The unauthorized loading of nuclear weapons onto a U.S. B-52 bomber last year triggered a harsh assessment of nuclear weapons-handling policies this week (U.S. Air Force photo). Experts Blast U.S. Nuclear Arsenal Security, Control A panel of experts yesterday blasted the U.S. Defense Department for failing to ensure that its nuclear arsenal is secure and that all weapons are where they are supposed to be, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, Feb. 4). “The decline of DOD focus has been more pronounced than realized and too extreme to be acceptable,” according to the experts’ report...Full Story

Putin Issues Nuclear Threat to Ukraine Ukraine could find itself in Russia’s nuclear cross hairs should Kiev join NATO or agree to base components of the U.S. missile defense system, Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 11)...Full Story

Iran Offers Details on Enriched Uranium Traces The International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to report later this month that Iran has fully answered questions about weapon-grade uranium traces discovered at a Tehran technical university, Reuters reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 11)...Full Story

	Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Experts Blast U.S. Nuclear Arsenal Security, Control A panel of experts yesterday blasted the U.S. Defense Department for failing to ensure that its nuclear arsenal is secure and that all weapons are where they are supposed to be, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, Feb. 4). “The decline of DOD focus has been more pronounced than realized and too extreme to be acceptable,” according to the experts’ report. The document was issued by a standing task force of the Defense Science Board, a group of private military and scientific experts that provides technical advice to the Pentagon. “The nation and its leadership do not value the nuclear mission and the people who perform that mission,” the chairman of the task force, retired Air Force Gen. Larry Welch, said during a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting. The report rose from the panel’s study of an August incident in which personnel at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., mistakenly loaded six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles onto a B-52 that then flew to Barksdale Air Force Base, La. “No one knew where they were, or even missed them, for over 36 hours,” said committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.).  “This entire episode really is a wake-up call.” The Air Force’s emphasis on nuclear security and control “has diminished since 1991,” according to a statement from three high-level service officers who investigated the August flight.  The Air Force subsequently “began 17 years of continuous combat power commitments” using B-52 and other aircraft once assigned to nuclear work. While top flag officers or high-level civilians oversaw Defense Department nuclear programs during the Cold War, the job is now assigned to lower-level officials, the Defense Science Board task force said.  It recommended assigning flag officers from each service to nuclear operations duty and appointing an assistant defense secretary for nuclear enterprise. The Air Force might make changes to the inspection process for nuclear weapons maintenance units, including conducting checks on shorter notice, said Lt. Gen. Daniel Darnell, deputy chief of operations.  The service gave the Minot unit a strong rating not long before the incident (Walter Pincus, Washington Post, Feb. 13). “This was the result of a lack of attention to detail and lack of adherence to well-established Air Force guidelines, technical orders and procedures,” Darnell said of the unintentional nuclear weapons transfer.  The flight cost roughly 24 personnel their jobs, he said. Air Force officials said, though, that there was minimal likelihood of a catastrophe or a release of plutonium from the warheads, the Associated Press reported.  “There was never an unsafe condition,” Darnell said during the hearing. Darnell said the Air Force since August has made dozens of recommended security improvements, but Levin countered that it has failed to follow up on most of 132 recommendations made by three investigatory panels (Barry Schweid, Associated Press/Battle Creek Inquirer, Feb. 12). Safety records show the Air Force Air Combat Command since 2001 has experienced 237 nuclear “Dull Sword” incidents involving its nuclear weapons, the Air Force Times reported yesterday. A Dull Sword incident is a “safety deficiency not included in the accident or incident categories.” There were a wide range of incident types, including problems in designating which personnel can be involved in weapons handling, broken weapons towing vehicles and failures of equipment that place weapons on aircraft. The 5th Bomb Wing at Minot Air Force Base racked up 45 incidents, five less than the 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale.  