A top U.S. official has questioned criticism of Pentagon interest in deploying long-range, conventionally armed missiles potentially on Trident submarines (U.S. Navy photo). General Plays Down Concerns Over Ambiguous Missile Launches By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A top U.S. military official last week branded as “facetious” congressional concerns that the launch of a proposed long-range conventional missile might be mistaken for a nuclear salvo (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2007). Lawmakers cited worries about such “ambiguity” last year as their primary justification for denying a Defense Department request for $175 million in fiscal 2008 to develop and begin fielding a conventional version of the Navy’s nuclear-tipped Trident D-5 missile. “The argument is a little bit facetious,” Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Global Security Newswire in an April 14 interview...Full Story

U.S. Experts Enter North Korea U.S. officials today returned to North Korea for further talks aimed at breaking the deadlock over efforts to shutter the Stalinist state’s nuclear program, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, April 21)...Full Story

IAEA Official Continues Iran Nuclear Talks The International Atomic Energy Agency’s safeguards chief met with Iranian leaders again today to address concerns that Tehran had conducted research aimed at nuclear weapons development, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, April 21)...Full Story

	Tuesday, April 22, 2008

General Plays Down Concerns Over Ambiguous Missile Launches By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — A top U.S. military official last week branded as “facetious” congressional concerns that the launch of a proposed long-range conventional missile might be mistaken for a nuclear salvo (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2007). Lawmakers cited worries about such “ambiguity” last year as their primary justification for denying a Defense Department request for $175 million in fiscal 2008 to develop and begin fielding a conventional version of the Navy’s nuclear-tipped Trident D-5 missile. “The argument is a little bit facetious,” Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Global Security Newswire in an April 14 interview. Lawmakers “want me to remove the ambiguity of shooting at each other,” he said.  “And I’m [saying], ‘I’m not sure that I can.’” Under the rejected plan, the Pentagon sought to deploy 24 conventionally armed Trident missiles aboard submarines that also carry a look-alike nuclear version of the D-5 weapon. The Defense Department anticipated using such a missile to hit important-but-fleeting targets anywhere around the globe, such as a ballistic missile being readied for launch by a rogue nation. However, members of Congress expressed concern that Russian early-warning systems — and perhaps future Chinese technology — would be unable to distinguish which kind of warhead the missile was carrying during its 12- to 24-minute flight time.  That uncertainty, combined with worries about the missile’s intended target, could elicit a hasty nuclear response against the United States, lawmakers warned. “The conferees remain concerned about prompt global strike concepts that would employ a mixed loading of nuclear and non-nuclear systems and believe that DOD should carefully address these ambiguity concerns,” a House-Senate report stated in December. Cartwright noted, though, that a common U.S. and Russian practice of loading artillery, cruise missiles and bomber aircraft with either conventional or nuclear warheads throughout the Cold War never led to atomic warfare. “Tell me how you know whether I’ve launched at you a nuclear bomber or a conventional bomber.  You don’t know!” said the former head of U.S. Strategic Command, which oversees nuclear weapons operations. Over the past several years, Cartwright has played down the risk of impulsive retaliation, noting that Russia is currently the only nation with a substantial early warning capability for missile launches — and even that system has degraded over time.  Confidence-building measures could be enacted under which Washington would alert Moscow and Beijing to an impending launch against a third party, the general has argued (see GSN, May 18, 2006).  Russian officials to date, though, have been cool to the Pentagon’s so-called “prompt global strike” idea, citing doubts similar to those heard in the U.S. Congress (see GSN, Sept. 5, 2006). A National Academy of Sciences panel last year underscored the validity of these ambiguity concerns, noting they remained unaddressed.  At the same time, the group also supported Cartwright’s view that some level of uncertainty would always linger. “The ambiguity between nuclear and conventional payloads can never be totally resolved, in that any of the means for delivery of a conventional warhead could be used to deliver a nuclear warhead,” stated the report, to be followed up in June by a longer treatment of the issue.  “It remains to be seen whether nuclear-related security or cooperative measures might ease the problem.” Cartwright insisted last week that it was a disagreement over the urgency of global threats — rather than reservations about nuclear ambiguity — that actually stood in the way of funding the Conventional Trident Modification effort. The general said he sees a growing danger in the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction, phenomena he believes are substantially complicating the strategic challenge facing the United States following the Cold War. “Where we disagreed was in how soon that threat is going to emerge,” Cartwright said.  “Those in Congress believed that we still had time before that threat was real.  I didn’t.  I believe that the threat is real today.” The difference in views, he said, meant that lawmakers felt they could safely shelve the conventional Trident concept, which may yet be revived if a serious threat materialized sooner than Congress anticipated. A congressional aide said yesterday that although Cartwright is right that Capitol Hill did not share the general’s sense of urgency about the threat, this was “not the real reason” for canceling the conventional Trident effort. “We never got there,” in terms of debating the status of global threats and what U.S. military capabilities might be required to counter them, the staffer said.  This source and others spoke on condition of anonymity. Rather, the funding elimination was driven by the ambiguity concerns laid out in the legislation, said the aide, expressing surprise at Cartwright’s remarks. One former Pentagon official said the general’s view reflects his frustrations as well as his plans for the future. “Cartwright … believes that today we need this capability and today we can get this capability,” if Congress would allow modification of the Trident missile to proceed, said this source.  “And there are these people [on Capitol Hill] who are raising an [objection] that he doesn’t think is that serious.” The difference in perspective “gets under his skin,” the former official said. Another reason the Marine Corps general might be reluctant to lend credence to the ambiguity argument is so that the Defense Department could keep its options open for developing a dual-capable replacement for the Trident missile-launching submarines, the former official added (see GSN, Nov. 29, 2007). Meanwhile, using $100 million in multiservice funds, the Pentagon this year is pursuing a number of alternative technologies for an initial conventional weapon that could strike targets anywhere around the globe within 60 minutes of a launch order (see GSN, April 3). Cartwright said a land-based alternative to the canceled submarine weapon could be ready to field by 2012.  The ground-based weapon would boost into near-space, fly thousands of miles just above the atmosphere, and maneuver into its target at hypersonic speeds.  The so-called Conventional Strike Missile could be modified by 2015 with additional accuracy improvements, the general said (see GSN, Oct. 10, 2007). Back to top       U.S. Experts Enter North Korea U.S. officials today returned to North Korea for further talks aimed at breaking the deadlock over efforts to shutter the Stalinist state’s nuclear program, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, April 21). Sung Kim, Korean affairs chief at the State Department, and other experts were driving from Seoul to Pyongyang.  “They crossed the border by land at around 11 a.m.  They’ll return to Seoul on Thursday,” said U.S. Embassy spokesman Max Kwak. Before leaving Seoul, Kim said he hoped for “a very detailed and substantive discussion” on the nuclear declaration required by a 2007 denuclearization agreement. The deal has faltered amid Pyongyang’s apparent unwillingness to address key U.S. concerns about North Korea’s nuclear program.  Under a tentative deal produced this month, North Korea would provide a detailed description of its plutonium program but would only have to “acknowledge” U.S. suspicions regarding uranium enrichment efforts and nuclear proliferation. “We of course hope to have significant progress with this visit,” Kim said.  “Everything [in the declaration] is subject to verification.  That is what we need to focus on” (Agence France-Presse/Spacewar.com, April 22). The compromise agreement is not likely to be finalized this week, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said yesterday:  “I don’t think that’s where we are.” The denuclearization process must provide “a very clear understanding on all parties’ parts as to the full nature and scope of North Korea’s nuclear activities,” he said.  “And that obviously includes the one that everyone’s familiar with, what we have the most information about going in, which is their plutonium efforts including the production facilities at Yongbyon.” Pyongyang reportedly claims that its sole operating nuclear reactor has produced about 30 kilograms of plutonium, which could be used in nuclear weapons.  Washington has estimated the amount at 50 kilograms (Yonhap News Agency, April 22). The North Korean declaration would have to include the amount of plutonium produced and how it has been used, the operation journal for the 5-megawatt reactor and a complete accounting of other nuclear facilities, the Korea Herald reported. The declaration is due as part of the second phase of denuclearization, which also includes disabling three key atomic facilities.  Full dismantlement of the country’s nuclear infrastructure would follow in the third phase.  Pyongyang stands to receive a host of economic, diplomatic and security benefits for meeting its obligations under the agreement (Lee Joo-hee, Korea Herald, April 22). Back to top       IAEA Official Continues Iran Nuclear Talks The International Atomic Energy Agency’s safeguards chief met with Iranian leaders again today to address concerns that Tehran had conducted research aimed at nuclear weapons development, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, April 21). No details have emerged about Olli Heinonen’s closed-door meeting yesterday with Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s envoy to the U.N. nuclear watchdog, and Iranian Atomic Energy Organization chief Mohammad Saeedi.  