U.S. Response:  Administration Keeps Pressure on “Rogue” Regimes

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — U.S. President George W. Bush, in a major speech, yesterday reaffirmed the U.S. policy of including regimes that have both pursued weapons of mass destruction and supported terrorism in the U.S.-led international campaign against terrorism.

Vice President Richard Cheney echoed his comments yesterday in London at the start of a trip to discuss the campaign with countries in the Middle East.

Bush’s phrasing was, in a sense, less specific than previous comments.  He did not repeat the “axis of evil” phrase he used during his January State of the Union address to describe such countries, nor did he this time name Iran, Iraq and North Korea as “axis” members (see GSN, Jan. 30).

Still, he identified such countries as a threat the United States and its allies would address in what he called the second phase of the campaign, offering again reasoning for why they should be included in the campaign.

“Here is what we already know,” he said.  “Some states that sponsor terror are seeking or already possess weapons of mass destruction; terrorist groups are hungry for these weapons, and would use them without a hint of conscience.  And we know that these weapons, in the hands of terrorists, would unleash blackmail and genocide and chaos.”

“These facts cannot be denied, and must be confronted,” he said, speaking on the White House South Lawn six months after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Questions of Evidence

Since the State of the Union speech, some analysts have contended those particular facts — the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and support of terrorism by countries, and the desire of terrorists to obtain those weapons — are not sufficient justification for acting militarily against those countries, because there is no publicly available evidence the three have ever shared WMD technology with terrorists.

In a March 4 Washington Post commentary, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace President Jessica Mathews argued having such evidence is important and that proponents of getting rid of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein “brush aside the ‘why’ question as if the answers were either self-evident or immaterial.”

Iraq, of such countries, is widely considered the most likely target of any U.S. military action.

Justifying an attack on Iraq in the interest of “preventative self-defense,” Mathews wrote, provides the “least-sound justification,” with the “nightmare result of that becoming an acceptable norm of international behavior.”

Administration officials, on the other hand, have argued that the consequences of a group such as al-Qaeda obtaining chemical, biological or nuclear weapons could be so horrible that any risk of that happening is unacceptable.

Bush yesterday reiterated that argument yesterday, saying, “in preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, there is no margin for error, and no chance to learn from mistakes.”

Cheney, questioned by reporters, said, “we have to be concerned about the potential marriage, if you will, between the terrorist organization like al-Qaeda and those who hold or are proliferating knowledge about weapons of mass destruction.”

Ways must be found, he said, “to make certain” that terrorists never acquire that capability.

Cheney said al-Qaeda had been “aggressively” trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction and said it would have used them if it had them (see GSN, Feb. 26).

Actions Unclear

Indicating the seriousness with which he takes the matter, Bush last month called the probability of a terror-sponsoring nation providing weapons of mass destruction to a terrorist group a “nightmare scenario that we must not let happen.”

“Imagine how the balance of power in the world would change,” he said at a fundraiser in North Carolina.

The administration has not indicated, though, how it specifically intends to deal with the issue with respect to particular countries, analysts say.

Cheney said no decision had been made yet with respect to Iraq.  Bush yesterday said, “our coalition must act deliberately, but inaction is not an option.”

“The question in all of this … is what do you do about it,” said Lee Feinstein, a visiting scholar at Carnegie.

“Apart from very strong language, the president hasn’t put forward any plans.  And by grouping [Iraq, Iran and North Korea] all together, the president has suggested somehow that the solutions to all of the three are the same, and they’re clearly not.”

The most promising approach is diplomatic for North Korea and Iran, said Feinstein, a former senior official on the State Department’s policy planning staff during the Clinton administration.

“In the case of Iraq, it’s much more complicated.  There’s probably no solution until there is a different government,” he said.

Back to top

Iraq:  Blair Supports U.S. Stance on Iraq, But No Decisions Made

British Prime Minister Tony Blair provided support yesterday for the U.S. insistence that Iraq poses a major threat, but also said that no decision on action against Iraq has been made (see GSN, Feb. 26).

