Iraq:  United States Concedes to U.N. Security Council

The United States has dropped its demand that the U.N. Security Council authorize military action if Iraq does not comply with U.N. resolutions, diplomats said today (see GSN, Oct. 16).

A new U.S. compromise would send inspectors to Iraq and give Iraqi President Saddam Hussein a chance to allow weapons inspectors unrestricted access to the entire country.  If Iraq did not cooperate with the inspections, however, the United States would return to the Security Council where it could seek an additional resolution authorizing force.

U.S. officials will not seek a resolution that directly threatens Iraq, but the penalty of noncompliance will be implied, diplomats said (Edith Lederer, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, Oct. 17).

Two Days of Open Debate

The Security Council yesterday began two days of public debate on Iraq’s noncompliance with council requirements for the elimination of its weapons of mass destruction with the Iraqi ambassador charging that the United States is planning to wage of war to colonize his country.

Ambassador Mohammed al-Douri said, “The United States does not want [U.N. weapons] inspectors to come back because if the inspectors do come back they will prove the Americans to have been repeating one lie after the other.”

He said, “Iraq has pledged to cooperate with [inspectors] in every possible way so as to facilitate their task in ascertaining the fact that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  So, in fact, there is absolutely no need for a new resolution to be adopted in the Security Council.”

Al-Douri charged, “The attempts by the United States to hamper and delay the return of the inspectors and their attempt to make the Security Council adopt a new resolution establishing conditions which are neigh-to-impossible to respect aims at establishing a pretext to cover aggression against Iraq with the purpose of colonizing our country and imposing American domination on our oil as a first step towards imposing American colonialism in the region as a whole, controlling its oil and allowing Israel to continue its war of genocide against the Palestinian people.”

Sitting next to al-Douri and speaking after him, Ambassador Mohammad Abulhasan of Kuwait said he welcomed this council meeting “as yet another proof … that the current question of Iraq is an issue between Iraq and the United Nations and not between Iraq and any particular country or group of countries.”

Despite “Iraq’s persistent rejection of the return of inspectors, Kuwait declared that it was not in favor of the use of military force against Iraq out of our fears of the serious negative implications that would exacerbate the suffering of the brotherly people of Iraq,” Abulhasan said.  “Any use of force must be a last resort and within the United Nations framework and only after all other available means have been exhausted.”

It was Iraq’s invasion and annexation of Kuwait in 1990 that lead to the council sanctioning the war against Iraq to free Kuwait.  Part of the resolution of the conflict was the requirement that Iraq eliminate all of its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

In contrast to emphasis in debates on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, Abulhasan focused on other issues including “Kuwaiti and third country detainees held in Iraq.”  He said, “I can safely emphasize and in all sincerity and candor that none of you can comprehend the intransigent Iraqi position regarding this purely humanitarian issue which should not have been allowed to drag on over the past 12 years.”

Deputy Secretary General Louise Frechette opened the session saying, “The situation created by Iraq’s failure to comply with the resolutions of this Council since 1991 is indeed one of the gravest and most serious facing the international community today … It is essential that the council face up to it.”

Speaking on behalf of Secretary General Kofi Annan, who is traveling in Asia, Frechette said, “Iraq’s decision to readmit the inspectors without conditions is an important first step, but only a first step.  Full compliance remains indispensable, and it has not yet happened.  Iraq has to comply.  It must implement the disarmament program required by your resolutions.”

“The inspectors must have unfettered access ... [the council] may well choose to pass a new resolution strengthening the inspectors’ hand, so there will be no weaknesses or ambiguities,” she said, quoting Annan, “I consider that such a step would be appropriate. The new measures must be firm, effective, credible and reasonable. If Iraq fails to make use of this last chance, and defiance continues, the council will have to face its responsibilities.”

Frechette added, “It is therefore entirely proper that the council should debate its course of action, not only in private consultations but also in public.”

This meeting was requested by the Nonaligned Movement.  Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo of South Africa, speaking for movement, said, “We are here to voice our concerns regarding the possibility that the United Nations is now being asked to consider proposals that open up the possibility of a war against a member state.”

While saying “Iraq should comply with relevant Security Council resolutions … No member state should be exempted from carrying out obligations as determined by this council,” Kumalo also repeated the movement’s “firm rejection of any type of unilateral action against any member state.”  In light of Iraq’s acceptance of weapons inspectors, he said, “It would therefore be inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the United Nations Charter if the Security Council were to authorize the use of military force against Iraq at a time when Iraq has indicated its willingness to abide by the Security Council’s resolutions.”

