U.S. Response:  Security Improvement Needed on Several Fronts, Panel Says

By Greg Seigle

Global Security Newswire

The United States must improve its readiness for terrorist attacks by making sweeping changes, including creating a nationwide chemical and biological detection system and reorganizing the federal agencies responsible for protecting the country’s critical assets, a panel of national security experts said yesterday.

In releasing its report, Defending the American Homeland — the first in a series of planned reviews by the Heritage Foundation — panel members said the Bush Administration should prioritize infrastructures that need protection, free National Guard and Reserve troops to boost port security, and coordinate with several other countries, especially Canada and Mexico, to bolster U.S. prevention and response capabilities to a weapons of mass destruction attack.  Click here to read Heritage Foundation report.

Some of the report’s 25 recommendations echo those made in recent years by the Hart-Rudman and Gilmore commissions — suggestions that received considerable attention then went largely unheeded — while several other proposals, including one for U.S. Customs agents to search U.S.-bound ships at their point of origin, are new and seemingly unattainable without widespread international cooperation.

“I hope this commission’s recommendations are, unlike the other ones, in fact carried out,” said L. Paul Bremer, a co-chair of the report who served as ambassador at large for counterterrorism for former President Ronald Reagan.

The panel’s report “demands new thinking,” Bremer added. “In some cases it demands new bureaucratic cultures, particularly within the FBI and the [new Office of Homeland Security]. There isn’t one quick fix, there’s no magic silver bullet here.”

“This is the start, not the finish,” said the report’s other co-chair, Edwin Meese, the former attorney general under Reagan.

Cooperation, trust and the flow of information needs to be improved not only between federal agencies that must now work together, but also among federal and local officials, Meese added. “This has to be a two-way street,” he said. “It also means having security clearance for [select] people at the local level.”

The task force charged with studying the issues for the report includes former generals, microbiologists, governors, intelligence analysts, ambassadors, lawyers, police chiefs and host of other knowledgeable sources.

The report’s findings have been presented to President George Bush and Tom Ridge, director of the Office of Homeland Security, and are currently under consideration, White House officials said.

Web of Detection

One top priority stressed in the report is the need for the United States to build a web of monitoring systems for early detection of terrorist attacks, particularly those that unleash deadly biological agents.

“In order to mobilize a rapid response to such an attack, government leaders must be able to recognize the outbreak of a catastrophic illness or an attack on food and water supplies,” the report stated. “Such information would increase government’s ability to recognize an attack in its earliest stages and limit its effects.”

Creating such an elaborate system would require state governors and mayors of large cities, with federal guidance, to establish their own monitoring networks, the report said. The networks of cities — which would monitor hospital intakes, 911 calls and employee sick lists — would feed their data to state officials, who would in turn pass it on to national officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the report said.

“Any national surveillance network must operate from the ground up,” the report noted. “In this way, alerts about a possible [biological attack] unfolding could be sent out nationwide to alert communities to step up their detection efforts and response preparations.”

Reorganize U.S. Agencies

The panel also strongly urged the president to reorganize the federal agencies charged with protecting the country’s infrastructure.  In May 1998 former President Bill Clinton issued a directive for “critical infrastructure improvement,” but the measure left a lack of accountability and oversight and did not establish a clear chain of command within the top 12 federal agencies, the report said.

Satellite Security

While President Bush has recently moved to secure many of the country’s vital assets, including the plethora of communication and navigation satellites heavily relied upon by businesses, the military and numerous sectors of society, he needs to do more to protect the nation’s information systems from sabotage, the report concluded.  A good first step would be designating Global Positioning System devices as critical national infrastructure, the report noted.

“GPS is very vulnerable because it uses a very low-power signal that can be corrupted or interrupted, causing loss of information,” the report said.  “Russia is actively marketing handheld GPS jamming equipment that can block receiving equipment for up to 120 miles.”

Securing Spent Fuel

The report also called for the United States to hasten the development of the nuclear storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada so that used nuclear fuel can be safely stored and monitored (see related GSN story, today).  The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act mandated that the Energy Department begin transferring nuclear byproducts to Yucca in 1998, but the facility is not slated to be ready until 2010, leaving 77,000 tons of U.S. spent nuclear fuel to be stored at various locations, usually adjoining nuclear power plants, with varying degrees of security.

“Spent nuclear fuel, if acquired by enemies of the United States, could be used to build a ‘dirty bomb’ that could be exploded to spread radiation across a designated area,” said the report. “The destruction of infrastructure caused by such a bomb would be much less than the human toll, but it would still be immense.”