Topping the list with 111 incidents was the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo. (Michael Hoffman, Air Force Times, Feb. 12). Back to top       Iran Offers Details on Enriched Uranium Traces The International Atomic Energy Agency is expected to report later this month that Iran has fully answered questions about weapon-grade uranium traces discovered at a Tehran technical university, Reuters reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 11). However, Iran might not resolve the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s concerns about possible connections between its uranium enrichment, high explosives and missile design programs before IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei reports on the history of Tehran’s nuclear efforts, diplomats said. Iran has apparently offered an explanation for the highly enriched uranium particles, according to some diplomats.  While those sources provided no additional information, some analysts suggested that the material originated in another country. In an earlier incident concerning enriched uranium traces, IAEA officials accepted Iran’s explanation that the material came on equipment Tehran had obtained through a Pakistan-based nuclear smuggling ring. However, “the important issue is not so much what Iran did in the past but what it's doing now and might do in future,” said Mark Fitzpatrick, head nonproliferation analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “To be able to detect future clandestine enrichment, the IAEA needs unrestricted access across the country and to be able to conduct widespread environmental sampling,” he said. Meanwhile, Iran is developing an upgraded centrifuge that could enrich uranium two to three times faster than an older model in operation at the country’s Natanz enrichment facility, diplomats said (see GSN, Feb. 8). “(This is) deeply disturbing,” U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told Reuters on Friday.  “It seems to us that the proper response here would be a third sanctions resolution and that resolution is on the table” (Mark Heinrich, Reuters I, Feb. 12). Diplomats said yesterday that the U.N. Security Council would probably not vote on a proposed sanctions resolution against Iran before ElBaradei issues his report on the country’s nuclear activities, Reuters reported. The resolution would ban all travel for some Iranian officials while freezing the assets of some firms and demanding vigilance on transactions with Iranian financial institutions. The United States has urged Security Council members to vote on the sanctions quickly, but South Africa has lobbied its five permanent member nations to wait until the U.N. report is published. South Africa and other Nonaligned Movement nations say the Security Council should wait for information from the U.N. probe before voting on the resolution. “The vote is not specifically tied to the IAEA report, but it just so happens that by the time we get around to voting on it, it will most likely be after the report is out,” said one European diplomat. Diplomats said the council is likely to vote on the resolution in late February or early March, adding that France, Germany and the United Kingdom — the resolution’s sponsors — are willing to accept the delay. A U.S. official said the Security Council vote could still come at any point and might precede the report’s release. “There is nothing holding this up other than trying to get agreement,” the official said.  “As soon as that happens, we will vote.” Nonpermanent members Libya and Vietnam have also tried to delay the vote, according to diplomats.  Vietnam is reluctant to intervene in the concerns of other countries while Libya opposes sanctions on principle because it was recently subject to them, they said. “It's a much stronger signal if the vote is 15 to zero,” a European diplomat said.  “But it may not be unanimous and any resolution passed by the Security Council is a strong signal” (Louis Charbonneau, Reuters II/Washington Post, Feb. 12). U.S. officials are pressuring the European Union to ban operations on the continent by two Iranian banks they say are financing terrorism and proliferation activities, the Financial Times reported. France and the United Kingdom have backed a measure against Iran’s Bank Sederat and Bank Melli, but Germany and Italy have been hesitant to support a move that has not been backed by the Security Council. U.S. officials hope that stricter EU sanctions would encourage China and other major Iranian business partners to cut back their own business with Tehran. “We will be pushing the EU to go further than the Security Council,” a diplomat said.  “We could ‘gold plate’ a Security Council resolution when we implement it at the EU level, although some other EU member states may be reluctant” (Financial Times, Feb. 12). Elsewhere, an adviser to Kuwait and the Gulf Cooperation Council said yesterday that Middle Eastern nations believe Israel would take military action against Iranian nuclear facilities before Tehran could develop a nuclear weapon, Reuters reported. An Israeli attack against Iranian nuclear sites would be similar to a 1981 strike it conducted against Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak, said Sami Alfaraj, president of the Kuwait Center for Strategic Studies. “I believe in something on the same Iraqi model. … We are assuming in the Gulf that Israel will take it out.  