Speaking today, Canadian Ambassador Paul Heinbecker said, “This council should adopt a new and unambiguous resolution that lays out the terms for compliance against which the council itself will bear the responsibility of measuring Iraq’s response.”

Referring to a potential war on Iraq, Tunisian Ambassador Noureddine Mejdoub said, “This war is useless because its motives are not well-founded. … Not only is it unacceptable to recommend automatic recourse to military force in anticipation of the outcome of the inspections, but we must not forget that it has not even been established that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.”

Mejdoub added, “This war would be more harmful yet because it would unleash a chain of reactions and counter-reactions in Iraq and the region.  It would destabilize much equilibrium.  The conflict would give extremists a pretext for expanding the war even further.”  He continued, “The council must remain vigilant in order to avoid offering a ‘legal cover’ for unilateral tendencies and must prevent the establishment of dangerous precedents that could turn out to be disastrous if ever transposed and applied to the ‘solving’ of other conflicts and areas of tension throughout the world.”

Tunisia was the only country to explicitly endorse the French alternative to the U.S. draft, which requires two parts — one resolution on inspections and a second on consequences if Iraq does not comply.  While saying a new resolution was not needed, Mejdoub added that if the council adopts a new text, “it should scrupulously avoid the belligerent context of a new unilateral conception of the settlement of international disputes.  The French demarche could, in this sense, help the council.”

The 15 members of the council — France, China, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, and 10 nonpermanent members — are scheduled to speak later today.

Iran, which has a history of enmity for both Iraq and the United States, criticized them both.  Ambassador Javad Zarif said, “Any arbitrary unilateral approach outside international law …should be resisted.  Taking on Iraq unilaterally and outside international law would amount to short-sighted actions that may resolve a part of the problem, but will undoubtedly shake the foundations of the international security system predicated on the rule of law.”  He called the concepts of  “regime change” and “preemptive strike” as “fully alien to and in conflict with international law.” 

“The onus now rests on the Iraqi government to efface every doubt about its intention to allow unfettered weapons inspections everywhere in the country,” he said.  Iraq’s decision to allow inspectors “should now avert the cursory resort to military means and provide an opportunity for diplomacy to work,” said Zarif.

“Attacking Iraq … will inevitably fuel further resentment everywhere — not just in Iraq.  It will sow seeds of new hatred that will feed instability for years to come,” Zarif said.  “Those ideologues who seek to further their own aims and want to remake the world in their own peculiar image should understand beforehand that they, and they alone, would be responsible for any eventual adverse consequences.”

Many of the United States’ key allies — the European Union, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Australia — addressed the council yesterday, but only Australia unequivocally endorsed the U.S. position.  Ambassador John Dauth of Australia said, “This issue is about one thing and one thing only.  Iraq’s continued failure to meet its commitments to the international community embodied in at least nine Security Council resolutions.”  He added, “Australia is convinced that the government of Iraq’s ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction remain undiminished.”

Dauth said doing nothing about Iraq’s violations “would gravely damage the international system.  It would encourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to other countries and even to other regions.”  He urged the council “to pass a new and robust … resolution which provides the strongest possible basis for unconditional and unfettered inspections of Iraq.”

Australia was also the only country to endorse the U.S. argument that Saddam and terrorism are part of the same threat.  “It is a risk that a regime that has been indiscriminate in its support for terrorist groups will one day hand one of these groups either a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon or pass on the knowledge to build one,” said Dauth.  “Unless we step up to the mark to address the threat posed to the world by Iraq’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction today, we will all come to regret our inaction tomorrow.”

The EU made a joint statement calling for a new resolution, but said nothing about what the resolution should say or what the consequences should be if Iraq does not comply, reflecting the divisions within the union.  Danish Ambassador Ellen Margretha Loj said, “The European Union supports a new Security Council resolution strengthening the rights of inspectors to ensure they can as effectively as possible carry out the disarmament required by the relevant resolutions.”  National positions within the EU are far apart, with the United Kingdom working closely with Washington, France countering the United States in council deliberations and Germany opposing military action against Iraq even if the Security Council authorizes it.

Likewise, Canada limited its statement to support for the return of inspectors and for a new resolution.

Middle East Countries Do Not Support Military Action

Regional allies of the United States, including countries that would be useful to Washington in the event of an invasion of Iraq such as Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan, all expressed support for the return of inspectors, but no enthusiasm for military action.  Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram said force should be “an option of last resort, not the first policy choice.”  The U.N. Charter “does not provide the authority to one or more member states to resort to force unilaterally and on their own judgment, independently of the Security Council or without its explicit approval,” he said.