Cross-Border Threats

Because of the possibility someone would try to launch weapons of mass destruction attacks without even entering the United States, there must be greater cooperation with Canada and Mexico to protect the border regions near large U.S. cities, the report said.

The report depicts detailed scenarios that portray attacks from across the border — anthrax attacks near Detroit and San Diego, and nuclear detonations near Buffalo, New York, and El Paso, Texas. Using actual meteorological data from late November, when the winds were blowing from either Canada or Mexico into the United States, panel members estimate such cross-border attacks could kill up to 90 percent of people in the path of spreading anthrax spores or nuclear radiation.

“A terrorist could release a toxic agent into the air in Mexico or Canada that would flow into communities in the United States,” the report noted. “The opposite is true as well: an attack on the United States could have devastating effects on Mexico or Canada [and] quickly overwhelm local [response] capabilities on both sides of the border … Local first response teams on both sides of the border should be prepared to work together.”

Activate Reserves, Improve Checks on Shipping

Another panel recommendation is to designate various units of military reservists for homeland and port security. The report observed that the Army and Air Force cannot deploy for a conventional war without calling up large numbers of reservists, particularly those designated for support roles.

“However, these same Reserve and Guard components are the primary units to support homeland security requirements,” the report stated. “They must be freed from their support of the active forces to defend the homeland against terrorism.”

The National Guard and Reserve soldiers could, among other duties, augment customs officials searching incoming ships, the report said. Only about 2 percent of cargo containers aboard large ships are now searched, a percentage U.S. Coast Guard, Customs and other agencies have pledged to boost dramatically.

Because U.S. seaport security has become a major concern, the panel suggests U.S. officials strive to persuade various countries to let U.S. Custom officials search ships bound for the United States at their ports of origin. While the Agriculture Department already does this on a very limited basis, a wide-scale approach would greatly enhance safety at U.S. ports, panel members said.

“It’s not going to be easy” to convince other countries to let the United States set up inspection operations in their home ports, Bremer noted. “It’s going to take some robust diplomacy, but I think it can be done.”

Whether or not the Bush administration embraces the recommendations issued in its report, the panel members stressed one crucial point: the United States is likely to endure more terrorist attacks in the future, incidents that will probably utilize weapons of mass destruction. They also concur that there are seemingly countless holes the country must plug to make it safe from such attacks.

“No matter how good your defenses are,” observed panel member Joseph Muckerman, a retired Army colonel who is a former director of emergency management at the Defense Department, “something’s always going to get through.”

Other Recommendations

The report suggested several other measures, including:

*         Closer monitoring of those entering the United States through airports and seaports. This includes more careful issuances of visas from embassies and the expulsion of visitors violating the terms of their visas.

*         Requiring federal law enforcement, military and intelligence agencies to share more information with each other and with local law enforcement officials.

*         Encouraging drug companies and the Food and Drug Administration to “fast track” development and distribution of antibiotics and vaccines to treat and prevent diseases caused by biological agents, including anthrax and smallpox.

*         Improving public education programs so federal, state and local governments can better communicate with the public in the event of attack or increasing threats.

*         Creation of new systems for airlines and governments to share passenger information to prevent potential terrorists from boarding planes. The report demands that airport and seaport administrations ensure that only authorized people can enter secure areas.

*         Establishing a network of federal weapons of mass destruction specialists who train, assist and prepare local first responders for attacks.

*         Rapidly improving intelligence gathering at all levels of government — and demanding that federal, state and local authorities share their information.

*         Eliminating opportunities for identity theft and fake documents in state identity programs, namely motor vehicle divisions.

*         Creation of a mechanism to monitor recent anti-laundering initiatives to obstruct the financing of terrorists groups.

*        Protecting the U.S. borders, coasts, cities and critical infrastructure from ballistic missile threats by developing and erecting national and regional missile shields.

Back to top

Pakistani Response:  Musharraf to Outline Anti-terrorism Plan

Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf will soon describe his new plan for ending terrorism in South Asia, U.S. Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) said yesterday after meeting with Musharraf in Islamabad (see GSN, Jan. 7).

“I think President Musharraf is preparing a speech to the Pakistani people that will change the history of this country,” Lieberman said.  “I hope it will lead to a de-escalation of tension and perhaps a whole new relationship between Pakistan and India.”  Musharraf is expected to give his speech on new anti-terrorism policies later this week, according to the Washington Post.

