Unrest in Pakistan following Benazir Bhutto’s assassination has again raised concern about the security of the nation’s nuclear arsenal (Pedro Ugarte/Getty Images). Experts Differ on Pakistani Nuclear Security Western analysts have offered varied assessments of the risks of Pakistani nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands in light of the civil unrest that followed last week’s assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto (see GSN, Dec. 14, 2007). U.S. and Pakistani officials have issued reassurances that Pakistan’s arsenal is safe from Islamic extremists...Full Story

North Korea Misses Nuclear Declaration Deadline North Korea missed the end of 2007 deadline to issue a full accounting of its nuclear activities, the Washington Post reported yesterday, but the response in Washington and other capitals was muted (see GSN, Dec. 21, 2007)...Full Story

Iran Receives Second Nuclear Fuel Shipment Iran received another 11 tons of nuclear fuel from Russia on Friday to operate the Bushehr nuclear power plant now under construction in the south of the country, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Dec. 21, 2007)...Full Story

	Wednesday, January 2, 2008

Report Lashes Pentagon Anti-WMD Efforts A report issued last year by the U.S. Defense Department’s inspector general lashed the agency’s efforts to address WMD threats, the Deseret Morning News reported (see GSN, Oct. 11, 2007). The newspaper received a redacted version of the March report after filing a Freedom of Information Act request. The document questions coordination and oversight of Pentagon programs to reduce the international WMD threat. “Without improved management, DOD cannot be assured that planned expenditures of at least $9.9 billion for fiscal years 2006 through 2011 is effectively spent, that U.S. interests are adequately protected, and that DOD can properly respond to an attack,” the report states. A single working group provided oversight of 40 Pentagon offices and commands conducting programs that included creating defenses against unconventional weapons, tracking and securing potential weapons in other nations, promoting counterproliferation pacts and aiding destruction of weapons in the former Soviet Union.  The Pentagon “managed each of these initiatives separately and did not coordinate initiatives within the responsible offices, even though all are interrelated,” the report states.  That meant “senior DOD officials did not receive the necessary information to understand the status of DOD actions for combating WMD.” Lawmakers reading annual Pentagon reports were also likely to be left unsure of whether 31 WMD defense programs “were complete or exactly what was accomplished with the funds,” according to the report. The Defense Department has pledged to improve coordination of the programs through formation of a more authoritative coordination committee and designation of top agencies to manage programs within several offices, the Morning News reported. A number of offices and commands supported the report’s recommendation for increasing the detail of operations plans to ensure that progress can be measured on an annual basis (Lee Davidson, Deseret Morning News, Jan. 2). Back to top