Turkish Ambassador Umit Pamir said that over the last decade, his country has “received a raw deal.  Northern Iraq turned into a no-man’s land and quickly into a safe haven for terrorists” for attacks against Turkey.  “We have been living with the manifold consequences of the deterioration of conditions of stability in neighboring Iraq,” he added.  Turkey supports a new resolution, he said, but “the single most important principle is to maintain Iraq’s territorial integrity and national unity.  Any scenario that will question these basic principles should be discarded.”

Egypt and Jordan stressed the need for continuing dialogue.  Egyptian Ambassador Ahmed Aboul Gheit said the current U.N.-Iraq meetings and letters “indicates a positive momentum — based on the mutual goodwill of the parties — towards implementing Security Council resolutions relating to proscribed Iraqi military activities and the speedy return of inspectors to Iraq.” 

Jordanian Ambassador Zeid Ra’ad Zeid al-Hussein said, “It is the responsibility of the council to use all possible and reasonable means to resolve the Iraq issue and settle it through continuous negotiations and dialogue.”  He added, “A peaceful exit of the current crisis requires Iraq to fully implement relevant Security Council resolutions” (Jim Wurst, Global Security Newswire, Oct. 17).

For more on the debate, click here and here.

Back to top

Iraq II:  Reports on Iraq’s Weapons Mostly Agree

Four recently released assessments of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability are in general agreement, according to an analysis by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace released last week.

Reports from the British government (see GSN, Sept. 24), the CIA (see GSN, Oct. 7), the Institute for International Strategic Studies and a chapter from the Carnegie publication, Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction (see GSN, July 1), all say that Iraq maintains chemical and biological weapons stocks as well as nuclear weapons aspirations.  The reports differ, however, on the scope of Iraq’s weapons stock, the size of its arsenal and the time needed to build a nuclear weapon if Iraq acquired weapon-grade fissile material.

Nuclear Capability

Each report cited insufficient fissile material as the largest obstacle to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.  The official British study, however, puts significantly more emphasis on Iraq’s pursuit of the “indigenous ability to enrich uranium to the level needed for a nuclear weapon.”

The United Kingdom and IISS allege that Iraq has attempted to procure radiological material from Africa.

The reports differ again on Iraq’s ability to weaponize fissile material, if it could be obtained.  The Carnegie publication and the IISS claim Iraq could manufacture a nuclear weapon in a matter of months.  The CIA document and the British dossier indicate Iraq would take up to a year to gain that capability.

Chemical Weapons

All the reports agree that Iraq has maintained large stocks of chemical weapons — such as VX, sarin and mustard gas — while Carnegie says Iraq could still have 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells capable of delivering chemical weapons.

Iraq also has extensive chemical weapons production capacity, the reports say.  The official British report, however, diverges sharply when discussing Iraq’s offensive capability.  The United Kingdom maintains that Iraq can deliver chemical weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so.  Iraq is not likely to have reached its pre-1991 offensive levels, according to the IISS.

“Iraq’s current CW capability does not appear to pose a decisive threat against opposing military forces,” the IISS report says.  It also noted that the chemical weapons could “threaten unprotected civilian populations within range, but are unlikely to cause mass casualties.”

Missiles

The governmental reports agree on the threat posed by Iraqi missiles and unmanned aerial aircraft.  Both the United States and the United Kingdom warn of Iraq increasing the range of its rockets and developing unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver biological weapons.  The other reports indicate that while Iraq remains a threat, its missile arsenal remains smaller and largely inaccurate (Andrew Krepps, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace release, Oct. 11).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Defense Appropriations Ready for Bush Signature

With a 93-1 vote in the Senate, the U.S. Congress approved a $355.4 billion defense bill yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 16).

The bill, which gives President George W. Bush the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, also includes a 4 percent pay raise for all military personnel.

The House approved the bill, 409-14 and recessed Wednesday until after the November elections.  The Senate should be in session until next week (Jim Abrams, Associated Press, Oct. 17).

Back to top

North Korea:  Pyongyang Admits Existence of Weapons Program

After being confronted by a U.S. delegation during a visit to Pyongyang earlier this month, North Korean officials acknowledged the existence of a nuclear weapons program, a U.S. State Department spokesman said yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 8).  Such a program would be a violation of international nonproliferation accords, including the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the 1994 Agreed Framework between the United States and North Korea and the 1991 denuclearization agreement between North and South Korea, the spokesman said.