Lieberman and McCain said they have urged Musharraf to increase efforts to stop Islamic militants based in Pakistan who have launched attacks against India in previous weeks.  Pakistan has already arrested hundreds of militants, frozen bank assets and raided offices, according to the Post.  Such steps, however, have not appeased India, which has called for a stronger response and has refused to pull its military away from the border (Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, Jan. 9).

In a speech Monday, Musharraf said Pakistan rejected all forms of terrorism.  The speech was noted for dropping, for the first time, the term “freedom fighters” as a description of the militants, according to the Baltimore Sun (Baltimore Sun, Jan. 9).

Some Pakistani officials have said Musharraf will face a tough decision on the tone of his upcoming speech. If he is too harsh on the militants and changes his stance toward the disputed region of Kashmir, he risks losing domestic support.  If he makes no new moves on either subject, however, he risks further angering India. 

“Musharraf is basically in a bind right now,” said Abida Hussain, former Pakistani ambassador to the United States.  “For him to turn around on Kashmir is much more complicated than what he did in Afghanistan.  He would be disappointing the military as well as a large segment of the population.”

Former Pakistani Foreign Minister Gohar Ayub Khan said judges and prosecutors who press charges against militants, or even Musharraf himself, could become targets for assassination.

“The risk is definitely there,” Khan said.  “He’s taking a lot of security precautions, no doubt” (Whitlock, Washington Post, Jan. 9).

Back to top

Iraq:  U.N. Not Necessarily Best Way to Contain Iraq

Former deputy chairman of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) Charles Duelfer today cautioned U.S. officials against emphazing demands for returning weapons inspectors to Iraq (see GSN, Nov. 14).  Using the United Nations to return inspectors could fail to produce a strong inspection system and could inhibit the ability of the United States to act against Iraq unilaterally, Duelfer said in a commentary in the Washington Post.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could submit to pressure from the United States and United Nations and allow inspectors to return, Duelfer said, but Hussein would probably only allow restricted inspections and not the intrusive measures necessary to truly research Iraq’s weapons ability.

Duelfer said UNSCOM had been an aggressive inspection team, but it was still unable to completely monitor the development of Iraqi weapons or prevent Iraq from developing weapons illegally.  A new U.N. inspection body, which has not yet been authorized to begin work, lacks performance criteria strong enough to ensure that it could firmly assess Iraq’s weapons ability, Duelfer said.  Also, Iraq has broken previous agreements related to inspectors.

Due to their own economic and political interests, several members of the U.N. Security Council would probably support an inspections agreement, even if it lacks the freedom inspectors would need, Duelfer said.  In that case, the United States would find it difficult to persuade countries to take additional action to curb Iraq’s ability to threaten its neighbors or the United States.  “Once again we would have kicked the Iraq problem down the road without addressing the fundamental threats posed by the regime,” Duelfer said.

The U.N. Security Council has limited ability to address the risks growing in Iraq, Duelfer said.  Security Council resolutions have limited Iraqi expenditures but have not prevented further development of weapons of mass destruction, he said.  “Leaving the Iraq issue in the Security Council is a sure way to wrap a line around our propeller should we wish to address the Iraqi threat directly” (Charles Duelfer, Washington Post, Jan. 9).

Back to top

Czech Response:  Officials Consider Controlling More Exports

Czech Trade Minister Miroslav Gregr presented a proposal to the Czech cabinet today to prevent the sale of goods that could have military or terrorist uses.  The proposal would expand export controls to “limit the availability of strategic material and technologies for the development of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and for terrorists,” said a trade ministry statement.  The proposed change in Czech law would also bring Czech law into compliance with European Union standards.

Czech products with military applications have raised international concern for years, according to Deutsche Presse-Agentur.  The United States in 2000 asked the Czech Republic to stop sales of nuclear plant parts to Iraq, and recently the Czech officials denied suspicions that anthrax spores circulated through the U.S. postal system (see related GSN story, today) came from Czech laboratories (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, Jan. 9).

Back to top

United States:  Pentagon May Preserve “Reduced” Nuclear Weapons

The U.S. Defense Department told Congress yesterday that the Bush administration would not destroy all the nuclear weapons that it has promised to remove from deployed status (see GSN, Jan. 7).

Presenting the classified Nuclear Posture Review to Congress, Assistant Defense Secretary J.D. Crouch said officials had not yet decided how many nuclear weapons the United States would destroy and how many it would store to possibly redeploy, sources told the Washington Post.  U.S. President George W. Bush told Russian President Vladimir Putin in November that the United States would reduce its deployed nuclear warheads from 6,000 to between 2,200 and 1,700 (see GSN, Nov. 14).