Javad Vaidi, deputy head of Iran’s supreme national security council, did not attend the talks (Agence France-Presse I/Spacewar.com, April 21).  He is expected to leave Iran tomorrow without inspecting any of its nuclear facilities, Reuters reported. Soltanieh said that yesterday’s three-hour meeting and today’s discussion are aimed at advancing Tehran’s cooperation in an IAEA probe of Iran’s nuclear intentions.  The United States and other Western powers suspect that Iran is directing its nuclear program toward building a nuclear weapon, but Tehran insists its nuclear motives are strictly peaceful (Reuters, April 21). Meanwhile, Azerbaijan two weeks ago stopped a Russian shipment of “heat-isolating equipment” bound for Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant because the delivery might violate U.N. Security Council sanctions against Tehran, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, March 27). “Considering the sensitivity of the situation, we need to know all the details in order to know whether the shipment falls under U.N. sanctions,” Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry spokesman Khazar Ibragim said.  The Security Council has passed three rounds of sanctions that have failed to persuade Iran to halt its uranium enrichment activities. The Russian firm Atomstroiexport is in contact with Azerbaijani and Iranian officials over the stalled shipment, which is critical to the plant’s construction, said Irina Yesipova, spokeswoman for the state-run contractor. Western powers removed direct references to the Bushehr plant from the resolutions under pressure from Russia, which is receiving $1 billion from Iran to build the light-water reactor facility.  Moscow maintains that the site, which could begin operations this summer, complies with all international nuclear security pacts (Aida Sultanova, Associated Press I/Google News, April 21). In the United States, Defense Secretary Robert Gates yesterday said he considers Iran “hell bent” on becoming a nuclear weapons power. He said, though, that the cost of taking military action against Tehran’s nuclear program would be very high for Washington, AP reported. “Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need and, in fact, I believe it would be disastrous on a number of levels,” Gates said, according to prepared remarks for a speech Monday.  However, military action should not be ruled out, Gates said, “given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat either directly or through proliferation” (Robert Burns, Associated Press II/Yahoo!News April 21). Elsewhere, Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton said her administration would “obliterate” Iran should that nation attack Israel with nuclear weapons, AFP reported. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” The New York senator told ABC News.  “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them” (Agence France-Presse II/Google News, April 22). In Japan, the assets of 12 Iranian organizations and 13 people have been frozen because of their alleged connections to “Iran’s sensitive nuclear activities and proliferation,” the Japanese Foreign Ministry said in a statement today. The asset freezes affect entities named in the U.N. sanctions resolution passed against Iran in March, and they come in addition to Japan’s earlier blacklisting of 23 entities and 27 people (Agence France-Presse III/Google News, April 22). Back to top       Ex-Diplomat Urges India to Seize Nuclear Opportunity A former U.S. ambassador to India has urged New Delhi to quickly adopt a bilateral nuclear energy deal with Washington or perhaps lose the opportunity altogether, the Times of India reported yesterday (see GSN, April 17). The deal, first announced nearly three years ago, has faced strong criticism from key supporters of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.  The backlash has effectively frozen plans for New Delhi to purchase U.S. nuclear technology and materials in exchange for placing India’s nuclear activities under international supervision. If that impasse is not resolved during U.S. President George W. Bush’s final months in office, the entire deal could collapse, said former ambassador Robert Blackwill, now a lobbyist and strong advocate for the energy agreement. “If I may be characteristically blunt, the next American president will not have the same sunk costs in the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement that this president and the top of the administration has,” he said Sunday at a conference in New Delhi.  Failure to implement the deal would mean that “India will pay a substantial price in its future energy policy, and its lack of civil nuclear assistance from the outside world,” he added. Nevertheless, Blackwill recognized the political predicament Singh has faced. “Coming from a democracy myself that furiously debates such agreements, and in which its own domestic politics are deeply engaged, I do not criticize India and its great democracy for struggling with the domestic political implications of that agreement,” he said. Whether the deal ultimately moves forward or not, Blackwill expressed hope that the United States would never return to a strategy of “lecturing” India about its nuclear weapons. Indian leaders “did not have much tolerance before, and they have none now. That would be a substantial irritant in the relationship if it were to occur,” he said. “The same thing is true of the Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty, which conceivably could be a high priority for the next American president, depending on how our election turns out,” Blackwill added.  “Again, I hope very much that the administration to come does not wear out its welcome in New Delhi with urgings regarding the CTBT” (Times of India, April 20). Back to top       U.S. Arrests Man for Alleged Nuclear Leaks Federal authorities have arrested a U.S. citizen suspected of providing classified nuclear weapons information and other defense secrets to Israel, the Justice Department said today (see GSN, April 21). While employed at the U.S. Army’s Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center in New Jersey from 1979 to 1985, mechanical engineer Ben-Ami Kadish allegedly took classified documents home so they could be photographed by an Israeli agent. The stolen documents included Defense Department information on U.S. Patriot missile defenses and restricted Energy Department nuclear-weapon details. Kadish faces individual counts of conspiring to disclose documents related to the national defense of the United States to the government of Israel; conspiring to act as an agent of the government of Israel; conspiring to hinder a communication to a law enforcement officer; and conspiring to make a materially false statement to a law enforcement officer, the Justice Department said in a statement (U.S. Justice Department release, April 22). Back to top       Supreme Court to Consider Trade Dispute That Could Affect U.S.-Russian Nonproliferation Deal The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to rule on a trade disagreement that Bush administration officials say could endanger a program to convert uranium from Russian nuclear weapons into nuclear power plant fuel, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, Jan. 23, 2002). The court agreed to hear arguments over whether a French supplier of uranium fuel should face penalties for allegedly selling below market rates in the United States.  The dispute stems from a complaint by USEC, the only uranium enrichment company in the United States, which has charged the French firm Eurodif with dumping its product at unfairly low prices (Robert Barnes, Washington Post, April 22). USEC has been the U.S. agent for a 15-year-old agreement under which Russia has blended down uranium from its nuclear weapon supplies and shipped it to USEC for fuel production.  The resulting fuel provides about 10 percent of U.S. electricity, according to the U.S. Energy Department (see GSN, Feb. 20).  So far, the equivalent of more than 13,000 nuclear warheads has been consumed in the deal, USEC reported last month (USEC release, March 31). The U.S. Commerce Department backed USEC’s charge in 2001 and sought to levy duties against Eurodif.  However, the U.S. Court of International Trade overruled that decision and that decision was later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Bush administration has supported USEC’s appeal to the Supreme Court, in part arguing that security concerns should be considered. By threatening USEC’s financial viability, the dispute “threatens to undermine U.S. foreign policy and national security interests in the remarkably sensitive context of nuclear fuel, nonproliferation, and ensuring domestic supplies for nuclear weaponry,” says a brief filed by U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement. The Supreme Court’s next term to hear this case and others begins in the fall (Barnes, Washington Post). Back to top

London Could Get New Biodefense Lab The United Kingdom is considering building a new high-security disease research laboratory in central London, the Guardian reported today (see GSN, March 31). The nearly $1 billion facility would begin operations by 2013 in the King’s Cross section of the city.  It would replace an older site that houses a Category 4 laboratory that conducts research on diseases such as Ebola that are particularly contagious and have no known cures. There are concerns about placing such a facility in an urban area, particularly in light of the apparent escape of food-and-mouth disease last year from the Pirbright animal health laboratory in Surrey (see GSN, Aug. 10, 2007).  While building a laboratory in a remote area might be safer it could also make the facility less useful for hospitals and researchers, experts said. “People don’t need to be alarmed; these labs can be run safely,” said George Griffin, who leads the British Health and Safety Executive’s advisory panel on dangerous pathogens. “It should be viewed in the context of a risk assessment.  There may be compelling reasons for locating a laboratory at a particular site; for example, a hospital may need facilities for diagnosing hemorrhagic fever,” he added. The United Kingdom now has 10 Category 4 facilities.  The need for additional sites is recognized, said medical professor Steve Smith of Imperial College.  “The question is, do you put them in the middle of nowhere or where the researchers are?” he said. Authorities would examine the potential threat to humans and the environment before building the laboratory, Griffin said. “Detailed decisions on what the center will contain, including whether or not to include a Category 4 lab, have not been finalized.  This is the work of the project’s science planning committee,” said a spokesperson for four organizations involved in the project — the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research U.K. and University College London. The project’s backers intend to promote the safety record of the existing Category 4 laboratories and hope there will not be opposition of the kind seen to a similar project in Boston (see GSN, March 17). “If an accident does happen, it could be catastrophic,” said Cambridge University malaria researcher Ellen Nisbet.  “You just have to make sure it does not happen or locate the lab in an area where it is not so catastrophic if it does happen” (Natasha Gilbert, London Guardian, April 22). Back to top       U.S. Calls for Vaccinia Immunizations in Labs U.S. health officials are calling for laboratory personnel who work with a close relative of the smallpox virus to be vaccinated against the strain, the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 27). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention received five informal reports between 2005 and 2007 of laboratory workers becoming infected with vaccinia, a virus used in the smallpox vaccine.  All of the cases involved needle injuries and took place in government or university laboratories. Three of the workers developed fever and infected tissue around the site of the needle injury, while one person only reported the infected tissue.  The ailment forced two of the workers to be hospitalized for a short time. Only two of the workers had received a vaccination against vaccinia. Laboratory workers who work with vaccinia cultures or animals infected with vaccinia or related agents should be immunized at least once per decade, according to the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.  Laboratory administrators should offer information about the vaccine’s possible side effects as well as the protection it could provide, CDC officials said (Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy release, April 21). Back to top

“Chemical Ali” Hospitalized After Hunger Strike The former Iraqi official best known as “Chemical Ali” was hospitalized Sunday after refusing to eat for three days to protest his treatment ahead of his execution, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 17). Ali Hassan al-Majid was convicted and sentenced to death for involvement in the mass killing of Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s, including ordering the use of chemical weapons.  On Friday, he began the hunger strike with 14 co-defendants in a separate trial over their detention at a tiny courthouse holding facility in place of their former quarters at the U.S. Camp Cropper detention center. Al-Majid and one other co-defendant were taken to a U.S. medical center after they passed out, said defense attorney Badee Izzat Aref. Authorities in Iraq have not announced an execution date for al-Majid (Sameer Yacoub, Associated Press/Google News, April 21) Back to top

U.S., Czech Republic Could Sign Radar Deal in May The Czech Republic is likely to formally agree next month to house a U.S. missile defense radar, the Czech News Agency reported (see GSN, April 15). The U.S. ambassador to Prague, Richard Graber, indicated yesterday that the signing could occur May 5 during a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Rice might also sign a related deal setting the terms for deployment of U.S. troops in the European nation, Graber said during a meeting in the Brdy area, where the radar would be installed (Czech News Agency, April 21). The latest session of talks for that deal began today and could be completed this week, according to a Czech official. “This should be the last (three-day) round of talks, but whether an agreement is reached we shall see on Thursday,” said Defense Ministry spokesman Vladimir Lukovsky (Associated Press/International Herald Tribune, April 22). Graber noted that Czech lawmakers would still have to sign off on the radar base before it could be built.  He also dismissed reports in the Polish press that Washington might try to deploy missile interceptors in the Czech Republic if Poland will not take them. It would be up to Czech leaders to decide if Russian officials would be allowed to inspect the radar, Graber said.  That has been one idea promoted by U.S. officials in hopes of overcoming Moscow’s opposition to the Bush administration’s missile defense plan for Europe (CTK, April 21). Polish officials hope that hosting the U.S. missile interceptors would help strengthen their nation’s safety against a resurgent Russia, the International Herald Tribune reported yesterday. “We have a reduced level of security,” said Defense Minister Bogdan Klich.  “The lack of the Polish feeling of security is provoked by the tendencies in Russia over the past few years. Western Europe has the majority of NATO and European Union installations, leaving Poland feeling less secure, Klich said. “It is necessary to host on our territory institutions either from the alliance, the EU or the United States.  These are the three pillars of our security,” he said. Klich said talks on the missile shield could stretch past the end of the Bush administration in January 2009 to ensure that Warsaw receives the best possible deal.  It has sought support for military upgrades to help counter potential risks associated with becoming home to the U.S. installation (Judy Dempsey, International Herald Tribune, April 21). Back to top       Raytheon Wins $241M South Korean PAC-3 Deal South Korea has signed a $241 million contract with defense contractor Raytheon for procurement of command-and-control systems, communications infrastructure, training gear and maintenance services for the nation’s Patriot Advanced Capability 3 air-defense system, the company said yesterday (see GSN, April 4). The deal comes in addition to a $28.7 million engineering support contract the company revealed early last month. “The Patriot system will provide South Korea with the capability to deploy command and control for the Patriot system and defend itself from the full spectrum of air and missile threats,” said Sanjay Kapoor, Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems vice president, in a press release (Raytheon Co. release, April 21). 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.