During the Oct. 3-5 visit, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly told North Korean officials that the United States had information that North Korea had maintained a uranium enrichment program for nuclear weapons for several years in violation of several international agreements, said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher (see GSN, March 21).   The North Korean officials acknowledged the existence of the program and said they considered the Agreed Framework to be “nullified,” Boucher said (U.S. State Department release, Oct. 16).

The North Korean officials had initially called the U.S. claims “fabrications,” but a day later, North Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Kang Sok-joo confirmed the existence of the nuclear weapons program, U.S. officials said (Slevin/De Young, Washington Post, Oct. 17).

Kang said “something to the effect of, ‘Your president called us a member of the axis of evil. ... Your troops are deployed on the Korean peninsula. ... Of course, we have a nuclear program,’” according to a senior Bush administration source who was briefed on the meeting (Koppel/King, CNN.com, Oct. 17).

Kang said North Korean officials had met through the night before deciding to say that the nuclear weapons program had been underway for several years, U.S. officials said.  Kang also said North Korea had developed other, more powerful weapons.

Far from being apologetic, Kang was “assertive, aggressive about it,” a U.S. official said.

Experts have said they are unsure what Kang meant by saying North Korea had developed more powerful weapons.  The claim could mean other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological weapons, they said (Slevin/De Young, Washington Post).

White House officials would not say whether North Korea indicated it had completed a nuclear weapon through its program, according to the New York Times. 

“We’re not certain that it’s been weaponized yet,” a White House official said, adding that there have been no signs that North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon, an activity the United States would be able to detect.

If North Korea’s claims are accurate, it means Pyongyang began its uranium enrichment program in the mid-to-late 1990s, according to the Times.  While such a program does not require the use of nuclear reactors to produce weapon-grade materials, it is a slow process that the United States probably detected through North Korean attempts to obtain centrifuges, the Times reported.

“We have to assume that they now have the capacity to build many more weapons, and they may have already,” a senior U.S. official said (David Sanger, New York Times, Oct. 17).

U.S. Evidence

U.S. officials declined to detail the information Kelly presented during the visit to Pyongyang.  One official called the information “compelling” and “very detailed.”

“It basically shows they in no way kept their word,” the official said (see GSN, Sept. 12).

The information confirmed previous U.S. suspicions that North Korea had been working on a secret enrichment program, which could only be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons, a senior State official said.  The information only became available this summer and was not available when the Clinton administration attempted negotiations with North Korea in 2000, the official said (Strobel/Zielenziger, Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 17).

Over the past several years, U.S. intelligence agencies have detected signs that North Korea was trying to obtain uranium enrichment technologies, according to the Washington Times.  In 1999, a North Korean trading firm was detected trying to buy such technology from a Japanese company, the Times reported.  The technology could have helped North Korea develop the ability to produce weapon-grade materials within six years, according to an intelligence report.  The sale was blocked at the time, U.S. officials said (David Sands, Washington Times, Oct. 17).

A January CIA report said that during the latter half of 2001, North Korea “continued its attempts (to) procure technology worldwide that could have applications in its nuclear program,” according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Jan. 31).  

“We assess that North Korea has produced enough plutonium for at least one, and possibly two, nuclear weapons,” the CIA report said (CNN.com).

International Agreements

North Korea’s acknowledgement of its nuclear weapons program places it in violation of several international agreements, including the 1994 Agreed Framework, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Joint North-South Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korea Peninsula, Boucher said (U.S. State Department release).

According to the Joint North-South Declaration, “The South and the North will not possess facilities for nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment” (Arms Control Reporter, Dec. 31, 1991).

Under the Agreed Framework, North Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear activities in exchange for two U.S.-built light-water nuclear reactors (see GSN, Sept. 13).  According to one provision in the agreement, “the DPRK [North Korea] will freeze its graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities and will eventually dismantle these reactors and related facilities.” 

The Agreed Framework also obligates North Korea to “consistently take steps to implement the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” and to “remain a party to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons and will allow implementation of its safeguards agreement under the Treaty” (Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization release, Oct. 17).

The North Korean nuclear weapon program is a “very serious material breach” of the Agreed Framework, a senior U.S. official said (Slevin/DeYoung, Washington Post). 

During the meeting with Kelly, North Korean officials said they considered the Agreed Framework to be nullified, Boucher said (U.S. State Department release, Oct. 16).  White House national security officials met Tuesday to discuss the North Korean nuclear weapons program and whether the Agreed Framework could be maintained, a U.S. official said (Sands, Washington Times).