“Let us be under no doubt whatever, [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein has acquired weapons of mass destruction over a long period of time.  He’s the only leader in the world that’s actually used chemical weapons against his own people.  He is in breach of at least nine U.N. Security Council resolutions about weapons of mass destruction.  He has not allowed weapons inspectors to do the job that the U.N. wanted them to do in order to make sure that he can’t develop them,” Blair said during a joint press conference with U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney.

“No decisions have been made on how we deal with this threat,” Blair added.  “What is important, obviously, is that we reflect and consider and deliberate” (Michael Gordon, New York Times, March 12).

Cheney, who is on a tour of 12 countries to discuss the war on terrorism and the WMD threats, also said no decisions have been made concerning Iraq.  “In these matters, America is not announcing decisions.  I will be there to conduct frank discussions and to solicit the views of important friends and allies,” he said at the press conference with Blair (State Department release, March 11).

The Inspections Issue

Most European countries have said the international community should deal with Iraqi WMD programs by pushing for the return of U.N. inspectors.  Some sort of clash regarding inspectors appears inevitable, however, since Iraq last week refused to allow inspectors to return after meetings with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, according to the Washington Post (see GSN, March 11).

Cheney yesterday insisted that inspections must be thorough to be acceptable.  “If the issue of inspectors is to be addressed, we feel very strongly as a government that it needs to be the kind of inspection regime that has no limitations to it,” he said.  “That is, a go-anywhere-anytime kind of regime, so that, in fact, the outside world can have confidence that he’s not hiding material that he’s promised to give up” (Alan Sipress, Washington Post, March 12).

Terrorists Must Not Obtain WMD

In addition to evidence that Iraq has acquired weapons of mass destruction, evidence emerging from Afghanistan also proves that al-Qaeda was attempting to obtain such weapons, Cheney said (see GSN, Feb. 26).

“We have to be concerned about the potential marriage, if you will, between the terrorist organization like al-Qaeda and those who hold or are proliferating knowledge about weapons of mass destruction,” he said (State Department release).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia I:  Reversible Warheads Could Cause Arms Race, Ivanov Says

The Bush administration proposal to store nuclear warheads could start a new kind of arms race, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told the New York Times yesterday.

The precedent set by the plan — to indefinitely store some warheads that U.S. President George W. Bush has proposed to reduce from deployed status — could force other countries to develop advanced methods for redeploying their own weapons, Ivanov said en route to Washington for scheduled talks (see GSN, March 11).  He questioned the validity of Bush’s proposed reductions (see GSN, Jan. 9).

“Can such a reduction be considered a real one?  Make your own judgment,” Ivanov said.  “If, at a certain point, the United States considers the situation to be taking an ‘unfavorable turn,’ then within several weeks, months or years the number of operationally deployed warheads may be restored to the desired level.”

Ivanov said the Bush administration proposal is unacceptable, adding that irreversible reductions are the core of Russian policy (Michael Wines, New York Times, March 12).

Back to top

U.S.-Russia II:  Russian Nuclear Official’s Income Raises Concern

A former Russian official may have skimmed $4 million in U.S. nonproliferation aid and helped a U.S. company profit unfairly from business with the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry, the Los Angeles Times reported today.

In one scandal, former Russian Atomic Energy Minister Yevgeny Adamov was in a position to benefit from both sides of business deals between U.S. Enrichment Corp (USEC), a U.S. firm that purchased uranium removed from nuclear warheads, and Tenex, a Russian, state-owned company that sold the uranium.

As head of the Atomic Energy Ministry from 1998 to early 2001, Adamov oversaw Tenex.  He was also a consultant and former partner in a firm called Omeka, of which USEC was a client.

In second scandal, a 2000 Russian parliamentary report indicates that Adamov may have funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into his own pockets from U.S. Energy Department nuclear nonproliferation funds through a company that he owned, called Energo Pool.