Experts Differ on Pakistani Nuclear Security Western analysts have offered varied assessments of the risks of Pakistani nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands in light of the civil unrest that followed last week’s assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto (see GSN, Dec. 14, 2007). U.S. and Pakistani officials have issued reassurances that Pakistan’s arsenal is safe from Islamic extremists. “At this time, as far as I know, it is the assessment of the intelligence community that Pakistan’s weapons arsenal is secure,” White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said Friday (Agence France-Presse/Google News, Dec. 30). Some private experts, however, have refused to accept such comforting statements. “A witch's brew that includes political instability, a burgeoning Islamic insurgency, a demoralized army and an intensely anti-American population, puts Pakistan's nuclear weapons at risk,” wrote Harvard University scholar Graham Allison in a Newsweek commentary. Pakistan’s nuclear security measures were mostly designed to prevent India from locating the weapons, Allison said.  Those measures have included dispersing weapons components at multiple sites. “But these arrangements by necessity increase the likelihood that corrupt officials could successfully divert weapons or materials,” Allison said. He also warned of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf possibly losing the support of his military backers, a prospect that combined with the poor regard held by Pakistan’s populace for the United States could lead to a nuclear seizure. “It would be a grave mistake,” Allison wrote, “to take comfort from the serene assurances of officials in governments, here and there, about everything being under reasonable control” (Graham Allison, Newsweek, Dec. 28). Other analysts recently shared their concerns as well, the Ottawa Citizen reported. “We could have a situation where extremists were able to control the nuclear facilities of Pakistan,” said Paul Wilkinson, who formerly led St. Andrews University’s Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence.  “That would be a very dangerous nightmare scenario, and one that we really ought to be concerned about.” Some analysts, however, have urged more caution about raising the nuclear alarm. There is no sign that Pakistani security forces will falter, said Anthony Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.  Even if weapon components were stolen, it was “extremely unlikely” that the thieves could assemble a working weapon, he said (Dominique Price, Ottawa Citizen/Canada.com, Dec. 29). Another U.S. expert concurred. “Pakistan's weapons are under the control of the military and by and large that will remain unchanged,” said the Monterey Institute’s Leonard Spector.  “From a standpoint of security we'll probably have continuity and relatively satisfactory control.” “This is not a reassuring set of changes that we're experiencing, but on the other hand I think the military for the moment has a lot of coherence and solidarity.  I think we'll see that continue,” he added (AFP, Dec. 30). Back to top       North Korea Misses Nuclear Declaration Deadline North Korea missed the end of 2007 deadline to issue a full accounting of its nuclear activities, the Washington Post reported yesterday, but the response in Washington and other capitals was muted (see GSN, Dec. 21, 2007). Pyongyang pledged as part of the ongoing denuclearization process to submit its nuclear declaration and disable three key nuclear facilities by Dec. 31.  It became increasingly clear in recent weeks that neither deadline was likely to be met. Efforts to complete both projects are ongoing, the Bush administration said. “I’m not going to put a deadline on it,” said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.  “We think there is an opportunity to move forward” (Blaine Harden, Washington Post, Jan. 1). Stanzel indicated that the delay could hinder Pyongyang’s efforts to acquire economic and political benefits by shuttering its nuclear program, Agence France-Presse reported. “This is an action-for-action process,” he said.  “In order to have action on one side, we have to have action on the other side as well” (Agence France-Presse I/Spacewar.com, Dec. 31). The delay is “unfortunate,” according to the Japanese Foreign Ministry.  Its counterpart in South Korea called on North Korea to “faithfully declare all nuclear programs at an early date, and complete disablement steps without delay,” the BBC reported (BBC News, Dec. 31). The declaration has apparently been held up over the question of North Korea’s suspected uranium enrichment program, the Post reported.  The United States has said repeatedly that the program must be included, while North Korea has never publicly acknowledged conducting such an effort. Another question is the amount of plutonium produced in North Korea.  Pyongyang has reportedly placed the amount at 66 pounds, while U.S. assessments have been higher. North Korea must not “pretend to give a complete declaration,” Stanzel said.  He noted progress in disabling the nation’s sole operating nuclear reactor, and shifted blame for delays in that project away from the Stalinist state. “The United States slowed down part of the disablement process,” Stanzel said.  “We wanted it to be done in a safe and secure manner” (Harden, Washington Post). However, a North Korean Foreign Ministry official also reportedly said recently that Pyongyang would “adjust” its rate of nuclear dismantlement due to a “delay in the implementation of economic compensation obligations,” the Los Angeles Times reported (Barbara Demick, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 1). Pyongyang to date has received 150,000 tons of heavy fuel oil from other nations in the six-party talks, the Post reported.  If it carries out its pledge to fully dismantle its nuclear complex, it stands to receive 1 million tons of fuel or equivalent energy assistance, along with diplomatic and security benefits (Harden, Washington Post). A South Korean analyst said it remains to be seen whether North Korean leader Kim Jong Il is actually willing to relinquish his nation’s nuclear arsenal, AFP reported. “National Defense Commission Chairman Kim Jong Il seems not to have made a decision yet to abandon nuclear weapons,” Nam Sung-wook of Korea University told SBS radio.  North Korea is likely to “drag its feet in negotiations with the U.S. over what it can get in return, probably until late February,” he said (Agence France-Presse II/Yahoo!News, Jan. 2). Back to top       Iran Receives Second Nuclear Fuel Shipment Iran received another 11 tons of nuclear fuel from Russia on Friday to operate the Bushehr nuclear power plant now under construction in the south of the country, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Dec. 21, 2007). The second batch of uranium fuel arrived based on a previously agreed schedule, said Ahmad Fayazbakhsh, deputy head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization. “The amount of fuel delivered to Bushehr was equal to the previous shipment,” Iranian state media quoted Fayazbakhsh quoted as saying. “It was delivered within a specified timetable.” Iranian media reported that Russia plans to send 82 tons of nuclear fuel to Iran over eight shipments.  The first shipment completed in mid-December and last week’s batch both consisted of 11 tons of uranium (Associated Press I/Google News, Dec. 28). Tehran expects next summer to begin running the Bushehr plant at half of its 1,000-megawatt capacity, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Sunday. “Half of the capacity of the Bushehr nuclear power plant will be launched in the summer of the coming year,” Mottaki said, according to Iran’s official news agency. Mottaki said Russia plans to complete the remaining nuclear fuel shipments by mid-2008, allowing Iran to begin operating the light-water reactor.  A Russian firm is currently constructing at the Bushehr facility (Associated Press II/USA Today, Dec. 30). Meanwhile, an independent study has found that a full-scale nuclear conflict between Israel and a nuclear-armed Iran would result in the annihilation of the Iranian state and the deaths of as many as 28 million Iranians while leaving open the possibility for Israel to survive, the New York Post reported Tuesday. Israel’s Arrow 2 missile defense system and an array of U.S.-built missile defenses would together intercept most nuclear-equipped missiles fired from Iran, capping Israeli deaths at 200,000. Israel would also hold more than 200 nuclear weapons in such a conflict while Iran would hypothetically be limited to fewer than 50 weapons that would be far less powerful, according to the study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.  High-resolution satellite photography would give Israeli missiles higher accuracy, the study added. “Iranian recovery is not possible in the normal sense of the term, though Israeli recovery is theoretically possible in population and economic terms,” analyst Anthony Cordesman said in the report. The study said that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the threat of “mutually assured destruction” would prevent Tehran from using them against Israel as it prevented nuclear conflict from breaking out between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. If Syria joined with Iran, it could fire missiles loaded with mustard gas, nerve agents or anthrax at Israel, killing an additional 800,000 Israelis.  However, Israel’s retaliation to such an attack would claim as many as 18 million Syrian lives, the report said. The study did not estimate potential long-term casualties that would result from radiation poisoning and other effects of a nuclear conflict (Andy Soltis, New York Post, Dec. 25). Back to top       India, IAEA to Resume Safeguards Talks Indian officials were set to resume nuclear safeguards talks today with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Economic Times reported (see GSN, Dec. 10, 2007). The negotiations are aimed at establishing the rules and methods for the agency to inspect Indian civilian nuclear facilities after a pending U.S.-Indian nuclear trade deal takes effect (see GSN, Dec. 20, 2007). Prospects for the deal remain uncertain, however, as Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has so far failed to persuade allies of his ruling coalition to back the agreement.  Those parties have allowed Singh to negotiate the safeguards agreement, but have warned him not to sign it without their approval. Two rounds of talks with the agency were held in December, during which officials exchanged proposed drafts, and sources reported that the officials hope that this week’s round will reach a final agreement. The Indian delegation is led by Ravi Grover, head of the Indian nuclear agency’s strategic planning division (Economic Times, Jan. 2). Back to top       India, Pakistan Exchange Nuclear Data India and Pakistan yesterday traded data on each nation’s nuclear facilities, in keeping with a 1988 confidence-building measure that requires annual information sharing, the Pakistani Foreign Ministry announced (see GSN, Jan. 3, 2006). The two nations “exchanged lists of their respective nuclear installations and facilities,” according to a statement (Pakistani Foreign Ministry release, Jan. 1). The data exchange comes at a time of heightened concern about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal following the Dec. 27 assassination of political opposition leader Benazir Bhutto (see related GSN story, today; Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, Jan. 1). Back to top       Russia Tests ICBM, Submarine-Launched Missiles Russia last week completed successful tests of a multiple-warhead ICBM and a submarine-launched ballistic missile, the Financial Times reported (see GSN, Dec. 17, 2007). The military fired the RS-24 ICBM from a mobile launcher at the Plesetsk space center in northern Russia.  The missile deployed several test warheads that hit their targets on the Kura test range, located on the Kamchatka Peninsula in far eastern Russia.  The second test of the ICBM followed a test in May. The RS-24 is based on the Topol-M, a single-warhead Russian ICBM with a range of 6,000 miles.  The new missile is being developed as a replacement for older Soviet weapons such as the SS-19 Stiletto and the SS-18 Satan. “The RS-24 will form the backbone of the Strategic Missile Forces and safely ensure the security of Russia and its allies through the midcentury,” the forces said. Russia also test-fired its submarine-launched RSM-54 ballistic missile at the same time, hitting an additional target on the Kamchatka Peninsula, the Russian Defense Ministry said. Also called the Sineva hybrid ballistic missile, the RSM-54 becomes a cruise missile during its final stage of flight.  Two tests of the missile were completed within one week (Neil Buckley, Financial Times, Dec. 26). Top Russian military officials said the new missiles are capable of penetrating any missile defense shield, Reuters reported.  Moscow has vehemently opposed U.S. efforts to place missile defense elements in Europe (see GSN, Dec. 20, 2007). Russian President Vladimir Putin praised the missile tests as “pleasant and spectacular holiday fireworks” (Dmitry Solovyov, Reuters, Dec. 26). Back to top