United States Begins Consultations

The Bush administration has begun consultations with key members of Congress on the North Korean nuclear weapons program and will continue to do so, Boucher said.  Kelly and Undersecretary of State John Bolton will travel to Asia “to confer with friends and allies about this important issue,” he said (U.S. State Department release).

Kelly and Bolton left yesterday for Beijing, a previously scheduled trip that was originally planned as preparation for next week’s scheduled meeting between U.S. President George W. Bush and Chinese President Jiang Zemin.  After the meeting in Beijing, Kelly is expected to travel to Tokyo and Seoul (Strobel/Zielenziger, Philadelphia Inquirer).

What If...

The White House’s decision to remain silent on North Korea’s claims for almost two weeks appears to be significant, according to the New York Times.  The Bush administration has attempted to avoid calling the situation a crisis that could require military action while maintaining the situation in Iraq as the main U.S. priority, the Times reported.

“Imagine if [Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] had done this, that he had admitted — or bluffed — that he has the bomb or is about to have one,” a U.S. official said.  “But there’s been a decision made that the system can take only so much at one time.”

Another White House concern could be the vulnerabilities of U.S. allies in Asia, the Times reported.  U.S. officials have long believed that any military conflict with North Korea would result in a second Korean war and the destruction of Seoul, according to the Times.  In addition to its suspected WMD programs, North Korea has a large arsenal of conventional weapons and military forces numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

“The United States and our allies call on North Korea to comply with its commitments under the Nonproliferation Treaty, and to eliminate its nuclear weapons program in a verifiable manner,” Boucher said.  “We seek a peaceful resolution of this situation.  Everyone in the region has a stake in this issue and no peaceful nation wants to see a nuclear-armed North Korea.  This is an opportunity for peace loving nations in the region to deal, effectively, with this challenge” (U.S. State Department release).

 For further information, see:

Agreed Framework Text

KEDO

NPT Text

States Parties to the NPT (U.N.)

U.N. Background on NPT

Back to top

United States:  Eliminating Nuclear Delivery Platforms Could Save Billions

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration’s goal for reducing the deployed strategic nuclear warhead force, as required by a U.S.-Russian treaty signed in May, could potentially save the country $5 billion over the next nine years, according to a congressional study (see GSN, Oct. 11).

The savings could be realized if the administration chose to remove from service most delivery platforms — missiles and submarines — from which many of the nuclear warheads would be downloaded, according to a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Alternatively, the Pentagon might spend about $105 million to retain those delivery platforms for possible reintroduction into the strategic force, said the report, sent to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) on Sept. 24.

Baker Spring, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said the second scenario would be the most likely course of action, keeping the weaponry on hand would preserve U.S. flexibility to quickly reintroduce it into the force if needed.

“Maintaining an effective strategic posture is far more important that whatever marginal amount of money you might spend or save by adopting a certain route to meeting those target numbers,” he said.

The administration already alluded to that course in its Nuclear Posture Review announced last January, Spring said (see GSN, Jan. 9).

“I think the Nuclear Posture Review is clear that downloading the warheads is a better approach because of the flexibility it allows, over withdrawing platforms,” he said.

The CBO analysis did not address the strategic implications of the various scenarios.

Full Plans Not Specified Yet

President George W. Bush and his Russian counterpart in May signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, which administration officials say commits the United States to having at most 2,200 warheads on strategic platforms on Dec. 31, 2012.

The CBO report estimated the currently number of operationally deployed strategic warheads at about 5,910, using a traditional arms control formula that considers the number of warheads that could be deployed on various available strategic platforms.

The new treaty text did not specify how its goal for 2012 should be met, allowing each country to decide whether to retain downloaded warheads and their platforms or to dismantle or destroy some of them.

Bush administration officials have not yet specified what they intend to do with the downloaded warheads and many of their respective platforms, though they say they intend to keep many in reserve in case they are unexpectedly needed.

The Bush administration did give some indication of its plans, however, with the Nuclear Posture Review.  The review set an interim goal of having just 3,800 warheads operationally deployed by 2007. 

It said the reductions in operationally deployed warheads would be made, in part, with the planned retirement of all 50 Peacekeeper ICBMS, conversion of four Trident submarines to a non-nuclear role, and conversion of all 81 B-1 bombers to a conventional role.  That would take about 1,000 warheads off of operationally deployed status, bringing the total down to about 4,800, still short of the 2007 goal, according to the congressional report.

Achieving Numerical Goals

The administration has not specified how it might further bring the number down to 3,800, the report said.

