North Korea:  Pyongyang Cancels Proposed Former U.S. Officials’ Visit

North Korea Saturday called off a proposed visit by a group of former U.S. ambassadors to South Korea in a move seen as a reaction to U.S. President George W. Bush’s recent State of the Union address (see GSN, Feb. 8).

In the last few months, North Korea had quietly proposed the visit by the former U.S. officials, said Robert Scalapino, a Korea expert and professor emeritus at the University of California who had been scheduled to take part.  The U.S. State Department knew of the planned trip, but the group was not acting on behalf of the United States, Scalapino said.

On Saturday, however, Pak Gil Yon, North Korea’s ambassador to the United Nations, said he had received information that the trip had been cancelled.

“I’m sure it happened because of the State of the Union address,” said William Gleysteen, one of the four former U.S. ambassadors to South Korea who was to go on the trip.

“They probably found it very offensive,” Gleysteen said of Bush including North Korea, along with Iran and Iraq, in an “axis of evil.”

North Korea cancelled the visit because “it did not want to send a modestly positive signal right now,” said Stephen Bosworth, another former U.S. ambassador to South Korea and would-be participant (Michael Gordon, New York Times, Feb. 9).

Bush’s rhetoric has also caused concern in South Korea, according to the Washington Post.  According to aides, South Korean President Kim Dae-jung had hoped to use Bush’s upcoming visit to Seoul, Feb. 19-20, to persuade him to head an international effort to being North Korea back to negotiations (see GSN, Feb. 8).

Now, however, Kim has lowered his expectations for Bush’s visit, said a senior South Korean Foreign Ministry official.

“As long as Bush repeats his support for North-South dialogue, that will be enough,” the official said.

Bush may instead wait for the South Korean elections and a new president before attempting to restart negotiations with North Korea, according to analysts.  Lee Hoi-chang, leader of the opposition Grand National Party, is the leading candidate to succeed Kim as South Korean president, according to the Post.  Lee is a supporter of strict reciprocity and verification measures when it comes to any agreements with North Korea, and has endorsed Bush’s “axis of evil” comments, the Post reported.

South Koreans are less upset over what Bush said of North Korea and more upset over how he said it, according to Lee Chung-min, a professor of international relations at Yonsei University in Seoul.

“A big part of this is about the South Korean government losing face,” Lee said.  “There’s a general recognition that the sunshine policy has been less successful than everyone hoped.  But the feeling is, why do you have to embarrass us by calling attention to it so publicly?”

Bush’s comments, which included calling the North Korean government “evil,” have “poured ice water on a dying fire,” said Kim Chung-kyun, a research fellow at Hyundai Economic Research Institute.

“This summit in Seoul is going to be a strange one,” said Kim Young-hie, a columnist for the Joon-ang Ilbo newspaper in Seoul.  “President Bush is going to be wagging his finger at President Kim and warning of an axis of evil,” while the two leaders “shake hands in mutual support of the sunshine policy” (Clay Chandler, Washington Post, Feb. 10).

South Korea is expected to attempt to convince North Korea to reduce its suspected weapons of mass destruction and re-enter WMD negotiations with the United States during inter-Korean meetings, a high-level South Korean official said yesterday.

“The government will bring up the WMD issue at future inter-Korean talks, whether they are a ministerial or defense ministerial level,” the official said.

South Korea would urge North Korea to resolve the WMD issue directly with the United States, the official said.

“The issue of developing nuclear weapons and missiles by the North is basically a topic with the U.S., while inter-Korean talks concern easing of military tension on the Korean peninsula,” he said (Yonhap/BBC Monitoring, Feb. 10).

Back to top

Iraq:  Russia Says Talks on Sanctions Made Progress

U.S.-Russian talks last week on revising U.N. sanctions against Iraq resulted in “real progress,” Russian Foreign Ministry officials said Friday.  Russian negotiators, however, insist on simplifying sanctions — not tightening them — and the two sides continue to disagree on certain issues, the officials said.