U.S. Limits Libyan CW Disposal Funding to $45M The United States remains unwilling to pay the full cost for destroying Libya’s chemical weapons agents, the Tehran Times reported on Dec. 26 (see GSN, June 12, 2007). It is expected to cost $65 million to build and operate a plant that would destroy 23 metric tons of mustard agent and 1,300 metric tons of precursor chemicals.  The Bush administration has agreed to provide $45 million, but Libya has expressed dissatisfaction with that amount and suspended talks with Washington on the issue in July 2007. “Where it stands right now is we have a continuing offer on the table if the Libyans wish to reconsider it,” Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Donald Mahley told the newspaper.  “From the Libyans’ point of view, the main issue [in negotiations] was cost.” Tripoli renounced weapons of mass destruction in 2003.  It joined the Chemical Weapons Convention in 2004 and has until 2010 to eliminate materials covered by the international pact. “The Libyan government has accepted from the outset that they are the possessors of this chemical agent, and the destruction of that chemical agent is their responsibility,” Mahley said. As long as it remains in existence, the Libyan mustard agent could be “a lucrative potential target for terrorists,” he said. U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) said last month that Libyan chemical agent disposal “was an opportunity that should have been seized with enthusiasm by the United States.  I have communicated frequently with the Bush administration about this, and remain hopeful that the United States will play a constructive role” (Tehran Times/Chemical Weapons Working Group, Dec. 26). Back to top       U.S. Completes Destruction of VX Spray Tanks The U.S. Army announced last week that it had destroyed the final VX nerve agent spray tank in its chemical weapons stockpile (see GSN, Dec. 21, 2007). The United States originally held 1,018 of the 160-gallon aerosol containers, designed to be mounted on aircraft and used to spread the nerve agent on battlefields as a gaseous mist.  The United States has never used VX or any other chemical weapon in a military conflict, according to the U.S. Army. The Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility in Utah began destroying 862 of the tanks in July 2004 and finished work on the last day of that year (see GSN, Jan. 4, 2005).  The Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility in Oregon started disposal of the remaining 156 containers on Nov. 23 and completed the project on Dec. 24. The TMU-28 spray tanks consisted of a container to hold the VX agent, an aircraft suspension system, a tail cone section and a nozzle for deploying the agent (U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency release, Dec. 26). Back to top