The remaining strategic forces in 2007, it said, would be: 1,200 warheads on 500 Minuteman 3 missiles, 2,304 warheads on 14 Trident submarines, 256 warheads on 21 B-2 bombers, and 1,056 warheads on 76 B-52 bombers.

The report said the administration could cut an additional 1,000 deployed warheads by counting fewer warheads per Trident and per Minuteman.

CBO listed two possible alternatives for achieving the 2012 goal.  The administration could further reduce the force structure by removing or retiring some warheads and delivery platforms, such as 150 Minuteman missiles and two additional Tridents, while converting the B-2 bombers to conventional roles. That would save $5 billion from reduced operations costs and from forgoing the costs of “development and procurement of new systems to upgrade the two Trident submarines and 150 Minutemen missile retired under this option,” it said.

Alternatively, the United States could retain the 2007 force structure but reduce the number of warheads deployed per all platform types, which it said would cost $105 million over the next nine years.

The CBO said it was unable to assess the cost of a third option, to convert strategic bombers and submarines for non-nuclear roles, while retaining the option for nuclear capability.  The cost would depend on the details.

The CBO cost estimates assume that the downloaded warheads are stored and not destroyed.  Dismantling the warheads could have substantial costs, the report said. 

Citing Energy Department information, it said current capacity for dismantlement at the Pantex nuclear weapons assembly facility in Amarillo, Texas would be insufficient for dismantling all downloaded warheads by 2012, but could possibly complete the job by 2020-2025.

Back to top

United States II:  Laboratories Full, Nuclear Material Might Be Moved

Two U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories are running out of plutonium storage space and might have to move materials to other sites, Energy Daily reported today.

Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico is “virtually full” and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California is confronting a “storage limit issue,” according to a National Nuclear Security Administration document released in September.

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, in charge of safety at Energy Department sites, has criticized the NNSA for the lack of storage, Energy Daily reported.  In a letter to the defense board, the administration said, “many of the NNSA facilities are at or near their capacity.”

The NNSA letter announced the establishment of the Inactive Actinides Working Group to develop policies for dealing with and disposing of inactive materials. 

The lack of space could affect operations at the laboratories this fiscal year, but current guidelines require the material be stored until 2010, the document says.

In the short term, both laboratories plan to send about 100 plutonium canisters to the Energy Department’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina, which also faces storage issues.

“Other sites should be considered for long-term storage of NNSA legacy materials prior to shipment to the ultimate disposition site,” the document says.  The agency is looking at the Hanford site in Washington, the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, the Nevada Test Site (see GSN, Aug. 12) and the Y-12 site at Oak Ridge, Tennessee for additional storage (George Lobsenz, Energy Daily, Oct. 17).

Back to top

Russia:  Topol-M ICBM Tests Successfully

Russia successfully test-launched an SS-27 Topol-M ICBM last week (see GSN, June 7).  The ICBM traveled about 4,200 miles to hit a target at the Kura test range on the Kamchatka Peninsula after being launched from the Plesetsk cosmodrome.  Russia’s Strategic Rocket Force and Spaces Forces conducted the test in accordance with a military training schedule, Russian officials said (Space & Missile, Oct. 17).

Back to top

South Asia:  Nuclear-Armed Rivals Pull Back From Border

India announced yesterday it would pull troops back from its Pakistani border and Pakistan followed suit today (see GSN, June 11).

The nuclear-armed rivals, who have been in a tense standoff for almost a year, did not say how many troops would be withdrawn (see GSN, May 22).

India has stationed 700,000 troops on the border since December 2001, while Pakistan has 300,000 troops deployed to counter India.

India’s decision was made Wednesday night and announced by Defense Minister George Fernandes.  Indian troops would not be withdrawn from the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir, he said (John Lancaster, Washington Post, Oct. 17).

Pakistan’s pullback to “peace-time locations” will begin soon, according to a Foreign Ministry statement.

The statement described India’s action as “a step in the right direction.”

The decision to withdraw forces was made after a meeting with President Musharraf and senior officials, BBC reported (BBC Online, Oct. 17).

Back to top

Smallpox:  Panel Supports 500,000 Pre-Emptive Vaccinations

A U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory panel recommended yesterday that 500,000 health care workers be immunized with the smallpox vaccine, revising a stance it took earlier this year (see GSN, Oct. 16).

In June, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices supported the pre-emptive vaccination of only 20,000 health care and emergency workers (see GSN, June 21).

The committee has been at odds with the CDC and U.S. health officials, who want a farther-reaching inoculation plan.  The final decision rests with the White House, and that should come “in the next couple weeks,” according to D.A. Henderson, the Bush administration’s senior biological terrorism expert (M.A.J. McKenna, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Oct. 17).