“Real progress has been achieved in clarifying questions, although certain differences remain, and also with regard to the need to narrow the spheres of disagreement,” a ministry statement said.

The statement followed a U.S. report that the negotiating teams had made progress (see GSN, Feb. 8).

The two countries agreed to meet again in mid-March to continue negotiating sanctions revisions, which are scheduled to take effect by the end of May.  The U.S.-Russian talks follow an agreement in November to extend the oil-for-food program in Iraq and negotiate a list of dual-use goods that would require U.N. approval before Iraq could import them (see GSN, Nov. 30).

The United States agreed to review requirements for lifting sanctions as long as weapons inspectors could return it Iraq, but Iraqi President Saddam Hussein said Friday he would not allow inspectors to return (Reuters/Moscow Times, Feb. 11).

Putin Warns Bush Against Attacking Iraq

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin said during an interview with the Wall Street Journal that he disagrees with U.S. President George W. Bush’s statement that Iraq, Iran and North Korea form an “axis of evil,” and he warned Bush against attacking Iraq (see GSN, Feb. 6).

“We oppose the drawing up of blacklists,” Putin said in reference to the “axis of evil” phrase.  Iraq is “completely different” from Afghanistan, he said.

Iraq does present problems, and Russia is willing to help solve some of those problems, he said.  “Such problems cannot be solved by one country alone,” Putin said.

Iraq does not have nuclear weapons, Putin said, adding that sending weapons inspectors back into the country would be the best way to ensure Iraq does not develop them, rather than military action (see GSN, Feb. 7).

“We have not yet used all the instruments available to us to know what we need to know.  Why should we turn to other measures while there are still possibilities in the hands of the international community?”

Russia-U.S. Relations Are Good

Despite his disagreement with Bush over Iraq, Putin said the two presidents had developed a “new level of trust, a very high level of trust” between their countries.

“Our cooperation is the most important factor for stability in the world, and we should never forget that,” Putin said.

U.S. Pressure on Iraq Continues

Meanwhile, the Bush administration said it is considering all options regarding Iraq.  The Iraqi leader “is on notice, and we will deal with Saddam Hussein in a manner and at the time of our choosing,” said Sean McCormack, National Security Council spokesman (House/Higgins, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 11).

Back to top

United States:  DOE Requests Study on Nuclear “Bunker Buster”

By David Ruppe

Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush’s fiscal 2003 Energy Department budget request has called for completing a preliminary study on modifying a nuclear warhead for military “bunker-busting” operations (see GSN, Dec. 20, 2001).

U.S. military officials have said they need better earth-penetrating weapons for striking enemy assets protected in hardened and deeply buried bunkers such as missile silos and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s command bunker.

Arms control advocates are concerned about unintended casualties from their use and that developing, testing and using such weapons could undermine international efforts to curb the global development and spread of weapons of mass destruction.

The request calls for completing program cost and feasibility studies for modifying B-61 nuclear warheads for use on a system called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.

The B-61 is “the weapon that everybody has looked at for modifications being possible to develop a so-called mini-nuke,” said Cathy Crandall, the associate director of security programs at Physicians for Social Responsibility.  By “mini-nuke” she means a lower-yield nuclear weapon that might create less collateral damage, making it theoretically more acceptable when used.

The earth-penetrating system appears to be in an early stage of development and other possible warhead options could include developing an entirely new warhead or developing a conventional warhead, experts say.

Arms control analysts are concerned developing new low-yield nuclear weapons for use in combat missions could lessen the stigma of using nuclear weapons by other countries.

“The United States using nuclear weapons in combat lowers the threshold on a worldwide basis,” says David Culp, an analyst at the Friends Committee on National Legislation.  It “makes it more politically acceptable for other countries to use nuclear weapons.”

Resuming Nuclear Tests?