USEC Hires Omeka

USEC hired Omeka in early 2000 to assess potential business opportunities with Tenex.  The contract specifically stated that only Omeka General Manager Mark Kaushansky, a nuclear engineer and Russian immigrant based in Pittsburgh, would provide services for USEC.  Officials in the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry recommended Kaushansky, said Philip Sewell, a USEC senior vice president.

USEC said they did not know, however, that Kaushansky had cofounded Omeka in 1994 with Adamov.  Russia and USEC were negotiating new prices for the uranium at the time, and Adamov was in a position to influence the negotiations, according to the Los Angeles Times (see GSN, Feb. 27).

Kaushansky’s work for USEC was not related to the price negotiations, USEC officials said.  Adamov quit any operational role with Omeka when he became Atomic Energy minister, Kaushansky said, adding that Adamov probably was unaware that Omeka had a contract with USEC.

Adamov did remain a part owner, however.  “Yes, he had an equity stake in the company … He is one of the owners,” Kaushansky said, adding that he did not think Adamov received revenue from Omeka while he was head of the Atomic Energy Ministry, according to the Los Angeles Times (Willman/Miller, Los Angeles Times, March 12).

The Chicago Tribune, however, reported that Kaushansky said Adamov left Omeka in 1997 but remained an active consultant.  Adamov denied allegations he used his roles in Omeka and the Russian government for his own purposes.

“In 1997, a long time before my appointment to the position of minister [in 1998], I quit the executive position in this company and continued to consult the firm on various projects in Russia until my appointment,” Adamov said (Stephen Hedges, Chicago Tribune I, March 12).

Adamov Resigns

The USEC-Omeka contract ended about the same time Adamov resigned from the Russian ministry in March 2001, the Times reported.

Adamov resigned shortly after the Russian Duma issued a report alleging he had used public funds for his own use.  The report brought Adamov’s ownership in Omeka to the USEC’s attention.  In response, USEC conducted an internal audit on its contract with Omeka, but found nothing wrong, the company said.

“There’s nothing on its face, or there’s nothing behind the face, that warrants looking at it askance in terms of whether monies were paid for favors or for work that wasn’t performed,” said Charles Yulish, a USEC vice president (Willman/Miller, Los Angeles Times).

USEC hired Kaushansky “because of his knowledge of Eastern Europe and his experience with Westinghouse as a project manager,” Yulish said.  “We got very full value for services,” he said, adding that the audit found no evidence to indicate Kaushansky bribed any government officials or did anything else improper.

Looking Askance

Although USEC’s audit did not find any wrongdoing, some U.S. analysts have expressed concern that Adamov’s position presented a conflict of interest.

“I assume it would be a conflict of interest from the standpoint of the Russian government, because somebody who is supposed to be working for them is, at the same time, working for one of their business partners,” said Gary Samore, a former National Security Council official during the Clinton presidency.

“From the U.S. government’s point of view, I’m not sure that I see any particular conflict,” he added (Hedges, Chicago Tribune I).

“I find it inconceivable that the United States government would sign a consulting contract with a firm owned by the [Russian] minister of atomic energy,” said Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution.  “Most private sector entities would not undertake such a transaction” (Willman/Miller, Los Angeles Times).

“It’s very troubling, and the conflicts of interest are just myriad,” said a senior U.S. Energy official.  “What a sweet deal for Adamov, to sit there and know that he’s got people on both sides of the deal.”

U.S. Aid

Meanwhile, a Duma committee report, completed in 2000, says Adamov funneled $4 million from U.S. aid to help improve safety at Russian nuclear power reactors into two bank accounts held by Energo Pool, a U.S. company Adamov formed in 1993.

The Argonne and Pacific Northwest U.S. national laboratories and the Westinghouse Electric Co. wired the money into the Energo Pool accounts in 1994, according to the Chicago Tribune.