Some officials had supported a plan that would inoculate up to 10 million people, including paramedics, firefighters and police (Anita Manning, USA Today, Oct. 17).

The 500,000-person plan would include lab workers, security guards and cleaning staff at hospitals.  Several members of the panel opposed the new plan, including Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who said the panel members were avoiding their responsibilities by changing their recommendation.

“We shirk our responsibility by throwing it back onto the public to make a decision that we should help make,” Offit said (McKenna, Atlanta Journal-Constitution).

Meanwhile, Harvard scientists have produced antibodies that could attack the smallpox germ, the Journal-Constitution reported today.

The antibodies are designed to attack the surface of the smallpox virus and destroy it, according to Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The antibodies — developed by Ellis Reinherz, an immunologist at Harvard — would be given to a patient after they contracted the disease.  In addition to their use on smallpox outbreaks, the antibodies might be effective on illnesses caused by the smallpox vaccine, Fauci said (Jeff Nesmith, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Oct. 17).

Back to top

Anthrax:  Pentagon Ready to Begin Limited Vaccination Program

The U.S. Defense Department is ready to begin a limited anthrax vaccination program, vaccinating only those soldiers heading to high-risk areas rather than the previous mass vaccination campaign, Stars and Stripes reported today (see GSN, May 20).

“What changes between the way we did things in the past and the way we’re going to do things now is there’s going to be better control about who gets it and who needs it,” said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Dale Baker, director for community health at the U.S. Navy Hospital at Camp Lester in Okinawa, Japan.  “As a result of that, many of the groups have dropped off now because the mass immunization that we once thought was necessary, the folks have gone back and decided that probably might have been overkill.”

Each of the four branches of the armed services — the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines — was instructed to develop an anthrax vaccination plan.  Those plans, however, have not yet been completed.  Instead, military medical personnel are using interim Pentagon guidelines to determine who is to be vaccinated and how the vaccine is to be administered, according to Stars and Stripes.

According to the interim guidelines, U.S. military personnel heading into a high-risk area for anthrax for 15 days or more will be vaccinated, Baker said.  The vaccine regimen is the same as it was before vaccinations were suspended in June 2001 — three shots administered in three-week intervals, then a final three shots administered in five- to six-month intervals.  Personnel who had already begun the vaccination regimen will resume where they left off, Baker said.

Once a soldier receives all six anthrax vaccinations, he is immunized against both inhalation and skin anthrax.  Annual booster shots are needed to maintain immunity.

“They may change it once there’s an actual event but ... once you’re immunized, you shouldn’t need any other attention,” said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Annette Von Thun, head of population health at the Navy hospital.

Anthrax vaccinations administered under the new program will be more carefully monitored than they were in the past, Stars and Stripes reported.  Each vaccine dose lot number and each individual dose will be recorded and logged.

“Basically, every single shot is accounted for,” Baker said.  “We know exactly who got it, and how many and it will be electronically monitored” (Mark Oliva, Stars and Stripes, Oct. 17).

For further information, see:

CDC Frequently Asked Questions About Anthrax

Journal of the American Medical Association Background on Anthrax

Back to top

Yugoslavia:  Chemical Production Equipment Readied for Destruction

Yugoslavia is set to begin destroying chemical production equipment by next March.  The equipment could be used to manufacture poison gas, a senior Yugoslav official said yesterday (see GSN, Aug. 23).

The equipment is now stored at a warehouse in the city of Krusevac and is being inspected by a team of U.S. experts, said Prvoslav Davinic, president of the National Commission for the Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.  It will cost between $300,000 to $400,000 to destroy the equipment, which will be funded by the United States, Davinic said (Tanjug news agency/BBC Monitoring, Oct. 17).

For further information, see:

CWC Text

OPCW Main Page

CWC States Parties

Back to top

United States:  Newport Depot Receives Funding for Accelerated Disposal

The U.S. Congress has approved $161 million to accelerate the disposal of VX stockpiles at the Newport Chemical Depot in Indiana, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Aug. 8).

The funding is included in the recently approved defense appropriations bill awaiting President George W. Bush’s signature (see related GSN story, today).  The funding is about equal to what the Army had said it needed to dispose of the 1,269 tons VX stored at the depot three years ahead of schedule, said Senator Evan Bayh (D-Ind.).  The disposal project is scheduled to begin next year and is expected to take about nine months (Associated Press, Oct. 17).