We are not saying that, but Israel would,” Alfaraj said. If Iran succeeds in building a nuclear bomb, however, an arms race could unfold in the Middle East that would pressure non-nuclear weapons states to ask Israel, the United States or Pakistan for protection, he said.  “I do not dismiss an Israeli nuclear umbrella, I do not,” he said (Mark Trevelyan, Reuters III, Feb. 12). Back to top       India, Russia Complete Nuclear Power Plant Deal Russia completed a detailed agreement with India yesterday to construct four nuclear reactors for New Delhi, contingent upon a change to international export guidelines that currently bar sales of key nuclear technologies to India, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Jan. 25, 2007). “We have finalized negotiations … on building additional nuclear power plants in India,” said Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh after hosting talks with Russian Prime Minister Victor Zubkov. Russia is already building two 1,000-megawatt reactors at Kudankulam in southern India.  Russian officials have argued that the arrangement does not violate international guidelines because the construction agreement was completed before the rules took effect. The guidelines are set by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which currently prohibits sales of key nuclear technology to India and other nations that do not belong to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and do not allow full international supervision over their nuclear activities. A tentative U.S.-Indian nuclear trade deal, however, would require exempting India from the NSG rules, allowing for Russian sales as well, AFP reported (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Feb. 12). The U.S. deal has met effective domestic opposition in India, leading Bush administration officials to urge their counterparts in New Delhi to find a way to implement the deal before a new U.S. president takes office next January (see GSN, Feb. 12). “We don’t have all the time in the world,” U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said yesterday in London.  “We should now move forward and complete it” (Hasan Suroor, The Hindu, Feb. 13). Back to top       GAO Questions Los Alamos Safety, Security Record U.S. congressional auditors cautioned Monday that a new nuclear laboratory management team has not yet demonstrated an improvement to the facility’s five-year record of safety and security lapses (see GSN, Dec. 17, 2007). The U.S. Energy Department contracted a new operator for the Los Alamos National Laboratory in 2006 after an embarrassing set of incidents raised questions about the New Mexico site’s ability to protect secret nuclear weapon information and to prevent research accidents (see GSN, Feb. 1, 2007). In a five-year period ending June 30, 2007, the laboratory “experienced 57 security incidents involving the compromise or potential compromise of classified information,” according to a Government Accountability Office review released Monday (see GSN, Dec. 20, 2007). In addition, there were 23 safety accidents over that period, including instances of workers being exposed to radioactive materials such as plutonium (see GSN, Oct. 11, 2007). Los Alamos officials agreed with many of the GAO findings, but countered that the number of incidents has decreased in recent months.  The auditors, however, refused to concur with that assertion. “In our view, this short period of time is not sufficient to provide a basis for meaningful trend analysis,” their report says.  “Consequently, it is too soon to tell if this decline in security incidents is more than temporary” (U.S. Government Accountability Office release, Feb. 11). Back to top       N. Korea Must Disclose All Nuke Programs, South Says While it has largely shuttered its plutonium production capability, North Korea must still declare its suspected uranium enrichment effort in order to move ahead with a denuclearization agreement, a senior South Korean official said today (see GSN, Feb. 12). It has been one year since the nations in the six-party talks — China, Japan, Russia, the United States and both Koreas — reached an agreement under which Pyongyang would receive aid for dismantling its nuclear infrastructure.  North Korea since then has halted operations at its Yongbyon nuclear complex and moved to disable three key facilities, which would prevent the plants from resuming work for at least one year. “It is now nearly impossible for North Korea to produce additional plutonium for the time being,” said lead South Korean nuclear negotiator Chun Young-woo. However, progress has faltered while nations wait for a full accounting of North Korea’s nuclear programs.  The United States says a list submitted in November failed to address several sectors, including alleged uranium enrichment.  Pyongyang has publicly denied operating such a program, Agence France-Presse reported. “It is undoubtedly North Korea that should be responsible for presenting evidence to clarify the UEP,” Chun said.  “It is a daunting task but not an issue that is impossible to settle” (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, Feb. 13). Chun said more time is necessary to persuade Pyongyang to issue the full declaration, the Associated Press reported. “The issue of declaration is a difficult one in its essence,” he said.  “It would take time and efforts as (the North) has to change its previous claims.” The five governments negotiating with North Korea to date have delivered roughly one-fourth of the pledged aid.  The supply has been hampered by technical problems and Pyongyang’s limited ability to store oil promised under the deal (Kwang-Tae Kim, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Feb. 13). Chun said the negotiating standoff cannot be allowed to persist indefinitely, AFP reported.  He could not say, though, whether Pyongyang would actually relinquish its nuclear material.  “We have to wait and see,” he said (AFP, Feb. 13). Back to top       U.S. Considers Response to Russian Bomber Flight U.S. Defense Department officials are contemplating responses to a Russian strategic bomber’s flight over a U.S. aircraft carrier on Saturday and whether the mission marked Moscow’s return to a Cold War military posture, Reuters reported (see GSN, Feb. 12). “What we're concerned about is what are the indications of this return to a Cold War mind-set, what are the implications of that activity and how do we best address that,” Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers yesterday.  “We're just trying to go back and look at what message was intended by this overflight.” Adm. Gary Roughead, U.S. naval operations chief, argued that the bomber flight only illustrated Moscow’s desire to project its naval power abroad, Reuters reported. “What we are seeing is a Russian military or Russian navy that is emerging and, in the case of the navy, desiring to emerge as a global navy,” he said.  “I do not consider [the bomber mission] to be provocative.” The recent surge in long-range Russian bomber flights is not considered threatening, said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack (see GSN, Oct. 2, 2007). “The Russians made a decision to resume some of their long-range aviation flights, involving some of their assets left over from the Cold War,” he told reporters.  “I don’t think we view it as a particular threat.  It is something that we watch closely, and I’m sure folks over at the Pentagon watch it as well” (Richard Cowan, Reuters/Washington Post, Feb. 12). Back to top

Biological Defense Watchdog Shuts Down A small but effective watchdog group that monitored U.S. biological defense activities has closed shop in the face of financial difficulties, the Chronicle of Higher Education reported last week (see GSN, Sept. 24, 2007). The Texas-based Sunshine Project raised questions about the safety of the growing number of biological laboratories following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. “The project is in effect being shut down,” said project head Ed Hammond.  “One would have expected that with the billions of dollars begin poured into biodefense research, there would be something of a better operating environment for [nongovernmental organizations] like this.” The group publicized key safety lapses at several laboratories, including Texas A&M University’s failure to report worker exposure to dangerous microbes (see GSN, Sept. 6, 2007) and the shutdown of Ebola research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (see GSN, Sept. 20, 2007). One biological defense expert lamented the project’s demise, saying that the group had sought to oversee research more rigorously than the federal government. “The end of their operations would create a vacuum,” said Rutgers University professor Richard Ebright.  “We’ll go back to silence” (J.J. Hermes, Chronicle of Higher Education, Feb. 8). Back to top       Maine Cities Prepare for Biological Terrorism The Portland, Maine, area is expanding its capability to treat residents exposed to a biological agent during a terrorist attack, the Portland Press Herald reported yesterday (see GSN, July 18, 2007). As of 2007, Portland was among 72 cities to join the Cities Readiness Initiative, a federal program that supports municipal preparations to deliver drugs to all residents within a 48-hour period. The Portland program received $200,000 for planning purposes and now is expanding coverage to the nearby cities of South Portland and Biddeford.  More than 300,000 people are in the area during weekday work hours. “It’s really trying to lessen the impact a disease agent would have,” said Michael Russell, an emergency preparedness official in the Portland Human Services Department.  “These agents don’t really know any geographic boundaries.” Fourteen sites have been designated in Portland for delivery of drugs from the Strategic National Stockpile to city residents.  The stations could provide medications to up to 500 people per hour. Distribution points have also been identified in South Portland, while preparations in Biddeford are in the early stages, the Press Herald reported.  Preparations in the two cities are expected to be finished within one year and all of southern Cumberland and northern York countries are set to be covered in two years. Authorities in Portland said they must plan for the worst — such as terrorists’ use of a crop duster to spread anthrax spores — even if an actual biological incident is more likely to be localized. “It’s much easier to scale down than scale up,” said Michael Radke, Cities Readiness Initiative coordinator for the Portland public health office. People exposed to anthrax would begin showing symptoms within 48 hours, making it important to begin treating them in that period. “If you get inhaled anthrax, it is very easily treated if you start treating with antibiotics within 48 hours,” Radke said (David Hench, Portland Press Herald, Feb. 12). Back to top