U.S. Energy officials wired the money after confirming that work contracted to Russia to improve safety at Russian reactors had been completed, Argonne and Pacific Northwest laboratory officials said.  No one checked to ensure the money ever went to Russia, the officials said.

Adamov and other Russian officials received up to $100,000 out of one Energo Pool account, and Adamov paid himself $30,000 annually as an Energo Pool director, the Duma report says.

Adamov denies the fraud allegations.

U.S. Officials Express Concern

Argonne official Jeffrey Binder said the Energy Department has not found it necessary to check whether funds end up in Russia.

“I don’t see any reason why the DOE system would ever have a need to do that,” he said.  “This would be a contract on a technical basis.  Once they proved the work [was done], the Russians would just indicate the bank account.”

Other officials disagreed.  “For any good program manager, there would really be raised red flags,” said a U.S. Energy official.

U.S. Energy officials should have been concerned, because there were complaints already from Russian scientists that government officials were pocketing money, said Rose Gottemoeller, former Energy deputy undersecretary.

“I would have been concerned certainly if we heard from an institute director like Adamov saying, ‘Oh, trust me, I’m going to make sure that my scientists will get this,’” she said.  “We had lots of reasons to believe that scientists weren’t getting the money” (Stephen Hedges, Chicago Tribune II, March 12).

Back to top

United States:  China and Russia Demand Explanation on Nuclear Policy

China and Russia demanded more explanations from the United States after U.S. media leaked a classified U.S. report saying the United States should consider potential threats posed by China, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Syria when planning its nuclear force structure (see GSN, March 11).

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, who was on his way yesterday to the United States for a previously scheduled visit, said he would ask U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to explain the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review’s mention of Russia. 

“China, like other countries, is deeply shocked,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi.  “The U.S. bears the responsibility to make an explanation on this matter.”

The United States and China have agreed not to target each other with nuclear weapons, and China’s nuclear arsenal does not threaten any country, Sun said (Burt Herman, Associated Press/Philadelphia Inquirer, March 12).

“We are now waiting for the U.S. side to offer up further more formal and clear explanations,” Sun said (Associated Press, March 12).

Back to top

CTBT:  Test Ban High on Agenda for Musharraf’s Visit to Tokyo

Japanese officials consider nuclear nonproliferation and a ban on nuclear weapons testing key issues to discuss when Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf visits Tokyo beginning today, Japanese diplomatic sources said. 

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and “nuclear nonproliferation have been the key issues, and the matter will come under discussion during the visit,” said a Japanese consular official in Karachi.  Japan has repeatedly asked Pakistan to sign the treaty.

Reducing tensions between Pakistan and India, which both have nuclear weapons, is also on the agenda, sources said (see GSN, Feb. 25).

Economic assistance will probably be another issue for discussion.  Pakistan asked Japan for economic assistance to help the country deal with consequences of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan’s assistance in the war on terrorism (see GSN, Oct. 31, 2001).

Japan lifted economic sanctions against Pakistan in October, after it had imposed them in 1998 when Pakistan conducted nuclear tests (see GSN, Oct. 26).

Japanese and Pakistani officials might also discuss rescheduling payment of Pakistani debt to Japan, as Japan indicated it would roll over $550 million of debt.

Japan has refused to grant Pakistani requests for loan waivers.  “There is no possibility of wholly or partly waiving loans to Pakistan, but talks on economic assistance to Pakistan will be made,” the consular official said (Agence France-Presse, March 11).

Back to top

Threat Assessment:  Chemical Plant Attack Could Hurt 2.4 Million

A terrorist attack on a toxic chemical plant in a densely populated area could result in up to 2.4 million casualties, according to an October study by the U.S. Army surgeon general (see GSN, March 8).  The number, previously not publicly disclosed, is twice as high as earlier estimates, the Washington Post reported today.

The Army report places even mid-range casualty figures at more than 900,000 people.