Taiwan Says it Faces More Chinese Missiles China is now aiming 1,328 ballistic missiles at Taiwan, an increase of more than 300 from the last estimate, Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian said yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 12, 2007). Chen said his government had estimated earlier that 988 short-range ballistic missiles were aimed at Taiwan, Reuters reported.  China was believed to have deployed 200 missiles when Chen first assumed office in 2000, he said. China considers Taiwan to be part of its territory and has said that any move by the island toward formal independence could be met with military force (Reuters, Jan. 1). Back to top

Russia to Deliver Missile Defenses, Iran Says Russia soon plans to deliver new missile defenses to Iran that could significantly improve the country’s ability to resist air attacks, Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said last week, but Russia has denied the report (see GSN, Nov. 27, 2007). Najjar did not specify when the S-300 anti-aircraft missile defense systems would be shipped or the number of units that Iran would receive, the Associated Press reported. “The S-300 air defense system will be delivered to Iran on the basis of a contract signed with Russia in the past,” Iranian state media quoted Najjar as saying. Russia’s S-300 system can intercept ballistic missile warheads, cruise missiles and aircraft at a distance of more than 90 miles and at altitudes as high as 90,000 feet.  The S-300’s can outperform the U.S. Patriot missile defense system, according to Russian military officials. The S-300 is more powerful than the Russian Tor-M1 system, which destroys targets as high as 20,000 feet.  In 2007, Iran received 29 Tor-M1 units from Russia under a $700 million contract the two countries signed in December 2005. “While Tor-M1 missiles can hit targets at low altitude, S-300 missile have an extraordinary performance against targets at high altitude,” Najjar said (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press I/Google News, Dec. 26, 2007). However, Russia’s Federal Military-Technical Cooperation Service on Friday denied plans to equip Iran with the system. “The question of deliveries of S-300 systems to Iran, which has now arisen in the mass media, is not currently taking place, is not being considered and is not being discussed at this time with the Iranian side,” said the agency that regulates Russian military exports (Associated Press II/International Herald Tribune, Dec. 28, 2007).     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.