The administration so far only has firm plans to destroy 50 Peacekeeper ICBM silos, said a Democratic congressional expert.  “They did not tell us how the remaining promised reductions would be made; they did not know what the remaining nuclear forces structure would look like, and they were not sure how many would be stored or destroyed,” the expert said.

A Republican source said decisions remained to be made on the details, “but the administration was taking a good first step” (Walter Pincus, Washington Post, Jan. 9).

Why Store the Weapons?

Storing some nuclear weapons would leave them open to future use.  “They would always have the flexibility to redeploy those weapons if circumstances change,” said a U.S. official (Warren Strobel, Knight Ridder, Jan. 9).

Some policymakers and military officials have expressed concern that Russia could re-emerge as a major rival or that other nations, such as China, could pose a nuclear threat in the future, which may be why the United States plans to store some weapons, the New York Times reported.

“Recognizing that the world can change in dangerous and unpredictable ways, we are putting more emphasis than we have in the last 10 or 15 years on that underlying infrastructure that allows you, including in the nuclear area, to rebuild capabilities or build new ones if the world changes,” said U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz (James Dao, New York Times, Jan. 9).

Criticism

Several Democrats and arms control experts criticized the decision to store rather than destroy the weapons, often citing concern that Russia would follow suit.  “If we put ours into storage, the Russians will probably do the same,” said Tom Zamora Collina of the Union of Concerned Scientists (Dao, New York Times, Jan. 9).

“If the reduced nuclear weapons are kept intact and available for redeployment, it makes a mockery of the reductions,” said Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association (Pincus, Washington Post, Jan. 9).

“This is a step back from the U.S. goals during the 1990s, which was to make the reductions process irreversible,” said Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (Strobel, Knight Ridder, Jan. 9).

Reducing U.S. Dependence on Nuclear Weapons

The Defense Department report also urged the United States to expand its conventional military ability, particularly using precision arms, and to build a missile defense system in order to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons.

“We’re looking at a transformation of our deterrence posture from an almost exclusive emphasis on offensive nuclear forces to a force that includes defenses as well as offenses, that includes conventional strike capabilities as well as nuclear strike capabilities, and includes a much reduced level of nuclear strike capability,” Wolfowitz said.

The report proposed reducing the U.S. arsenal over 10 years, which Democrats and arms control advocates criticized as too slow (Dao, New York Times, Jan. 9).

Bunker Busters

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld refused to say if the report suggested developing small nuclear weapons that could penetrate into underground bunkers, such as the ones in which al-Qaeda members hid in Afghanistan (see GSN, Dec. 19).  “We have been working on earth-penetrators, non-nuclear, for a long time,” he said (Charles Aldinger, Reuters/YahooNews, Jan. 8).

Back to top

U.S. Testing:  Moratorium Continues But Future Is Left Open

The United States remains committed to a nuclear testing moratorium but could resume underground testing in the future to check the safety and reliability of its nuclear arsenal (see GSN, Jan. 8), U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday (Charles Aldinger, Reuters/Yahoo.com, Jan. 8).

“Any country that has nuclear weapons has to be respectful of the enormous lethality and power of those weapons and has a responsibility to see that they are safe and reliable … To the extent that can be done without testing, clearly that is the preference.  And that is why the president has concluded that, thus far, that is the case,” Rumsfeld said (Walter Pincus, Washington Post, Jan. 9).

A new Defense Department report on U.S. nuclear policy (see related GSN story, today) did not recommend nuclear testing, Rumsfeld said. The report did recommend a more rapid process to resume testing if necessary, said a congressional aide.  Preparing to resume testing would currently take two to three years (Aldinger, Reuters/Yahoo.com, Jan. 8).

More Funding

The Bush administration planned to seek increased funding to improve the speed at which nuclear testing could resume, Assistant Defense Secretary J.D. Crouch said, according to congressional sources.  “The administration will work with Congress to determine the appropriate funding level,” said a National Nuclear Security Administration spokesman.

Deciding what type of testing was necessary would take at least a year, especially to correct a problem in an existing weapon, and preparation costs for underground testing would be “substantial,” said a former Energy Department official (Pincus, Washington Post, Jan. 9).