The data is more illustrative rather than an exact casualty projection, Army surgeon general spokeswoman Lyn Kukral said.  The United States used the numbers last fall to plan contingency medical responses, however, officials said.

The Environmental Protection Agency last year reported that at least 123 U.S. chemical plants contain enough chemicals that they could each result in 1 million casualties (see GSN, Dec. 17, 2001).

NRDC Files Lawsuit

Meanwhile, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit in federal court yesterday saying the Justice Department did not submit a required report to Congress on chemical plants’ security against terrorism.  The department missed a 2000 deadline for filing an interim report, required by an amendment to the Clean Air Act, and Bush administration officials have said they will miss an August deadline for a final report because of lack of funds.

“Chemical plants are an incredibly urgent priority for homeland security, but they are being ignored at the highest levels of government,” said NRDC attorney Rena Steinzor.

Chemical Plants Safe, Industry Says

The chemical industry is “one of the safest manufacturing sectors in America,” said Chris VandenHeuvel, spokesman for the American Chemistry Council.  The industry is doing “everything feasible to make the facilities as safe and secure as possible,” he said.

The council issued guidelines last fall on ways to improve physical security at plants and protect transportation systems.  The council recently required its members to complete security studies and make necessary changes (Eric Pianin, Washington Post, March 12).

Back to top

United States:  Man Stashes Cyanide in Chicago Subway

U.S. Federal authorities charged a man in Chicago yesterday with possessing a chemical weapon after authorities discovered he had hidden more than a pound of powered cyanide in the Chicago subway, but the FBI said the incident was not linked to terrorism.

“This is not a terrorist plot,” said FBI spokesman Ross Rice.  “I don’t think it’s a big deal” (CNN, March 12).

Joseph Daniel Konopka was charged yesterday after University of Illinois at Chicago police arrested him and a 15-year-old boy Saturday in a utility tunnel on the university’s campus.  Police discovered Konopka was carrying a cyanide capsule, and the 15-year-old told them more chemicals were hidden in Chicago’s subway system. 

Chicago police then closed the subway for three hours Saturday night, publicly saying they were searching for a homeless man’s possessions.  FBI and police officers searched the tunnels and discovered several boxes containing chemicals, including more than one pound of cyanide agents, hidden in an underground passageway.

The chemicals included one pound of sodium cyanide and about a quarter-pound of potassium cyanide.  “That’s a significant amount,” said John Arnold, a chemistry professor at the University of California at Berkeley.  If Konopka had mixed those chemicals with other readily available chemicals, he could have formed a lethal hydrogen cyanide gas, the Chicago Tribune reported. 

Konopka had keys to several areas in the Chicago subway system, sketches of electrical connections in the subway stations and a stolen laptop computer he used to access networks illegally.

Officials Play Down Danger

Officials said there was no cause for panic.  Public transportation officials “walked every inch of the rapid transit lines in the subway and have not found anything that was unusual other than what the FBI confiscated the other night,” said Chicago Police Superintendent Terry Hillard (Walberg/Ferkenhoff, Chicago Tribune, March 12).

“At no time was the safety of any citizen in this city compromised, none whatsoever,” Hillard said (CNN).

“It’s a situation we take seriously, but we don’t want to blow it out of proportion,” said U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald (Walberg/Ferkenhoff, Chicago Tribune).

“Cyanide is a dangerous chemical.  That’s why it is a crime to possess it without a peaceful purpose,” Fitzgerald said (see GSN, Feb. 27).

If Konopka is convicted, he could face a prison term and up to $250,000 in fines, according to the FBI (CNN).

“Dr. Chaos”

Konopka referred to himself as “Dr. Chaos” and said he led a group of people in Wisconsin called the “Realm of Chaos.”  Konopka said he had damaged power substations and communications facilities, according to the Chicago Tribune.  Several warrants for his arrest were out for alleged attacks in Wisconsin on a television station transmitter, electric power substations and natural gas pipelines as well as for blowing up a warning device outside a nuclear power plant, although many of the attacks fizzled, the Tribune reported (Walberg/Ferkenhoff, Chicago Tribune).