There also is a concern that modifying the B-61 or developing a new warhead would lead to a resumption of U.S. nuclear testing, which was suspended in the early 1990s by former President George Bush.

“I think everybody understands that if we resume testing, you see the Russians resume testing.  And, this is no secret, there are hawks in Russia just like there are in the United States, and for many years people in their military and in their weapons laboratories have been arguing that Russia needs to develop a new small tactical nuclear weapon that would be deployed in Eastern Europe primarily along the Belarus-Polish border,” said Culp.

China, India and Pakistan might also feel freer to resume testing, he said.

There is, however, a legal hurdle that might need to be overcome. A 1993 law forbids research and development of nuclear weapons below a five-kiloton yield.

On the other hand, Congress passed language in the fiscal 2001 defense authorization bill requiring a study on “the defeat of hardened and deeply buried targets” (see GSN, Dec. 14, 2001).

Also, the current Bush administration has indicated the president has no intentions of submitting to the Senate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, signed by President Bill Clinton, which would ban all further testing.

Not Clear Whether U.S. Testing Needed

Experts say it is unclear whether Energy would need to resume nuclear testing for a new nuclear earth-penetrating weapon.

While developing a new warhead probably would require a resumption of testing, modifying the B-61 probably would not, said Culp.  Fifty B-61s previously were modified essentially by putting them in hardened shells to create a lesser earth-penetration weapon, called the B-61 mod 11, first announced in the mid-1990s.

That modified bomb, with a yield potentially ranging from 10 to 340 kilotons, was not tested in the earth-penetrating delivery system, but the system containing the warhead reportedly had somewhat limited penetrating capability, according to the Federation of American Scientists.

That modified model “obviously doesn’t have the kind of capability they are looking for,” said Culp.

Whether a newly modified B-61 warhead might require testing, he said, could depend on both the extent of the modification and “whether the military that’s buying this weapon has enough confidence in it to deploy it without testing.”

Higher-yield warheads do not need to penetrate the ground as deeply as lower-yield weapons but can be more controversial, because they tend to cause higher collateral damage and fallout, experts say.  Crandall said the modifications would not necessarily involve further modifying the B-61 to create a lower-yield “mini-nuke.”

It might be preferred by the military, though, she said, to minimize radioactive fallout and collateral damage.

“It is generally considered that if there were a U.S. military requirement to use an earth-penetrating weapon — on caves in Afghanistan for example — that there would be some effort to reduce the ‘collateral damage’ by lowering the yield if it were a nuclear weapon,” she said.

Uncertain Intentions

U.S. officials have not said whether they plan to add new nuclear bunker busters to the arsenal.

Results of the Pentagon’s most recent Nuclear Posture Review, a reconsideration of its nuclear strategy, alert status and holdings, released last month, alluded to future nuclear testing and new roles for nuclear weapons in U.S. strategy (see GSN, Jan. 24).

The review called for shortening the time needed to prepare for a nuclear weapons test, citing possibly testing needs for maintaining the current stockpile (see GSN, Jan. 10, 2001).  The Bush budget request allocated $15 million to Energy for making that change.

While citing a need for new earth-penetrating weapons, however, the review did not say whether nuclear weapons should be developed for such a role.

Information prepared for a briefing on the review only said there is a need for developing improved “non-nuclear strike” capabilities for use against “hardened and deeply buried targets.”

Responding to a question, however, the principal briefer, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy J.D. Crouch, seemed to say the administration is considering developing new nuclear weapons that could be used for special battlefield operations like bunker busting (see GSN, Jan. 10, 2002).

“Now, we are trying to look at a number of initiatives,” he said.  “One would be to modify an existing weapon, to give it greater capability against hard targets and deeply buried targets.  And we're also looking at non-nuclear ways that we might be able to deal with those problems.”

The Energy and Defense departments completed a study last July examining how nuclear weapons could be modified to attack buried, hardened targets, but reportedly they made no conclusions about developing such weapons.

