U.S. Response:  Police Arrest Three Men Near Connecticut Reservoir

Three men were arrested last night after suspicious activity was discovered near a water reservoir in Easton, Connecticut, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, March 26).

The three men, reportedly of Middle-Eastern descent, were discovered on a water supply tank at the reservoir filming the area near a dam and water filtration plant, according to Easton Police Chief John Solomon.  The water tank was shut down and investigators found nothing wrong with the water supply, Solomon said.  Authorities have charged the three men with criminal trespassing, according to AP (Associated Press/Hartford Courant, May 17).

Back to top

Iran:  Armenia and China Respond to U.S. Sanctions

Armenia has said it is investigating U.S. allegations that two Armenian entities transferred WMD-related technology to Iran, while China has dismissed similar allegations against eight Chinese entities, according to recent reports (see GSN, May 16).

Armenia might need to reduce cooperation with Iran to maintain good relations with the United States after the Bush administration imposed sanctions, RFE/RL reported yesterday.

The United States did not detail publicly the activities that the companies allegedly conducted to incur sanctions, but Armenian facilities were once part of the Soviet Union’s high technology defense industry and produced electronic components for missile guidance systems, according to RFE/RL.

The United States imposed sanctions on particular entities and not on the Armenian government, and State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Armenian officials have been “very helpful” in preventing Iran from developing weapons of mass destruction.

Armenia has now begun “an active dialogue” with the United States to “find solutions to the resulting problems,” the Armenian Foreign Ministry said, although it did not deny the U.S. allegations.  If the U.S. charges prove true, Armenian authorities “should figure out why that happened,” Armenian President Robert Kocharian said.

Some analysts, however, questioned whether the Armenian government lacked knowledge about the transfers to Iran.  Most of the Armenian factories involved in producing military-related electronic products are partly or fully owned by the Armenian state.

“There is no way any Armenian company engaged in dangerous deals with Iran, and our authorities were unaware of that.  I rule that out,” former Armenian Foreign Minister Alexander Arzumanian said.

Repairing Relations

Armenia will have to tighten export controls and approach cooperation with Iran with greater caution, some analysts said.  Good relations with the United States are important to Armenian foreign policy and because the country receives a large amount of aid from the United States, RFE/RL reported.

“The Americans were never happy with our cooperation with Iran,” an Armenian official said.  “But until recently, they were quite cautious in voicing their objections.  They are now following Armenian-Iranian contacts more closely and have already narrowed our freedom of action on that front.”

“The atmosphere of mutual trust has been undermined, and that could lead to a revision of some aspects of those relations,” Arzumanian said (Emil Danielyan, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, May 16).

Chinese Reaction

Meanwhile, China opposed the U.S. sanctions imposed against eight Chinese entities.  “China expresses its opposition and dissatisfaction with the United States’ unreasonable sanctions,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry said.

China “consistently advocates” destroying all weapons of mass destruction and opposes WMD proliferation, the Foreign Ministry said.  “China has strictly carried out its international commitments, drawn up a series of relevant laws and regulations and strictly controlled exports of relevant materials” (Reuters/New York Times, May 17).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  House Committee Passes Emergency Appropriations

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The House Appropriations Committee Wednesday passed a fiscal 2002 emergency supplemental bill that includes funding for U.S. chemical demilitarization efforts, nuclear weapons security and anti-terrorism measures (see GSN, May 8).

The $30 billion supplemental bill, passed out of committee by a voice vote, would provide $1.5 billion more than the Bush administration’s request.  According to the bill, the Defense Department would receive $16 billion, which includes additional funds — $1.8 billion more than requested — primarily to cover the costs of the war on terrorism.  In addition, $100 million of those funds would go toward speeding up destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile (see GSN, May 16).

The legislation also would provide $5.8 billion for homeland security efforts, a $522 million increase over the White House’s request.  Those funds include $4 billion for the Transportation Security Administration — $400 million less than requested — with $75 million for grants to enhance U.S. commercial port security (see GSN, May 13).

The homeland security funds also include $378 million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Energy Department — $352 million more than the administration’s request.  The funds for these two agencies include $29 million for additional security at Energy Science laboratories, $18 million to improve security for the transportation of nuclear weapons and materials, $88 million for increased security at Energy nuclear weapons sites and $83 million to improve security at Energy environmental cleanup operations (see GSN, May 2).