Back to top

Threat Assessment I:  Cruise Missiles Getting Attention, CIA Official Says

By Greg Seigle
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The next National Intelligence Estimate on missile proliferation is expected to include more information about threats posed by cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, a top CIA official told a Senate subcommittee yesterday.  Senators expressed concern that both types of vehicles could deliver weapons of mass destruction.

While the relatively recent proliferation of cruise missiles and UAVs has been assessed in studies other than the regular, much-publicized NIE reports on ballistic missile proliferation, the intelligence community plans to connect all of the studies, said Robert Walpole, the CIA’s national intelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs.

“There are actually two estimates at play, and we are looking at a way to either merge them or link them better,” Walpole told the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services.

“The national intelligence officer for conventional military issues, Gen. John Landry, does the cruise missile estimate, and he would look at that,” Walpole said.  “I think next year’s ballistic-missile NIE will even have more of that in it.”

The next NIE report might be as soon as this fall or early in 2003, Walpole told Global Security Newswire.

The most recent NIE report released in January briefly mentions cruise missiles, calling them a “better alternative than ballistic missiles” if launched from forward areas (see GSN, Jan. 10).  Between “one and two dozen” countries of concern “probably will” possess cruise missiles by 2015, according to the NIE.

While cruise missiles developed by these countries are only expected to have a range of a few hundred kilometers, they could conceivably be launched at the United States from aircraft or ships, Walpole testified.  The benefit of cruise missiles is that they could evade U.S. missile defenses, he added.

When asked yesterday if the intelligence community has seen an increase in cruise missiles, Walpole responded, “It’s fair to say that we have.”

Iraqi UAVs Under Scrutiny

In addition to cruise missiles, the next NIE will probably also include estimates about UAVs, particularly those under development in Iraq, Walpole testified.

According to testimony before the subcommittee earlier this month, Iraq is continuing to work on converting L-29 jet trainer aircraft to UAVs.  Investigators suspect that old F-4 Phantoms are also undergoing such conversions, and analysts believe the refurbished aircraft are modified to spray chemical or biological weapons.

While the “non-missile means of delivering weapons of mass destruction” cited by Walpole usually refers to terrorists who might smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States or elsewhere, it also includes UAVs, he said.

“Non-missile delivery means are less costly, easier to acquire, more reliable and accurate.  They can also be used without attribution,” Walpole testified, referring to the U.S. ability to detect where ballistic missiles are launched, while tracing the origin of UAVs and other delivery means is much more difficult.

Ballistic missiles, he said, “provide a level of prestige, … diplomacy and deterrence that non-missile means do not.  In short, the intelligence community must work both threats.  We do not have the luxury of choosing to work one at the exclusion of the other.  Neither is a no-likelihood situation.”

Subcommittee Chairman Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) said he found recent UAV developments across the world “chilling” and a cause for closer examination.

“I am concerned about the growing interest of rogue nations and terrorist groups in unmanned aerial vehicles,” Akaka said.

“We all fear the spread of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction,” he added.  “But our policy cannot be one of constructing moats against imagined threats.  We must have a policy that counters real threats in an effective and cost-efficient manner.”

Long-Range Cruise Missiles Unlikely

While cruise missiles have relatively short ranges that make it difficult to direct them at the United States, enemies could fire them from ships or aircraft, Walpole testified.  Cruise missiles could also be used against U.S. interests abroad, including military targets, analysts have said in recent months.

The only time cruise missiles were used against a U.S. target, in the Persian Gulf at the height of the so-called ‘Tanker War’ in 1987, two French-made Exocet cruise missiles fired from Iraqi aircraft crippled the USS Stark, killing 37 sailors.  Even though U.S. Navy ships have defenses against cruise missiles — ships that detect an incoming cruise missile are supposed to fire chaff, a cluster of metal pieces designed to draw a cruise missile away from a ship — the defenses were not released in time to spare the Stark.