Moratorium Background

Former President George Bush imposed a moratorium on underground nuclear testing in 1992, and former President Bill Clinton continued the policy.  The U.S. Senate voted against approving the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1999, adding the United States to the list of countries opposed to the treaty, including China, Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel (Aldinger, Reuters/Yahoo.com, Jan. 8).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Bush to Request More Nonproliferation Funding

The Bush administration plans to ask the U.S. Congress for more funding in fiscal 2003 for nuclear nonproliferation programs, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Dec. 20).

The Bush administration is expected to ask for $1.04 billion for Energy Department nonproliferation programs, a 37 percent increase from the request for fiscal 2002, according to the Times.  Congress, which approved funds for 2002 that exceeded the administration’s request, is expected to approve the request for fiscal 2003.  In all, the administration’s request for the coming year is 3.2 percent less than Congress’s fiscal 2002 allocation.

The White House is also expected to request funding increases for two smaller nonproliferation programs run by the State Department and Defense Department, the Times reported.  The requested increases are expected to be above the current $403 million allocated for the Defense Department programs and above the $54 million appropriation for the State Department, the Times reported.

The State Department program helps find employment for former Soviet nuclear and biological scientists so they will not find work in hostile countries.  The Defense Department program works to dismantle former Soviet nuclear weapons.

“The president is doing the right thing to continue the upward trend,” said Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.).  “Whether it’s enough, I don’t know” (Adam Clymer, New York Times, Jan. 9).

The Bush administration has also recommended making several changes to the programs themselves, according to Jane’s Defence Weekly.  Those changes include:

*         Reviewing U.S. efforts to aid Russia in plutonium disposal.  This review is needed because of cost concerns, a senior administration official said.  He added that the United States is still committed to the destruction of 34 metric tons of plutonium and that the study is “nearing completion.”

*         Changing the oversight of a program to shut down Russian military reactors that produce plutonium from the Defense Department to the Energy Department. 

*         Speeding up efforts to help Russia destroy 40,000 tons of chemical weapons agents.

*         Expanding the Redirection of Biotechnical Scientists and the International Science and Technology Center programs, which help employ former Soviet weapons scientists.  The ISTC is “a particularly useful mechanism” because of its record of cooperation and its work with other countries, said the administration official.

*         Consolidation of the Energy Department’s Nuclear Cities Initiative program with its Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program.  The NCI was “designed to consolidate the [Russian] nuclear weapons complex,” said the senior official.  “NCI had perhaps wandered from its core focus.”

*         Expanding the Energy Department’s Warhead and Fissile Material Transparency program and its Material Protection, Control and Accounting program, both which work to secure Russian weapon-grade nuclear material (Andrew Koch, Jane’s Defence Weekly, Jan. 9).

Back to top

Anthrax:  Brentwood Worker May Have Been Misdiagnosed

A worker at the Brentwood Road postal facility in Washington may be suffering from inhalation anthrax, even though blood tests have not detected the disease, the Baltimore Sun reported today.

William Paliscak has suffered from symptoms of inhalation anthrax, including fever and chest pain, since handling anthrax-tainted air filters at Brentwood in October, according to the Sun.  The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, has not classified Paliscak as having contracted the disease because tests failed to find the presence of anthrax or antibodies in his blood.

Paliscak’s doctors said, in an article to be published today in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, that they believe anthrax spores are responsible for Paliscak’s illness.  “We strongly believe that there is a relation between the patient’s exposure to anthrax and the symptoms displayed,” Paliscak’s doctors wrote.

While Paliscak’s case is “a suspected case of anthrax where a diagnosis is not definite,” the doctors said, “[his symptoms] do not have any other valid explanation — despite extensive inpatient workup.”  Click here to read the article.

The findings in the Paliscak case may show that many cases of similar symptoms among those potentially exposed to anthrax could have been misdiagnosed because blood tests for anthrax came back negative, the Sun reported.

The CDC has a strict definition of anthrax infection, which requires either a positive culture for the bacterium or two other laboratory tests showing infection, said CDC spokeswoman Kathy Harben.  “Public health officials, including those at CDC, have been learning as the investigation has gone on,” she said.  “We have investigated a lot of exposures at Brentwood … We’re open to any new information.  Based on this report [in the JAOA] I’m sure people will be looking at this case” (Scott Shane, Baltimore Sun, Jan. 9).

Brentwood Can Be Cleaned

The Brentwood postal facility can be made free of anthrax contamination through lessons learned from the similar cleanup effort at the Hart Senate Office Building, a senior U.S. Postal Service official said yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 8).