Pakistan Tests Nuclear-Capable Missile Pakistan today conducted a test launch of a ballistic missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to a target 180 miles away, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Feb. 1). The army said in a statement that its strategic force command had successfully tested a Hatf 3 missile. Pakistan and India have been carrying out regular missile tests since May 1998, when the regional rivals both completed nuclear weapon test detonations (Agence France-Presse/Google News, Feb. 13). Back to top

Putin Issues Nuclear Threat to Ukraine Ukraine could find itself in Russia’s nuclear cross hairs should Kiev join NATO or agree to base components of the U.S. missile defense system, Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 11). Russian leaders have rejected U.S. arguments that missile interceptors and radar are needed to provide Europe with a defense against Iranian missiles. The missile shield’s real purpose is “the neutralization of our nuclear missile potential, which prompts Russia to take retaliatory action,” Putin said following talks with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, the London Guardian reported. “It's horrible to say and even horrible to think that, in response to the deployment of such facilities in Ukrainian territory, which cannot theoretically be ruled out, Russia could target its missile systems at Ukraine.  Imagine this for a second.  That is what worries us,” he said. Moscow has promised to take “asymmetrical action” if the United States deploys the missile defenses in Europe. Washington has not yet asked Ukraine to host any components of the European shield, which now are proposed to involve sites in Poland and the Czech Republic (see GSN, March 14, 2007; Luke Harding, London Guardian, Feb. 13). When asked to comment on Putin’s threat, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said only, “There he goes again.”  McCormack said he had not yet seen Putin’s statement (Richard Cowan, Reuters/Washington Post, Feb. 12). Back to top

U.S. Rejects Proposed Space Weapons Ban The Bush administration yesterday reaffirmed its opposition to a draft treaty introduced at the U.N. Conference on Disarmament that would ban the deployment of weapons in outer space, the New York Times reported (see GSN, Feb. 12). China and Russia crafted the proposal for “prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against outer space objects,” in response to past U.S. objections that a space weapons ban is unnecessary because no space arms race presently exists. Beijing and Moscow have long sought to ban weapons from outer space.  China highlighted the issue last year by destroying one of its own orbiting craft in a demonstration of its antisatellite capability (see GSN, Jan. 11). “Weapons deployment in space by one state will inevitably result in a chain reaction,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who presented the treaty yesterday in Geneva.  “And this in turn is fraught with a new spiral in the arms race, both in space and on the Earth.” Lavrov said the proposed treaty would improve arms control, boost security and resolve existing ambiguities in international law.  The time has come “to start serious practical work in this field,” he said. However, the White House responded that it opposes any treaty “to prohibit or limit access to or use of space.” “Any object orbiting or transiting through space can be a weapon if that object is intentionally placed onto a collision course with another space object,” White House spokesman Dana Perino stated by e-mail.  “This makes treaty verification impossible” (Nick Cumming-Bruce, New York Times, Feb. 13). China and Russia formulated the treaty to help offset a U.S. missile defense shield now in development, diplomats said yesterday (see related GSN story, today). Long-term U.S. missile and satellite defense plans remains largely secret, but they have produced concerns that the United States could trigger an arms race with the two nuclear powers, Agence France-Presse reported. “There is a link between the U.S. missile shield and the treaty.  The Russians can see that the American project is getting off the ground, and they're worried,” one European diplomat said (Anne Marcovitch, Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, Feb. 12). 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.