If a country or terrorist group wants to fire cruise missiles tipped with WMD warheads at the United States, it would need to get within a few hundred kilometers of the country, risking detection and retaliation, Walpole said.

“In order to reach the United States [from their territories], Iran and Iraq would need 10,000-kilometer range — 9,000, 10,000 kilometers.  That’s a pretty hefty cruise missile.  And a ballistic missile is going to be easier for that,” he said.

“No one’s really deployed a 10,000-kilometer-range cruise missile before.  It’s doable.  The United States could certainly create something like that if it wanted,” Walpole said.  “That’s why you’re going to see continued interest in ballistic missiles.  That said, cruise missiles, particularly giving yourself several-hundred-kilometer range, is an alternative that countries are looking at.”

Back to top

Threat Assessment II:  Missile Threat to U.S. Has Decreased, Analyst Says

The ballistic missile threat the United States faces today is much lower than it faced during the Cold War, contrary to conventional wisdom in Washington, Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace wrote in Sunday’s Washington Post (see GSN, Feb. 19).

“Today there are fewer ballistic missiles in the world than 15 years ago, fewer nations trying to develop them and only four potentially hostile nations trying to develop long-range versions,” Cirincione wrote.  “The ballistic missile threat today is confined, limited and changing relatively slowly.”

Only 35 countries currently possess ballistic missiles, he wrote.  Bahrain is the only new country with ballistic missiles after a purchase of U.S. short-range missiles.  Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic destroyed their small arsenals over the last year. 

Few of the remaining countries have missiles that can strike farther than 600 miles — and certainly not across oceans to the United States, according to Cirincione.  Three countries have missiles with a 600-mile range, and 21 have missiles with only a 200-mile range.

Eight countries have only medium-range missiles with 600- to 1,800-mile ranges, Cirincione wrote.  Only China and Russia have the capability to attack the United States with long-range missiles.  Arms control agreements have diminished the number of missiles capable of hitting the United States by 57 percent.  Russia’s missile arsenal is likely to shrink further, and China’s arsenal is unlikely to grow beyond 40 long-range missiles.

Fewer Countries Trying to Obtain Missiles

Only North Korea and Iran have started missile programs in the last 15 years, Cirincione wrote.  Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan gave up the missiles they inherited from the former Soviet Union (see GSN, Feb. 22).  Brazil, Argentina, Egypt and South Africa ended missile programs.  Libya’s program is “defunct,” and U.N. sanctions have mostly halted Iraq’s program, he wrote (see GSN, Feb. 28).

Increase in Medium-Range Missiles

“The most significant proliferation threat today comes from the slow but steady increase in the number of states testing medium-range ballistic missiles,” Cirincione wrote.  China, India, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea and Saudi Arabia have medium-range missiles, but only China is a “potentially hostile nation” with missiles and nuclear warheads capable of hitting the United States.

North Korea might develop such a weapon within the next 10 years, but it lacks such capability now (see GSN, Feb. 7).  Neither Iraq nor Iran is likely to have nuclear warheads and long-range missiles within the next 10 to 15 years, Cirincione wrote (see GSN, Feb. 8).

Focus on the Real Threats

Even if countries were to develop the ability to attack the United States with weapons of mass destruction carried on missiles, U.S. retaliatory capability is likely to deter any attack, and countries such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea could never cause the damage with one or two weapons that was feared by the thousands of warheads during the Cold War.  “Even our worst-case scenarios aren’t as bad they once were,” Cirincione wrote.

“Sept. 11 showed us real danger.  And it had nothing to do with missiles,” he wrote.  Missile defenses might have a place in U.S. strategy, but developing such defenses should not dominate U.S. policy, he wrote (Joseph Cirincione, Washington Post, March 10).

Back to top