill-advised antisatellite test,” he wrote in his prepared testimony for the committee. Back to top       Poland Waiting on U.S. for Missile Defense Talks The United States has yet to set a date for talks on deploying missile interceptors in Poland, Defense Minister Aleksander Szczyglo said yesterday (see GSN, March 8). “A diplomatic note from the Polish government was sent to the United States,” he said.  “Now we are waiting for a signal from the American side.” The U.S. Embassy in Warsaw said there was no schedule for talks to begin but “the United States looks forward to formal discussions with Poland and the Czech Republic,” Agence France-Presse reported. Washington hopes to install a missile defense radar base in the Czech Republic. Warsaw requires that any deal “contribute to reinforcing Poland’s security.”  Requirements could include support in improving Polish anti-aircraft defenses and higher levels of intelligence cooperation between the two nations (Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, March 8). Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt yesterday supported the U.S. assertion that missile defense installations in Central Europe would be intended to provide defense against Middle Eastern threats, rather than aimed at Russia, AFP reported. Moscow has blasted the U.S. plan, claiming that it would harm Russian strategic security. “This is primarily a system designed for the protection of the United States and it’s geared very much by the overall situation in the Middle East,” Bildt said. “I hope that we would, in the years to come, have sufficient progress in the Middle East to make those discussions somewhat more academic,” he added. Bildt said it is too early to say whether the U.S. missile shield plan might create conflict between Russia and the European Union.  “It’s just initial discussions that are going on,” he said (Agence France-Presse, March 8). Back to top       U.S. Tests THAAD Radar The U.S. Missile Defense Agency on Monday conducted a successful missile-tracking test of its Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense system (see GSN, Jan. 29). A short-range target missile was launched at 8:30 p.m. Eastern time from a U.S. Air force transport aircraft roughly 400 miles west of Kauai.  The Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance system was able to track the missile as it flew over the Pacific Ocean, the agency said in a press release. “Air-launched targets provide the capability to structure target missile trajectories during flight tests so that they are able to better replicate potential trajectories hostile ballistic missiles could use during an attack on our homeland, our deployed forces and our allies and friends,” the release states. The radar tested Monday can track and identify small objects at great distances and altitudes as high as space, the agency said. The THAAD system is intended to bring down ballistic missiles in their final phase of flight (U.S. Missile Defense Agency release, March 8). Back to top

U.S. Posts Radiation Treatment Guidance Online The U.S. Health and Human Services Department has prepared an “online diagnostic and treatment toolkit” to help physicians and other medical providers aid people exposed to radiation, the agency announced yesterday (see GSN, March 8). The extensive features of the Radiation Event Medical Management Web site include information on diagnosing and managing radiation contamination and guidance on treatment with antiradiation drugs.  The site describes various kinds of radiation events, including those involving a nuclear weapon or a radiological dispersal device such as a “dirty bomb.” The diagnosis and management guidance encompasses the initial steps to take at an event site or medical facility and significant steps in caring for patients (U.S. Health and Human Services Department release, March 8). 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.