Crouch also said no recommendation was made on that in the Nuclear Posture Review.

Back to top

India I:  Officials Fail to Agree with Russia on Weapons Contracts

Indian and Russian ministers did not agree during negotiations last week on a proposal to lease two Russian nuclear submarines and two nuclear-capable TU-22 bombers to India, the Moscow Times reported today (see GSN, Feb. 8).

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov and Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes agreed on technical issues but disagreed on some financial concerns, Fernandes said.  The two sides did not even discuss leasing the submarines, Indian Defense Ministry spokesman Pradipto Kumar Bandyopadhyay said.

Klebanov and Fernandes pledged to cooperate to develop military equipment and signed three protocols and one military contract, the Times reported.  The limited progress nevertheless indicates Russia and India will begin a significant new stage in military cooperation, analysts said.

The protocols include cooperation in aviation, warships and land-based army systems.  The contract is for the delivery of Krasnopol precision-guided projectiles, according to the Moscow Times (Lyuba Pronina, Moscow Times, Feb. 11).

Back to top

India II:  Foreign Minister Renews Promise to Ban Nuclear Tests

Although India is not a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty signatory, it will abide by the agreement by not testing any nuclear explosives, Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh said in an interview published yesterday in the Financial Times online.  Critics around the world complained last month when India test-fired a nuclear-capable short-range Agni missile (see related GSN story, today).

“I have said so at the United Nations General Assembly, and the prime minister [Atal Bihari Vajpayee] has also said so — that India has announced a voluntary moratorium on any further nuclear-explosive testing,” Singh said.  “This is not time-bound.”

India has maintained full military mobilization along the India-Pakistan border since gunmen attacked outside India’s Parliament on Dec. 13, 2001 (see GSN, Feb. 8).  Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has promised to fight terrorism in Pakistan, but Singh said India has not detected any reduction in terrorist infiltration into India’s Jammu and Kashmir territory (see GSN, Jan. 4).  Bad weather in Kashmir makes it too early to truly judge, he added (Edward Luce, Financial Times, Feb. 11).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Some Progress in HEU Deal Dispute, Russia Says

U.S. and Russian negotiators have made some progress in an ongoing dispute over pricing terms in the U.S. purchase of uranium taken from Russian nuclear weapons, ITAR-Tass reported yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 28).

“No final result has been achieved so far,” said press officials of the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry.  Talks will continue in Moscow this week, they said (ITAR-Tass/BBC Monitoring, Feb. 10).

The U.S. Energy Department and U.S. Enrichment Corp. are negotiating the best way to reduce USEC’s dependence on imported enriched uranium, according to the Washington Times.  USEC is the sole U.S. purchaser of uranium taken from Russian nuclear weapons under the “Megatons to Megawatts” agreement.

“It’s an energy security question,” said a senior Bush administration official.  “It’s the same principle as not being reliant on all the Middle Eastern companies for our oil.”

“They live off the cheap Russian material,” the senior official said of USEC.  “When it runs out, they’re in trouble.”

USEC’s main problem is its outdated technology for manufacturing nuclear fuel, the senior official said.  USEC, however, has balked at setting a date for any technology upgrades, according to the Times.

“If our technology is going to be competitive, we need to get it to market fast,” the senior official said.  “Otherwise, we’re reliant on overseas technology.”

The Bush administration has told USEC is will lose its role in the megatons to megawatts program if it does not set a date for developing new ways to produce nuclear fuel, the senior official said.

Sources close to the Energy Department-USEC negotiations have said the two sides are close to solving main differences between them.

“We’re progressing nicely,” the official said.  “It will happen” (Carter Dougherty, Washington Times, Feb. 11).

Back to top

Anthrax:  Canadian Studies Would Not Have Changed Policy, CDC Says

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would probably not have changed its anthrax antibiotic recommendations even if it had known about Canadian studies that indicated how dangerous anthrax sent through the mail could be, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, Feb. 8).