The Justice Department would get $194 million for homeland security operations, a $143 million increase over the administration’s request (see GSN, April 18).  The funds include $112 million for FBI counterterrorism activities.

The committee also adopted two amendments to the bill offered by Chairman Bill Young (R-Fla.).  One of Young’s amendments would move $175 million in grants for first responders from the Homeland Security Office to the Justice Department’s Domestic Preparedness office (see GSN, April 24). 

The second amendment would make $100 million available to other countries to help reimburse costs incurred by assisting U.S. military operations against terrorism. 

The fiscal 2002 emergency supplemental bill is expected to go before the full House of Representatives by the end of next week, a spokesman for Young said.

Back to top

United States:  Cut Arsenal to Reduce Chance of Accidental Attack, Nobel Laureate Says

By Kerry Boyd
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — To prevent the threat of an accidental nuclear attack, the United States should cut its nuclear arsenal further than the reductions in the new U.S.-Russian agreement, said Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg yesterday (see GSN, May 16).

The United States plans to reduce its operationally deployed nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 within a decade, although it will keep about 7,000 warheads in reserve, said Weinberg, a professor at the University of Texas, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“This number, even after this reduction, would be still vastly more than could be used in retaliation for any other country’s use of weapons of mass destruction,” he said.

The U.S. plan “isn’t liquidating the legacy of the Cold War but desperately hanging on to it,” he said.

During the Cold War, there was some logic behind maintaining a large nuclear arsenal to deter the Soviet Union from striking the United States because a sufficient amount of the U.S. arsenal would survive to retaliate with massive force, Weinberg said.  “That rationale is now obsolete.”

Another possible reason for maintaining many weapons could be to launch a preemptive attack against Russia’s arsenal, Weinberg said.  In response to such a perceived threat, Russia would likely keep its nuclear forces on “hair-trigger alert, posing the danger to the United States of a massive Russian attack by mistake,” he said, adding that U.S. plans to develop a national missile defense system would increase the likelihood of a mistake (see GSN, Feb. 22).

The risk of a Russian accidental attack is not “acute,” but it is “chronic” — a constant threat, Weinberg said.  “It’s also the only threat we face that could destroy our country beyond our ability to recover,” he said.

Rather than trying to provide flexibility for the future, the United States should use its large nuclear arsenal to trade for cuts in Russian forces, Weinberg said, suggesting both countries cut their arsenals “to not more than 1,000 nuclear weapons of all sorts, including those in various reserves” and that those cuts be irreversible and transparent.

Such cuts would not eliminate the threat of an accidental Russian nuclear attack but would limit the consequences of such an attack to “millions or tens of millions of lives rather than hundreds of millions of lives,” according to Weinberg. 

Reducing the number of Russian nuclear weapons would also decrease the risk terrorists could acquire the weapons or nuclear materials, he added (see GSN, May 8).

Weinberg emphasized that any cuts must be reciprocal between the United States and Russia.  If a hostile Russian regime came to power, it would be better if both sides had a few hundred nuclear weapons rather than a few thousand, he said.

Responding to Actual Threats

Weinberg acknowledged that decision makers cannot predict all future threats, and someday the United States might need 6,000 operationally deployed weapons.  “The fact is, we never know,” he said.

Rather than focusing on unknown future threats, the United States should respond to actual threats.

“I can’t conceive any threat that would require the kind of forces that we will have at the end of the 10-year period that’s called for in the treaty,” Weinberg told the committee.

“On the other hand, I can conceive of lots of threats which will be exacerbated by the large size of that force,” including accidental launch, terrorist WMD acquisition, setting a bad example for other countries and perhaps starting nuclear programs in other states, he said.  “And I could just as well say to you, how do you know that this won’t happen?”

Back to top

U.S.-Russia:  Communist Chief Says Arms Control Treaty Betrays Country

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to sign a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with the United States is tantamount to treason, Russia’s Communist Party chief said yesterday (see GSN, May 16).

“A large-scale national treason is being prepared in the Kremlin,” Gennady Zyuganov said.  “President Putin is effectively preparing to destroy the strategic forces created by the labor of two generations of our fellow countrymen.”

Russia and the United States said Monday that Putin and U.S. President George W. Bush plan to sign a treaty next week to cut each country’s nuclear arsenal to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads from the current levels of 6,000.  The United States has agreed to Russia’s request to sign a formal treaty but has refused Russia’s proposal to destroy all decommissioned warheads (see GSN, May 14).