The Hart decontamination effort has shown how much chlorine dioxide gas to use to kill spores, what conditions to use the gas and how long to fumigate the building, said Postal Service Vice President Thomas Day.

There will be differences between the Hart cleanup and any plan to decontaminate Brentwood, the Washington Post reported.  The work area at Brentwood is 10 million cubic feet, nearly twice that of the Hart building.  Brentwood also has many doors and truck bays, which all would need to be tightly sealed to prevent the gas from escaping, Day said.

One advantage that might make Brentwood easier to clean, however, is that it is only one story, while the Hart building had nine floors and multiple suites, the Post reported.  This will make it easier to dissipate the gas inside Brentwood.  Cleanup crews have also pretreated known “hot spots” of contamination inside Brentwood, Day said.

No cleanup plans for Brentwood have been finalized because federal and local officials are still analyzing the results of the Hart decontamination, according to the Post.  When a plan is set, local neighborhoods around the facility will be notified.  “I personally don’t believe the community needs to be concerned,” Day said (Steve Twomey, Washington Post, Jan. 9).

Back to top

Czech Response:  Anti-CW Troops Go to Kuwait in March

Czech anti-chemical warfare troops will arrive in Kuwait in early March to participate in the U.S.-led war against terrorism, Czech Defense Minister Jaroslav Tvrdik said today (see GSN, Dec. 20).

The unit’s command plans to leave for Kuwait in the middle of this month, followed by an advance of 20 members of the unit, Tvrdik said.  The unit’s 350 troops are mainly from the ninth chemical unit in Liberec.

A proposed field hospital will not yet be sent to Kuwait, according to the Czech Defense Ministry.  “However, its preparation continues and it will be deployed as soon as the next operational requirements are made,” the defense ministry press department said (CTK/BBC Monitoring, Jan. 9).

Back to top

India:  Talks Being Held with Israel on Missile Purchase

Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes yesterday discussed the purchase of Israeli military hardware, including components of an anti-missile system, with Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, the India Statesman reported.

The talks included India’s attempt to purchase the Israeli Arrow anti-missile system for theater defense, which is similar to the U.S. Patriot missile system, the Statesman reported.

Peres said he did not believe there would be any problems concerning India’s purchase of the system, even though the United States has objected to military hardware sales to India, as well as to Pakistan, Russia and China.

“Your country has good relations with the USA,” Peres said.  Besides, “the radar is Israeli equipment,” he added (India Statesman, Jan. 9).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Missile Agency Could Provide Permanence

Turning the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense Organization into the Missile Defense Agency will give the agency “institutional permanence” inside the Defense Department, former Pentagon acquisition official Jacques Gansler said in November, according to Inside the Army.  “I think this would be an elevation,” he said (see GSN, Jan. 7).

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved changing the BMDO into a full-fledged agency within the Pentagon Jan. 2.  In a draft copy of the approval memo, Rumsfeld also approved shortening the decision-making process on missile defense programs to 10 days, Inside The Army reported.  In addition, he also called for the creation of a senior executive council to oversee operations and provide fielding recommendations (Thomas Duffy, Inside the Army/Council for a Livable World, Jan. 7).

Back to top

Nuclear Waste:  Abraham Ready to Make Yucca Mountain Decision

U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said Monday that he was ready to make a decision on whether to recommend a nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada (see GSN, Jan. 3).

Abraham said he completed his research and study on the issue after visiting the site, his first visit since becoming energy secretary, according to the Associated Press.  “It helps to flesh out the work I’ve been reading about,” Abraham said after he finished his tour of the site.  “I don’t think you’re prepared for the vastness of the internal complex, the size and the depth [of Yucca Mountain],” he said.

Abraham has not said when he would make his decision, the AP reported.  Aides have said he will do so this winter, and the U.S. Congress wants his decision by Feb. 28.  Yucca Mountain is the only site being considered for a nuclear waste repository and officials have taken 20 years and $7 billion to study the site, according to the AP.

The state of Nevada is opposed to nuclear waste being stored at Yucca Mountain and has filed three federal lawsuits to stop the plan.  Senators Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.) along with Governor Kenny Guinn and other officials appeared at the federal courthouse in Las Vegas to show their opposition, the AP reported.

“We’re challenging the secretary to resolve the almost 300 unresolved issues the [General Accounting Office] cites before making site suitability decisions,” Ensign said.  “It’s supposed to be based on sound science, not compelling national interest” (Associated Press/Reno Gazette-Journal, Jan. 7).

Back to top