Last year, two Canadian laboratories conducted studies on letters filled with anthrax spores and found that they could spread farther and would pose a higher threat than previously believed, according to the Post.  Bioterrorism experts in several U.S. agencies circulated the results by mid-October, when the anthrax-tainted letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) was opened (see GSN, Dec. 12).

The CDC, however, did not learn the results of the Canadian studies until the U.S. anthrax attacks were ending in November, the Post reported.  The CDC headed the initial public health response to the attacks (see GSN, Feb. 8).

“It would have been good to have that information,” said Bradley Perkins, the lead CDC anthrax investigator.  “We were clearly dealing in a low-information environment.”

Health officials put Senate staff members on preventive anthrax antibiotics soon after the Daschle letter was opened, according to the Post.  Postal workers were given antibiotics six days later, after it was known that the two mail-sorting centers through which the letter had passed were contaminated.  By that point, however, several postal workers were infected with anthrax and two would later die, the Post reported.

“Had we known early on about the Canadian experiments, would that have pushed us to prophylax people earlier?  Maybe,” said Larry Siegel, senior deputy director for medical affairs for the Washington Health Department.  “Would it have mattered?  We don’t know.”

The Canadian research included two studies.  In one study, conducted at a military laboratory in Suffield, Alberta, researchers concluded that a person who opens a letter and stands over it for 10 minutes would inhale hundreds of lethal doses of spores, the Post reported.

“‘Passive’ dissemination of anthrax spores from an envelope presents a far more serious threat than had been previously assumed,” the military researchers said.

In the other study, a group of emergency responders in Ottawa investigated what happened when they carried a sealed, contaminated letter around an office.

“Contamination was present on the desk, papers, file folders and pen prior to opening the envelope (contamination was concentrated at the corners of the envelope where it was leaking out),” they said.

Perkins said he did not believe that the results of the Canadian studies would have changed the CDC’s antibiotics recommendations because the agency based its decisions on observations made after two people in Florida became sick with anthrax.

“I think the weight of the decision, … would [still] have been based on the field observations in Florida,” Perkins said.  “Whether having this information would have tipped the scales of decision making to a more conservative approach is in the realm of speculation at this point.”

The Alberta researchers presented their findings to U.S. military biological defense experts at four meetings from May to October 2001, the Post reported.  The Ottawa researchers presented their findings at a conference in Canberra in May.  Scientists from a delegation to the Canberra conference sponsored by the U.S. State Department’s counterterrorism office passed the Ottawa findings to the FBI, Secret Service and Capitol Police, according to the Post.

One of the Canadian researchers involved in the anthrax studies attempted to alert the CDC directly, but was not successful, the Post reported.  On Oct. 19, he e-mailed a copy of one of the studies to Richard Kellog, head of the CDC’s laboratory response network.

“In light of current of events, we thought you might like a copy,” said a note attached to the study.

Kellog said he did not know about the e-mail until two months later because of the chaotic situation after the Florida anthrax attack.

“In the middle of an emergency, do not do things in a perfunctory way,” Kellog said of the Canadian researcher’s e-mail.  “There was no red flag on this, and I was dealing in a red-flag world” (David Brown, Washington Post, Feb. 11).

No New Anthrax Vaccine

Meanwhile, Americans will still have to rely on the current anthrax vaccine since second-generation vaccines are still only in the research phase, said a leading vaccine researcher (see GSN, Feb. 6).

The only anthrax vaccine currently available for the public in the event of another attack is one approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration almost 30 years ago, Daniel Lucey, director of the Infectious Disease Service at the Washington Hospital Center said Saturday.

“This is the only vaccine that we will have if there is another anthrax attack,” Lucey said.

Researchers are also examining a protein taken from the blood of U.S. soldiers who have received the anthrax vaccine as another treatment option, Lucey said (see GSN, Jan. 8).  Current anthrax antibiotics only kill the bacteria itself, according to the Associated Press.  Researchers believe that immune globulin taken from the blood of those inoculated with the anthrax vaccine might also neutralize the toxin that the bacteria produces (Associated Press/New York Times, Feb. 9).