Russian officials have said the recent developments fit into Russian national interests.  Zyuganov, however, said the United States and other Western countries intend to subjugate Russia.

“The destruction of our strategic forces is part of a program of destruction and enslaving Russia,” he said, adding that the planned U.S. missile defense system could negate Russia’s deterrence capability because it might be able to shoot down a smaller number of Russian missiles.

Zyuganov said he will initiate a no-confidence vote in the government later this month, but the move is sure to fail, according to the Associated Press.  Putin’s approval rating is around 70 percent.  The Communist Party’s influence has declined, and it lacks enough seats in the Duma to approve such a measure, the AP reported (Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press/Yahoo.com, May 16).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Experts Disagree Over Who Should Make Anti-Weapon Vaccines

Pharmaceutical companies and other experts disagree over whether the United States should operate a federal plant to produce vaccines against biological weapons agents, Technology Review reported this month (see GSN, Nov. 8, 2001).

The National Academy of Sciences has said that the private sector has few incentives to produce such vaccines, according to the Review.

“The anthrax terrorism event clearly exposed the weaknesses we have in the research, development and production of vaccines that are important for fighting terrorism,” said Kenneth Shine, president of the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine.

The Institute of Medicine first developed the idea of creating a National Vaccine Authority 10 years ago, and the plan was supported by two additional advisory panels that examined counterterrorism measures and the military’s ability to produce vaccines, according to the Review.

According to recommendations, the authority would operate a U.S.-owned vaccine production plant and oversee new vaccine research that might have little commercial viability, Shine said.  For example, researchers could examine new ways to combine vaccines into a single product.

“It’s not about replacing the private sector,” Shine said.  “It’s based on the notion that there is a spectrum of vaccine needs that cannot and will not be met by the private sector.”

The authority would not be a large bureaucracy, but a government-industry partnership similar to a World War II-era program to produce penicillin for allied soldiers, Shine said.  The authority could be run as a joint effort between the Defense and Health and Human Services departments, he added.

Retired U.S. Army Maj.-Gen, Phillip Russell, a vaccine expert recently recruited by the Bush administration, however, has said a government vaccine program should be independently operated.

“What it really needs is a NASA-like organization that is independent and meets the needs of both agencies and is not encumbered by either bureaucracy, but can just accomplish its mission,” Russell said.

The pharmaceutical companies that produce vaccines oppose the idea of a National Vaccine Authority, according to the Review.  Merck Vaccines President Adel Mahmoud said the authority plan is too large to succeed.  Many people do not understand how difficult it is to produce vaccines, he said.

It was not the fact that vaccines are unprofitable, but a general complacency about infectious diseases that led to vaccine shortages, said Michael Friedman of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufactures of America, an industry-lobbying group.  Since the Sept. 11 and anthrax attacks, however, the situation has now changed, he added.

“Now that we are facing a real bioterrorist threat ... public and private resources will be mobilized,” said Friedman, a former Food and Drug Administration commissioner.

Instead of building a vaccine plant, the government should invest funds in infectious diseases research and encourage academic researchers to work with the pharmaceutical industry, said William Haseltine, chief executive officer of Human Genome Sciences (see GSN, May 2).

“You don’t ask DOD to build fighter planes; why should it make vaccines?” Haseltine said.  “We need to rebuild and provide funding; the new scientists will come.”

Industry Support

Other pharmaceutical industry executives, however, support the idea of the government becoming involved in vaccine production, the Review reported.

“I am one of the rare people in industry who thinks it would be a good idea” for the government to build a vaccine production plant, said Thomas Monath, vice president of research at the pharmaceutical company Acambis.

It would be better for the government to have complete control of a vaccine production plant and have it overseen by outside experts, rather than attempt to partner with smaller private firms, which could lead to added delays and costs, said Franklin Top, executive vice president at the biotechnology firm MedImmune.

“Once the big contracts are in place, you’re stuck with them,” Top said.  “These behemoths have a life of their own” (Technology Review, May 2002).

Back to top

Canada:  U.S. Soldiers Begin CW Training Exercise

Members of the U.S. Marines Chemical and Biological Incident Response Force took part in a series of biological and chemical weapons training exercises this week at the CFB Suffield Canadian military base, the Calgary Herald reported yesterday (see GSN, April 10).