For further information, see:

CDC List of Chemical Agents

Federation of American Scientists Information on Chemical Weapons

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Activist Group Provides More Details on Decoys Used in Intercept Test

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The Union of Concerned Scientists provided more details on the decoys used during a recent missile defense intercept test, saying they did not reflect actual combat conditions, in a report released last week (see GSN, Oct. 15).

The report, written by David Wright, co-director of the UCS Global Security Program, details the decoys probably used during a successful missile interceptor test conducted Oct. 14.  The test was the fifth hit in seven intercept tests of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system.  In May, the Bush administration announced that information on the target sets used in future missile defense tests would be classified (see GSN, May 17).  UCS said the information in its report was based on public statements and technical analyses of previous missile defense test.

The Oct. 14 test probably involved five targets — a mock warhead, a large balloon decoy, two small balloon decoys and the final stage of the target missile, a modified Minuteman ICBM, called the Multi-Service Launch System, which releases the decoys, according to the report.   The three balloon decoys and the MSLS were reportedly identical to those used in a March intercept test, the report says (see GSN, March 18).

The UCS report says the large balloon decoy and the MSLS would give off an infrared signature about three times larger than that of the mock warhead.  The two small balloon decoys would give off an infrared signature about twice as large as that of the mock warhead, the report says.   These larger infrared signatures make it easier for the missile interceptor to distinguish between the mock warhead and the decoys.

“While using such decoys may be appropriate for early stages of testing, the Pentagon should make clear that these tests do not provide a meaningful test of discrimination that is relevant to real-world situations,” the report says.  “While adding decoys of this type makes the tests somewhat more complex, it does not create a more demanding discrimination task.”

As in previous missile defense tests, the Oct. 14 test required that the missile defense system know in advance how the target warhead and decoys will appear to the interceptor’s sensors, according to the report.  This is necessary because the interceptor compares the infrared signatures it detects to pre-programmed information on the expected appearance of object, the report says.

“Discrimination will rely on the defense having detailed prior knowledge about how all the objects will appear to the defense sensors — an assumption that is highly unrealistic,” the report says.

The Oct. 14 test also did not use a tumbling warhead, even though missile defense test plans created under the Clinton administration called for its use in an intercept test by this time, the report says.  It would be more difficult for an interceptor to detect a tumbling warhead since the motion would create fluctuations in its infrared signature, it says.  While such a fluctuating infrared signature would be easy to detect when compare to the relatively uniform signatures of the decoys, previous tests have involved decoys that emitted signatures similar to that of a tumbling warhead, according to the report.

For further information, see:

MDA Basics of Missile Defense

MDA Missile Defense System

MDA Midcourse Defense Segment

Back to top

Radiological Weapons:  Senate Bill Would Create Regional Shelters for Orphaned Radiation Sources

U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.) introduced a bill yesterday to reduce the threat of terrorists obtaining radiological materials for use in a “dirty bomb” (see GSN, Sept. 9).

“Each year, many radioactive sources worldwide — such as certain X-ray equipment and portable power generators  — are abandoned or stolen and leak out of the existing control system,” Biden said in a press statement.  “We must, and we can, raise significant and sensible barriers to protect against terrorists who would use dirty bombs to do us harm.” 

The bill calls for the creation of five regional shelters worldwide to provide safe storage for orphaned radioactive sources and provides $5 million in fiscal 2003 and up to $20 million annually thereafter for their construction and operation.  It also would establish a joint U.S-International Atomic Energy Agency program to find and inventory orphaned radiological sources, with the bill authorizing $5 million in special voluntary contributions to the IAEA.

The bill also authorizes $10 million per year for three years to help replace equipment located in the former Soviet Union powered by radioactive sources, such as weather stations and communication nets, with non-nuclear technologies (see GSN, June 10).  It authorizes $5 million per year for three years to help train foreign first responder units to handle a radiological emergency.

Under the legislation, the secretary of state would be required to conduct a global assessment of the threat of radiological terrorism to U.S. missions overseas and to provide the information in an unclassified report to Congress.  The bill would also create a special representative with the rank of ambassador within the State Department for the negotiation of international agreements on inspecting cargo at its port of embarkation for nuclear materials (see GSN, Sept. 23).

“The threat of radiological terrorism, and even of true nuclear terror attacks, is real,” Biden said in a press statement.   “We know that most radiological attacks will kill few Americans, but we are just as certain that they will be economic crimes of the greatest consequence.  We must do something to head off the nuclear and radiological terrorist threat where it will most likely first appear” (Senator Joseph Biden release, Oct. 16).

Back to top