No Rest for Postal Workers

More than 85 Washington-area postal workers who have handled irradiated mail have complained of health problems, postal workers union leaders said (see GSN, Feb. 7).

“The employees are experiencing nosebleeds, runny noses, runny eyes, extreme headaches, nausea,” said Tammy Thompson, president of the Montgomery County, Md., local chapter of the postal workers union.  “Some are actually throwing up, and we have been going through this since December.”

Federal investigators have said the reported symptoms are minor and new measures have been put into place to reduce levels of harmful gasses produced by the irradiation process.

Medical experts, though, have recommended that postal workers at the mail-processing center in Gaithersburg, Md., continue to monitor their symptoms.

“These are unknowns, so I don’t think we can dismiss them as minimal.  They have to be explored.  They have to put the best science to use and get answers,” said Sally Davidow, spokeswoman for the American Postal Workers Union.  “If irradiation is causing [symptoms], or something else is causing it, they have to get to the bottom of it and fix it” (Spencer Hsu, Washington Post, Feb. 9).

About 200 postal workers at the Hamilton Township, N.J., mail-processing center protested Saturday to demand to know when they could return to work at the closed building.

The demonstrators said they wanted to know when the mail-processing center would be cleaned of anthrax and reopened and whether they could go back to work there.  More than 700 Hamilton workers were reassigned to other facilities after the building was found to be contaminated with anthrax.

Hamilton employees are concerned that they will be permanently reassigned to other facilities, said Steven Bahrle, branch president of Local 308 of the American Postal Workers Union.

“We understand that the Postal Service is not responsible for the initial anthrax attack,” Bahrle said.  “They’ve now turned an 8-hour day into a 12-hour day.  It’s impacting their family life.”

Officials are still working out decontamination contracts for mail-processing centers in Washington and New Jersey that are contaminated and they have set no time for reopenings, said U.S. Postal Service spokeswoman Diane Todd.  She added that it is unknown whether all Hamilton employees will return to work there.

“They are sympathetic to what’s going on and what the employees are going through,” Todd said.  “It’s an unfortunate thing that’s occurred, and we’re trying to deal with it as best we can” (New York Times, Feb. 10).

Back to top

Hamas:  Palestinians Launch New Rockets, Hamas Says Could Carry CW

The firing of two Qassam-2 rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israel yesterday may foreshadow future attempts by Hamas militants to deliver warheads laced with chemical weapons, according to the Miami Herald.

The rockets fired yesterday were more advanced than previous Qassam rockets and could possibly carry chemical warheads, according to a senior Israeli security official.  Hamas leaders have said the rockets could carry chemical weapons on “nonconventional warheads,” the official said (see GSN, Jan. 2).

The two rockets landed harmlessly near a kibbutz and a farm, four to five miles from the Gaza border.  They do not have a guidance system and are much less powerful than rockets launched by Iraq during the Gulf War, but they travel three times farther than earlier Qassam rockets and could hit a metropolitan target, according to an Israeli army statement.

Officials believe that Palestinians make the rockets — which require only simple explosives for propulsion — domestically and the rockets are supplied by Iran, according to the Miami Herald (Tim Johnson, Miami Herald, Feb. 11).

The Israeli Defense Forces said that the rockets could carry a warhead as large as four to six kilograms, according to the Jerusalem Post.  The Post reported that a Qassam-2 can travel six to eight kilometers, but the IDF said the rockets have a range of 10 to 12 kilometers (Dudkevitch/O’Sullivan, Jerusalem Post, Feb. 11).

Back to top

International Response:  Countries Agree to Missile Code of Conduct

At the conclusion of a two-day round of talks in France Friday, more than 80 countries agreed to a draft agreement of an international code of conduct designed to help stop ballistic missile proliferation (see GSN, Feb. 8).