More than 70 U.S. Marines took part in a mailroom training mission where a postal worker opened a contaminated package, which “injured” several other workers with the substance inside, according to the Herald.  The U.S. soldiers’ mission was to identify the threat and rescue the injured workers.  At the same time, a bomb squad practiced defusing a bomb containing biological weapons agents located behind a wheel of a truck in the mock post office’s parking lot, the Herald reported. 

The U.S. troops are scheduled to take part in several other training missions while at Suffield, according to the Herald.  The missions will include a mock subway attack, a terrorist chemical laboratory and a rescue effort of “victims” trapped under rubble (Canadian Press/Calgary Herald, May 16).

The Suffield base is a major Canadian military research facility and works to develop defenses for chemical and biological weapons, according to a Canadian National Defense Department spokesman.  The base is the only approved site in Canada for military training using live chemical and biological weapons agents (Canadian National Defense Department release, May 2002).

Canada is allowed to maintain small amounts of biological and chemical weapons agents for developing defenses and for training purposes, even though Canada is a member of Biological Weapons Convention and Chemical Weapons Convention, National Defense Department spokesman Capt. Tom St. Dennis said (Mike Nartker, GSN, May 17). 

There are four stages of chemical and biological weapons training at Suffield, according to a Canadian National Defense Department release.  Soldiers first are briefed on the properties and dangers of chemical and biological weapons agents, including detection, decontamination and medical treatments.  They then learn handling and detection methods at the base’s containment laboratories, according to the release.  This stage not only instructs soldiers on how to gather agent samples for later testing, but also to build confidence in handling agents, the release said.

The third and fourth stages of the training involve live agent exercises.  The third stage is an introductory exercise where soldiers test detecting chemical weapons and decontamination measures, according to the release.  The fourth stage involves training exercises conducted in a number of scenarios, where soldiers and first responders test casualty control, medical treatments and crowd control (Canadian National Defense Department release).

Back to top

Mexico:  Police Discover Truck Missing Tons of Sodium Cyanide

In the south central Mexican state of Puebla yesterday, police found a stolen truck that had held 10 tons of potentially lethal sodium cyanide but was now missing most of it.  Only one-half ton of the chemical remained in the truck.  Law enforcement officials were searching for the rest.

Police have not arrested anyone for stealing the truck, but witnesses said three armed men stole the vehicle May 10, said Frederico Perez, director of police in Hidalgo state near Puebla.

Sodium cyanide is used in gold and silver mining but is also lethal if inhaled or ingested (Associated Press/Los Angeles Times, May 17).

Back to top

Iran-Russia:  Russia Is Not Providing WMD Technology, Official Says

Contrary to U.S. concerns, Russia is not helping Iran develop nuclear weapons, a Russian official said, calling on the United States to provide concrete evidence that Russia is exporting sensitive technologies to Iran (see GSN, May 16).

“We have adopted comprehensive measures to exclude the merest possibility of missile technology transfers,” said Nikolai Shumkov, head of military missile technology at the Russian Space Agency.  U.S. officials “said they were satisfied with these measures.  Then suddenly we get a new flurry of complaints from them, and we don’t know why,” he said.

Russia, which is helping build a civilian nuclear plant in Iran, has said all trade with the country is in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.  A Bush administration official, however, said this week that the United States has “solid reason” to believe Russia is helping Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.

The Bush administration has said it will discuss Russian assistance to Iran during next week’s summit between Russian and U.S. Presidents Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush, at which the presidents are expected to sign a new arms reduction treaty (see GSN, May 14).

A U.S.-Russian team established five years ago to address the issue of Iran recommended tightening Russian export controls, which Russia did and calmed U.S. fears, Shumkov said (see GSN, May 7).  Then the White House began expressing concern again in recent months, even though Bush administration officials have acknowledged that Russia is not leaking nuclear information, he said.

A U.S. diplomat said last week that Russian entities might be exporting sensitive technologies to Iran without the knowledge of the upper levels of Russian government.

“There may be some willful criminality down the chain of command within the Ministry of Atomic Energy and some of the institutes and enterprises under its aegis,” he said.  “Maybe some people are doing this without sanction from above.  But we do think they are taking inordinate risks” (Guy Chazan, Wall Street Journal, May 17).

Back to top

U.S. Plans:  Pentagon to Classify Interceptor Test Details

By Kerry Boyd
Global Security Newswire

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency this week said it plans to classify information on the targets and decoys used in future missile defense tests — a move that critics say may be intended to quiet criticism.

Agency officials said future integrated flight tests in the ground-based midcourse defense program will be classified, according to a Defense Daily report Wednesday.  The agency will continue to inform the public about test successes or failures but will no longer release information on “targets and countermeasures,” agency spokesman Air Force Lt. Col. Richard Lehner told the newsletter.

The increasing complexity of the tests and concerns that U.S. adversaries might obtain sensitive information prompted the move, agency officials said.  Two missile defense critics, however, said the agency is only trying to hide its inability to develop technology that can distinguish between targets and countermeasures (see GSN, April 10).

“This has nothing to do with security.  It has everything to do with hiding flaws,” Theodore Postol, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, told Global Security Newswire yesterday.  The agency is trying to control criticism rather than provide answers, he said.

David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who called the agency’s decision “ridiculous,” said missile defense testing is at a very early stage and does not mirror real-world threats.  The targets and decoys used in the interecept tests are not intended to truly represent any potential enemy systems, he said.

In the near future, the agency plans to deploy more balloons similar to those already used in tests, said Wright, who has used information from previous tests to question the missile defense program’s success (see GSN, March 15).  There are “no great mysteries” in the current program, which suggests that there is no good reason to classify the information, he said.  The agency’s decision appears to be intended to cover up problems in the program and “trying to mute criticism,” he said.

The current missile defense program uses technology that simply does not work, Postol said, adding that by classifying information, the agency is “in effect admitting that they have no hope of dealing with decoys.”

Postol and Wright said that if the agency classifies information on target sets, it will be more difficult for analysts to obtain information and to analyze the details of the agency’s work.  Analysts will still “have no problem” raising questions about missile defense, Postol added.

Back to top

Nuclear Waste:  Abraham Says Yucca Mountain Might Be Too Small

The design of the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada might be too small to store all the waste expected within the next 10 years before it becomes operational, U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said yesterday (see GSN, May 9).

There are currently 45,000 tons of nuclear waste in temporary storage sites throughout the United States, and another 20,000 tons are expected to be created by nuclear power plants before the Yucca Mountain facility is operational, Abraham said in testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The repository is expected to receive 3,000 tons of waste per year for 23 years when it is scheduled to be opened in 2010, Abraham said.  The nuclear industry has estimated that U.S. plants produce 2,000 tons of waste per year, according to the Associated Press.

Engineers could later expand the repository to hold more waste, Abraham said.  Congress originally limited Yucca Mountain to hold 77,000 tons of nuclear waste, but a future energy secretary could consider expanding the repository after 2007, he said.

Senators Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.), both Yucca Mountain opponents, said the nuclear waste production figures undercut any national security argument since waste will still have to be stored in temporary sites once Yucca Mountain is filled.

Thousands of tons of “this stuff is still going to be (stored) around the country,” Ensign told Abraham, who agreed (Associated Press/New York Times, May 17).

Neither Reid nor Ensign are members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.  Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), however, allowed the two senators to question Abraham during the hearing, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.  The hearing was one of three scheduled before the committee votes on a resolution that would override Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn’s veto of the Yucca Mountain site (see GSN, March 29).  The committee’s vote is scheduled for June 5 (Steve Tetreault, Las Vegas Review-Journal, May 17).

No Waste Shipment Routes Selected Yet, Abraham Says

Meanwhile, contrary to some claims by Yucca Mountain opponents, the Energy Department has not yet selected any nuclear waste shipment routes to Yucca Mountain, Abraham said in his prepared testimony.  No routes have been selected because a repository site has not yet been designated, he added (see GSN, March 14).

“Thus any suggestion that the department has chosen any particular route or mechanism is completely fictitious,” Abraham said.  “Those decisions have not been made, and cannot possibly start to be made until the site has been designated and the department has the opportunity to work with affected states, local governments and other entities on how to proceed.”

Waste shipments would not occur for eight years, giving the department time to develop safe transportation routes, Abraham said.

“This will afford ample time to implement a program that builds upon our record of safe and orderly transportation of nuclear materials,” he said (Energy Department release, May 16).

Reid, however, disputed Abraham’s claims that nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain could be transported safely based on the department’s past history of shipping hazardous waste, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

“It’s Harvard logic, but we’re here to sort right through that,” Reid said.

The materials classified as “hazardous waste” can also include items that are lightly contaminated with radiation, such as hospital gowns and medical instruments, he said.

“You add all those together, and it wouldn’t pack the punch of one truckload of nuclear waste,” Reid said (Tetreault, Las Vegas Review-Journal).

Back to top