The talk’s participants “acknowledge that missile proliferation is a problem” and that “a multilateral approach can contribute to resolving this problem,” said a French Foreign Ministry spokesman.

The code of conduct, which would only be a political agreement and lack the force of a treaty, would have each signatory outline its ballistic missile program once a year and notify other signatories of any ballistic missile tests (Washington Times, Feb. 10).

France said it plans to be able to present the code of conduct for final approval at a conference in Spain and to organize a signing ceremony at The Hague near the end of this year.

The U.S. delegation to the talks only monitored the comments made by other delegations and did not take part in the discussions, the French official said (Agence France-Presse, Feb. 8).

The head of the Iranian delegation to the talks said the issue of ballistic missile proliferation should be examined by the United Nations.

“The issue of ballistic missiles and controlling policies to limit missile proliferation requires a professional discussion which we believe should be conducted by representatives from world countries and under supervision of the [United Nations],” said Hamid Eslami-Zad (Iranian Republic News Agency, Feb. 7, in FBIS-NES, Feb. 7).

Back to top

India I:  New Agni-I Missile Developed to Target Pakistan

Unlike its other Agni predecessors, the Agni-I missile, which India tested last month for the first time, is strategically designed to target Pakistan, India Today reported today (see GSN, Jan. 30).

The first Agni, tested in 1989, has a range of 1,200 kilometers.  The road-mobile Agni-I has a range of 700 kilometers, is five meters shorter than its earlier cousins and has a single-stage solid-fuel rocket, which gives it a higher acceleration rate.  Accelerating 2.5 kilometers per second, the Agni-I can travel 700 kilometers in 10 minutes.

Earlier longer-range Agni missiles were designed to target China, whose southern cities are 3,000 to 5,000 kilometers from India.  Until the Agni becomes operational, Indian nuclear delivery vehicles consist of its 150-kilometer-range Prithvi missiles and its Mirage 2000 aircraft.  The Prithvi, however, is vulnerable because it is fired from near the border.

India also prepared its Agni-II missile for targeting Pakistan, but its long range and two-stage rocket, which drops its booster in mid-flight, created trajectory problems.  Using the more expensive Agni-II against Pakistan would also not be cost-effective — like “using a jeweled scimitar to cut vegetables,” according to one scientist.

India developed the Agni-I to remedy the Prithvi’s vulnerability and the Agni-II’s complexities.  “There was a gap in our missile capability, and Agni fills this,” said retired Lt. Gen. Vinay Shanker.

Indian scientists built the Agni-I within 15 months, significantly less than the usual five-year development period for missiles, India Today reported (Raj Chengappa, India Today, Feb. 11).

Back to top

India II:  India Successfully Tests Cryogenic Engine

In Tamil Nadu Saturday, India successfully test-fired a cryogenic engine to be used for a space launch vehicle, according to Agence France-Presse.  The domestically developed engine will probably require more testing before India can consider it ready for use, officials said.  Indian scientists aborted an earlier test in February 2000 due to technical problems.

The United States, Russia, France, China and Japan have similar cryogenic capabilities (Agence France-Presse/Dawn, Feb. 10).

Back to top

Russian Plans:  Officials to Upgrade Moscow Missile Shield

ITAR-Tass reported Friday that Moscow’s missile defense system is likely to be enhanced within the next few years, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Jan. 30).

Plans have been made to upgrade the system’s power and mechanical equipment, a computer complex, transmitting and receiving devices and other components, a Russian industrial-military complex official said (see GSN, Dec. 18, 2001).  It should take three to four years to complete the planned upgrades, the official said.

The former Soviet Union first deployed an anti-ballistic missile shield around Moscow in 1974 and Russia completed the latest upgrade in 1994, according to the Associated Press.  That upgrade, the A-135 system, includes long- and medium-range missile interceptors (Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press/Moscow Times, Feb. 11).

Back to top